Hillary Clinton

That is the basis of your argument.

I have not disregarded that no charges were filed against Clinton. But I have shown you that, according to the U.S. Code, she is guilty of gross negligence. You've also been shown that Nishimura was also grossly negligent, and was so charged. So, you understand that you support a double standard. Also, others have NOT exclusively used their personal email to conduct government business; Clinton stands alone in that. I've shown you that National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs acknowledge that what Clinton did was a serious breach of obligation. But rather than call Clinton on her disregard for the law and her legal obligation under the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed, you choose to let her skate by assuming that the FBI Director had the authority to arbitrarily apply a nonexistent "intent" clause in relation to the gross negligence charge, and to not apply it when it came to Nishamura. Apparently, he supports a double standard, too. You are conveniently making Comey your god in this matter. You believe that, as long as it is Comey ignoring the law and applying a double standard, then it must be right. Is that a type of fallacy . . . I'm wondering.

 

Hello. This is my perspective here about it and why I don't understand. I don't understand all of the seething hatred of Hillary and none at all for Trump who may have raped a 13 year old? Anyway.......from my perspective about the emails....and this is how I look at it.
Maybe she was grossly negligent....but I don't think she intentionally wanted anyone to hack into her emails. She has a daughter here to protect ....Who would be that stupid?
It is the hackers that are the criminals getting into people's private emails in the first place...are they not?

 

Ok-----I looked at the document----but it doesn’t add anything to what you haven’t already said----its all the same thing, except that, as is typical with such documents, it allows other aspects of it to be enforceable even if the courts find that parts of it may not be enforceable. In other words, even the law recognizes the possibility of situations, cases, and events that are not enforceable.

Yes I have offered nothing to substantiate the claim on the scope of her training----and there is a fallacy of Wishful Thinking which could apply to this situation-----except for one thing: I am offering suggestions as to how she is not guilty. While neither of us have the training manuals at that time, it is possible that we might find them on the internet----but our argument here on Hipforums is not going to shape US policy, or start criminal proceedings, or get anyone impeached-----however in a court of law, a Senate Investigation, or even an FBI investigation (you know, like if someone ever asked the FBI to look into it or something) the training she took could very well enter into the investigation or case as evidence. It is not something that is out of the realm of possibility.

However, to say that the onus of the burden of proof is on me is another fallacy---Shift of the Burden of Proof. In other words, I have offered a possibility that could go against your argument. Rather than answer to this possibility, or try to refute it, you shift the burden of proof insisting that you are still correct. If you were to argue that neither one of us can prove this point and try to say that it is therefore a moot point---well, the fact is that none of us anywhere on this thread are in the position to know the deeper aspects of this argument. No one here can truthfully prove or disprove this argument.

The biggest difference between you and me is that, while I acknowledge that she could be guilty of criminal negligence, I am providing suggestions of why she may not be criminally negligent. You on the other hand are stating that she is absolutely guilty, without even given the chance to prove her innocence. Unless you are a police officer and Hillary is a black person or a Native American (in which case, unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to matter) she has constitutional rights. She is innocent until proven guilty.

 

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."

"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." This is made clear in the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed when she became Secretary of State.

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."
"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."
______________________________________________________________________________

So, the same man that made the above statements describing gross negligence to a tee has also declared that she didn't do anything illegal. You shouldn't give yourself over to contradictory statements simply because a well-respected man made them. Contradictory statements are self evident. He did indeed describe gross negligence, but then he attempted to show her innocence by virtue of the fact that she did not intend to be grossly negligent. And you, for your own purposes here, have decided to ignore the fact that gross negligence is defined as something done without intent.

You've seen evidence that she violated the U.S. Code. You've seen evidence that she signed a statement declaring that she had been trained and that she is legally bound to the details of the contents of that statement. And yet, if an authority figure tells you that she's not guilty of gross negligence, you forget what you've been told and shown because . . . the authority figure said to. How reasonable is that?

And despite the fact that the investigation of her gross negligence included allowing the one being investigated to determine which emails to turn over to investigators, you actually consider that the investigation as thorough. You're easy.

 

You make the mistake of perceiving the facts I have presented as an argument. The facts that I have shown is not an argument; they are not in question; they are the facts. I have said that the onus is on you to show them to be incorrect. You have done everything but that. You believe that Clinton's actions do not constitute gross negligence even when you hear it described by the FBI Director. But you choose to believe him when he says she didn't violate the trust of her position. You and Comey share this contradiction along with others in this thread.

So, tell me, what is your rationale for believing that the FBI Director has the authority to arbitrarily apply a nonexistent "intent" clause in relation to the gross negligence charge, and to not apply it when it came to Nishimura?

Once again, for your edification, here are the facts:

Clinton received training in proper procedure concerning classified material, and she signed a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement stating that she did indeed receive this training.

By signing this Agreement, Clinton also acknowledged that she understood that she was legally bound to the details of its content.

Clinton then ignored her legal obligations as stated in the Agreement she signed, and was grossly negligent.

Clinton was aware that the U.S. Code clearly condemns gross negligence, which describes gross negligence as exactly what she did.

Clinton violated the U.S. Code and the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed.
______________________________________________________________________________

The signed statement proves the first fact. Your contention that the training wasn't adequate is your opinion, which you have not shown to be a fact. The agreement she signed states that she understands her obligations, and that if she is unclear about the nature of any material, she is to ask someone who knows. She failed to do so. Since she was exclusively using her personal email for all of her government business dealings, it is fair to say that she must have believed that none of it was classified. How about that? How about that?

The Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed proves the second fact.

