Hillary Clinton

Moonie, despite hundreds of thousands of work hours and money expended to investigate this...THEY HAVE FOUND NOTHING ILLEGAL. Perhaps that is why you don't understand it

But WAIT - and soon enough that will the subject of yet another LONG ass post crying and whining endlessly about those 3 emails (that is what it wound up breaking down to - a question of 3 emails compromising national security, which they did NOT.

I don't need to read whatever link because I have read about it, and read extensively.

What I don't understand is why as Sec'y of State what she did re those 3 emails is considered so much more important that the MILLIONS of emails "lost" in 2007 by Bush and Karl Rove...So, it seems there is quite a precedence of politicians at the top levels having a problem with what to do with billions, millions and then thousands of emails. If it was ok for the President (Bush) and his Deputy Chief of Staff to lose billions of emails (and it was "no big deal") wth is the big dang deal with the 3 emails of Hillary's that were found to be questionable BUT were ultimately cleared as not endangering national security.

As I'm about to click post, I know this will probably elicit yet more links, whines and by God! DETERMINATION to go back over this (silly) email thing.


Al the while Trump disses relatively every single minority group there is and encourages hate and violence...as well as encourages foreign hackers to get into our government's inner workings. smh That about Trump is just off the top of my head, and is far from the best I can do (regarding him).

 

Lynn,thank you for breaking it down simply....as that is what I thought I read so many times, too.....and thought I must be missing something else that I was not getting.

 

You are very welcome. They started out investigating, saying (crying) there were about 30K emails in question...which (AGAIN) is just a drop in the bucket to what then President Bush and Rove managed to just freaking lose. lol

Then after all of the time, effort and etc etc...they could only find 3 (THREE!) to discuss and later find "no threat".

As much as this has been brought up...which seems endlessly - ALL I've come away thinking is: If that is the worse thing they can find on her and want to want to demonize her about...I think she has done a damn good job.

Of course there really are other things for those that are anxious and needy to dig up every thing possible (true or not!) about her...but there were ALWAYS OTHER PEOPLE/POLITICIANS in the midst of whatever "scandal" or "questionable judgement" they can come up with.

Then there are those that completely skew facts to their advantage if other people don't straighten them out.

 

Bush and Rove were irresponsible with state secrets. Therefore, it's okay that Hillary was irresponsible with state secrets and we should consider voting for her for president. Am I summing you up succinctly Lynn?

Also, this conversation isn't just about three emails. There were three marked "Secret" of over 400 classified emails on her server. And, yes, there were over thirty thousand deleted emails.

I don't feel like going over this again and again, but if you want to compare Clinton to Bush/Cheney et al...be my guest! We didn't trust them for good reason and now we're saying it again: we don't trust her either. What is so hard to understand about that? It's perfectly consistent. They were crooks and we dragged them through the dirt and she's a crook and we drag her through the dirt.

Hey, but Bush and Cheney were never convicted of any war crimes, so I guess according to you they just must be innocent and we should just stop whining about their little war in the middle east.

 

lol...I would say you have not succintly summed up my thoughts. The only time Bush and Rove's email debacle/'were irresponsible with state secrets" has been brought up (that I've seen) has been initiated by me. You seem to think I'm saying since they did that, I think Hillary's 3 questionable emails even compares to this. It may compare to YOU but it doesn't compare to me.

To me, especially when considering who ALL was doing the same things as Hillary, you are comparing apples and oranges..although it would be good for you (and other's that think like this) if Hill's, Bush's/Rove's email scandals/debacles (choose your word) are just the same...and I do NOT think they are.

If you don't want to trust Hillary, there is nothing I can or will be able to say to change your mind.

If Bush or Cheney were to ever campaign to be president, I sincerely hope everything those 2 did (together and separate) is brought to the fore front. In the meantime...since we are (Thank heavens!) not having to be concerned about either of them leading us Americans I see no benefit from currently/continuously bringing up the fact they started that war. We ARE able to "whine about their little war in the mid-east" without always having to come back to the fact of how (or who) it got started.

 

I wrote this a few days ago, and then decided the heck with it, and didn’t post it---but I guess I will:

Ok, I’ll go through this exercise of futility one more time.

MeAgain pointed out that this issue of gross negligence has already been debated in this thread.

Yes you did provide a copy of the code. And it used the term, gross negligence. But so what? It could have just as easily said, “…(1) through an act or actions that is really, really stupid permits…” The problem is that, ‘really, really stupid’ just like, ‘gross negligence’ cannot quantifiably and contextually be defined. It doesn’t matter if it is Hillary Clinton, or John Doe, the legal usage of the term does not mean that if you do something stupid you have already broken the law. Gross negligence has a level of vagueness to it in order to serve as a legal catch all, but that is also the source of its controversy in certain legal circles.

In a court of law, this issue of defining gross negligence would not be argued. Instead they would argue the other points---the level and comprehensiveness of her training, whether or not it was a common and acceptable practice, whether the technology was sufficient to meet the demands of the law, whether there was willful intent, etc.

Let me clarify what I meant by you not having proof----I am not talking about the document she signed, I am talking about what the training covered and whether it was comprehensive enough to respond to the issue of the limitations of the technology they were provided, otherwise, why did so many people do it, and get away with it?

You state that it is comprehensive enough, and your only proof is that she signed a document. But I see no mention in what you provided of her signed statement of anything that refers to this situation. You obviously do not have the training manuals or anything else of the training itself, so you don’t know. The only thing that we can actually assume, if this is even a real issue, is that it will certainly be a part of the training going forward.

I don’t know what else to say about this. Either you know exactly what her training was, or you don’t. And the fact that she signed a document saying that she was trained doesn’t indicate the scope of the training. That is why such training always evolves----as they discover where it is lacking (and with new technology there is always a lack of training provided) then that is added in.

But it doesn’t matter-----even if she did break the law in this manner, who else could we vote for????

Today it was announced that Michael Chertoff endorsed Hillary. He is a lifelong Republican, was Secretary of Homeland Security under George Bush, and was the lead Republican Counsel on the Senate Whitewater Committee investigating the Clinton’s in their first scandal. Obviously he does not think the e-mail scandal is as serious as the risk of the alternative (Trump).

-------------------
SO in the end, what does this really matter?

Everyone who supports Trump is going to read this debate we had, and think about how you won the debate and Hillary is a crook. Everyone who supports Clinton (or will at least vote Clinton just to prevent Trump from going to the White House) is going to read this debate and say that I won and Hillary is the victim of right wing propaganda. We both represent opposing truths as they are believed in America. They are truths to us because we have the internet to validate and feed them. And yet, the real truth may be something entirely different. For all we know, when Bill met with the Attorney General on the tarmac in her plane, she handed him a file containing all the e-mails between Trump and Clinton where they secretly planned the whole election down to the final vote count and who would lead the country as President.

The left wing uses statistics and government data, the right wing says such data is manipulated and wrong. Referring back to John Oliver and his show, This Week Tonight, in his 7/24 episode, during the Republican Convention, he stated that the theme for the 2016 Republican National Convention was that feelings were more important than facts. He then demonstrated the dangerous implications of this: 1.) Candidates (in fact, I would say, politicians) can create feelings. 2.) Feelings are presented as facts. And therefore, 3.) Candidates create facts.

Now, that is just a TV show---part of the liberal media----and if you don’t agree, well, you know----the liberals just manipulate facts to suit their own agenda… I mean, it certainly feels that way, right?

I am NOT saying that your posts are made up of feelings rather than facts. My point is that truth has become more relative than ever before. We are not talking about opinions and beliefs---because all of this is put into the context of truth and fact (yes, I know the difference is subtle----but it is significant just the same). We are no longer talking opinion and belief, because Modern Technology has enabled these opposing truths to become institutionalized.

There is a whole institution around the Hillary truth, just as there is one around the Anti-Hillary truth. The bigger problem is that Western thought is founded upon the basic concept of dualism. Therefore, while you have your truth, and I have my truth, and the authentic truth maybe entirely different, only one of us can be true---and any other truth is only valid only to the extent that it agrees with that one truth. Then, did you notice I had to use the word, ‘authentic’ to refer to that one truth that actually manifested in physical reality, even if it can only be known in the deepest, most secret circles? In a dualistic world how can there be a truth which is distinct from the authentic truth. When we assume that there is only 1 truth in a world of many truths, then every truth becomes meaningless.

Of course we could argue that there is a single truth—the one that indicates what actually happened. But even that can produce multiple relative truths depending on the perception or perspective of the witnesses that experienced what actually happened. But such things as perception and perspective didn’t matter in the mechanical and empirical world before Einstein---the real truth was, and only was, what actually happened. But in today’s relativistic world, which is ever increasingly defined by technology, and how it manipulates abstract realities and simulacras, rather than natural physicality, our reality is becoming more and more abstract. Our truth comes from the screens on our TV’s, computers, and telephones rather than the world around us. We are becoming increasingly alienated from what used to be the one truth—the actual physical event or reality, just as we are becoming increasingly alienated from the physical world around us. Today, our truths are not only relative, but increasingly synthetic and fabricated. Truth has grown increasingly meaningless.