That Clinton used only her own personal email in her government business dealings proves the third fact, since she had been trained.

 

I'm going to have to pull the sexism card, but I think thats it

Both here and other places on the web, those with such hate for Hillary seem to be almost solely comprised of one category; privileged white, and yes, straight males

Even if they claim it isnt about her being a woman, or even unaware themselves at how much that truly effects their judgement

Unfortunately I think too much of this election will be about angry homer simpson types who never really got anywhere in life secretly resentful a woman, one whos reminds them of the high school assistant principal they hated, gets to be in charge of the world

If it was just pockets of vitriol spread across the web, from all sexes and races, I'd believe its about her being a democrat, or about her being a Clinton.....but its just too many of them, talking the same way, frothing at the mouth....over the lamest excuses they can get their hands on, like email security...for it not to be because she is a woman

 

Others used their personal e-mail to conduct government business, including sending and receiving government e-mails. Clinton is not alone in that.

You discount the fact. No, I do not make Comey my god. But MeAgain did a very good job of pointing out what Comey said, and even reminding me of things I had forgot about this case.

I have sufficiently explained enough on this matter. I never said the issue of training was a fact. However, as MeAgain's post #1054 demonstrates from Comey, this must have been something that was in fact something dug up in the investigation.

Even if it hadn't been part of the investigation, at this point I would have to simply repeat the post that you responded to----I already answered that.

Anyway----this argument is going no where-----MeAgain has already covered these points, and has done a very good job at that----not having read through this thread I just got pulled into it as a new victim in an exercise of futility. I have said everything I can about this. I have pointed out the many fallacies. We keep going over the same arguments.

So with that----I think I will stick to the Trump thread.

Besides, I need to get back to reading the 30,000 e-mails that Clinton hid in my gmail account. I am looking for something I can sell to the Chinese for a nice hefty profit...

(This time I am out of here for reals.)




...Like I said earlier, we had fun, right? But seriously---I've got to get back to writing and working on stuff that actually matters

 

Yeah, and I feel the same about people in threads whose only argument against the facts is to stereotype people who show those facts.

 

Again with the "if others have done the same, then Clinton is not guilty of gross negligence." Weak. What you're saying without realizing it is that once someone gets away with gross negligence, the law against it becomes null and void for others who do the same. Weak.

Anyway, neither you, nor anyone else in this thread, has refuted these facts:

Clinton received training in proper procedure concerning classified material, and she signed a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement stating that she did indeed receive this training.

By signing this Agreement, Clinton also acknowledged that she understood that she was legally bound to the details of its content.

Clinton then ignored her legal obligations as stated in the Agreement she signed, and was grossly negligent.

Clinton was aware that the U.S. Code clearly condemns gross negligence, which describes gross negligence as exactly what she did.

Clinton violated the U.S. Code and the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed.
______________________________________________________________________________

There is no disputing this. What is in dispute here is whether or not she should be held accountable according to the facts. The U.S. Code says yes. And so does the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed. And concerning Nishimura, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, unless you support a double standard.

 

I'm voting for Jill Stein at this point, so it's not sexism. Speaking for myself, I don't see it as being as urgent to be anti-Donald Drumpf because he isn't the one the establishment has picked to be President, and the establishment usually gets what they want. I don't like tyranny.

The way the mainstream media has handled Clinton also does a lot to engender hatred of Hillary. I can't stand watching them brainwash people. Especially the way they treated Sanders during the primary was vile. You can't come back from that as far as I'm concerned. The voter fraud was horrendous, and it really pushed a lot of people over the edge. If it had been a fair election in any way, I wouldn't be as anti-Hillary as I am. But I will never accept either her or Donald Drumpf as my President. As far as I'm concerned the election is bogus and this country is a sham.

If Hillary had just run a clean campaign, I probably wouldn't even be here discussing her. I wouldn't have to be, because Bernie would have won and we would have all been talking about positive things instead of the negativity that Hillary naturally attracts and projects.

But believe me I dislike Drumpf every bit as much as I dislike Hillary Clinton. Both of them want to run this country like a business with zero compassion for whoever it is that happens to be disenfranchised during their reign.

 

I was heart broken that Bernie was not the Democratic candidate...He had more integrity than I have seen in politics in a very long time.......and we cannot have him to run this country...he does care about the little people.

 

Especially that part where you all seemingly don't know yourselves why you are so angry, it's a little bit hmmmm, like mommy didn't give you enough hugs, or you weren't her favourite kid or something.

It's not just Hillary and this election, it pops up a lot in other real world places.

But I'm sure I'm just talking out of my ass, stereotyping, everyone is an individual and totally consciously aware of each and every action they do.

 

Oh I don't know. It appears to me that I've presented the facts in a concise fashion with no anger at all. You, on the other hand are attacking the facts by attacking me with your childish insults. Angry much?

So, just to be clear, you consider one side of the debate as angry because you don't like the facts and you can't refute them with an intelligent response. Ironically, you are the one displaying anger here. I would tell you that it's a little bit hmmmm, like mommy didn't give you enough hugs, or you weren't her favorite kid or something, but then I'd be a reactive little brat like you.

 

Why are you referring to us as the little people?

 

being tongue and cheek..a little fecetious.....
I don't think that....if you think I do...if you don't know me by now...you will never never know me.....

 

Great. Now that song will be running through my head all night.

 

WikiLeaks produces excerpts of Hillary's paid Wall Street speeches

Straight from the horse's mouth: Hillary says one thing to the public and another to private interests. And we accuse her of being dishonest... smh

Oh and coincidentally a tape of Donald Drumpf being an ass emerges on the same day as this release. smh