There is a truth out there as to whether Hillary actually committed gross negligence in regards to her use of private e-mail servers at that time. You give your truth as to why she absolutely did. I suggest an alternative truth. The court could find a different truth (but as the Benghazi investigations demonstrate, whatever truth the court comes up with will probably be rejected by one side or the other). The real truth is buried too deeply under the various narratives that create each truth for any of us to ever know. America—each of us—are so alienated from the actual truth that effectively it too is just as meaningless as every other truth. This is one of many of the symptoms of the Age of Nihilism we live in. (Though they aren’t necessarily the final days of Western civilization as many fear such nihilism would imply---we may be simply living through the deconstruction of dualism and the birth of a new zeitgeist----though that is for another thread…)

So there it is. There is no truth, no value, no meaning, no authenticity… We can go around and around on this issue, and never convince the other. It is all futile. And yet, this is probably the most important election of our whole lives.

And with that, I am done.


--------------------
That is what I would have posted a few days ago----is there any hope for any of us to approach any semblance of authenticity in this Age of Nihilism? Yes------there is MeAgain’s post which is # 1004 in this thread.

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

It may be fear and complacency for some but for a lot it seems to be hopelessness and apathy. Like they don't believe they can do anything about it so they won't even try.

 

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.
______________________________________________________________________________

I have her actions, the U.S. Code that condemns her actions, and the classified information nondisclosure agreement she violated after signing.
______________________________________________________________________________

Do you know how to determine when someone has a failing argument? When faced with the simple facts of the issue, they will put up walls and walls of invalid excuses for disregarding the facts of that issue.

Your argument against the fact that Clinton was sufficiently trained is that she might not have received proper training. You're reaching for a straw that is not even really there. She received the training, and I have provided proof positive that she did receive that training. Your counter to that is that maybe she didn't. Weak.

Your argument against the fact that Clinton acknowledged that she understood that she was legally bound to the details of the contents of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed is that maybe she didn't understand. That is a very weak position. You need to familiarize yourself with the responsibilities of someone who signs such agreements, and the standard they are held to.

Your argument against the fact that Clinton ignored her legal obligations as stated in the Agreement she signed, and was grossly negligent, is that the concept of gross negligence is vague. That position is also weak. The U.S. Code, which you have been shown, is not vague or ambiguous. It is clear.

Your argument against the fact that Clinton was aware that the U.S. Code clearly condemns gross negligence, which describes gross negligence as exactly what she did, is that others have done it, too. This position is an attempt to validate a precedent for breaking the law. Clinton has been found to have broken the law.

 

I went back and read the first couple of pages of this thread earlier and someone posted an article very early in the thread about Hillary's support for fracking. It was an interesting read.

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton based on policy alone.

It does seem kind of pointless to focus on the emails (which I have concerns about myself and have voiced in this thread, but i think we should accept the FBIs decision), her health, and various unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, when there is legitimate criticism to be made.

But of course that's the overall tone of this race - lots of mudslinging, not very much talk about real policy

 

The environment has always been one of my biggest concerns in any election.....BIGGEST!
So hillary is for fracking? that sucks.
I wonder where Donald stands on that...

and I wonder where anyone stands on digging up Alaska and places for more oil....too.

Also.....I heard all of the promises before from all candidates.....and most broken, too....

The thing for me is to get to the bottom of who anyone REALLY is and what THEY REALLY WANT!

 

No one should have to ask where Trump stands on fracking. It's guaranteed a Republican nominee will be for it. Same way a Republican nominee is guaranteed to:

oppose reproductive freedom
oppose Planned Parnthood
support capital punishment (executing people)
Favor business interests above all else
advocate privatizing K-12 public schools, so taxpayer dollar can be given to schools owned by religious groups, and so that banks can profit from for-profit charter schools
cutting SNAP benifits (food stamps)
weakening environmental protection
turning over mine safety inspection to the mine owners
turn down last minute appeals made by attorneys for those on death row
oppose affirmative action
appoint Supreme Court justices who will uphold the Citizens United decision, thereby insuring big money plays a big role in elections
oppose sensible gun control, including opposition to background checks at gun shows, and opposition to limiting high capacity magazines that fire over 10 rounds
advocate that sectarian prayers can be said at government functions, the rationale being that non-Christians are so few in number they need to accept listening to Christian prayers
giving in to the military/industrial complex's every desire
packing the lower courts with pro-business judges, and conservative, pro-police judges, in general
putting a low priority on consumer afety, so that businesses can save money by skimping on safety features
weakening regulations on banks and Wall Street, including the ignoring of people such as Elizabeth Warren
slowing or stopping the switch away from fossil fuels
making sure businesses have the ability to terminate the employment of any female employee who gets pregnant
making sure businesses have the ability to fire anyone wishing for even a day of family leave
thwarting unions in every way
weakening a pillar of the Democratic Party known as Teachers' Unions, by expediting the privatization of K-12 public schools, which won't often have unions
insuring student loans are the only way people can afford college, and giving no inch to those in default on a student loan
opening up public land to mining and drilling
opposing programs such as Head Start and midnight basketball (Dick Cheney opposed both)

 

Farmer Don, could the whole email thing be a "misdirect"?

 

Like I said, it wasn't three questionable emails. Over 30,000 emails that were deleted alone are questionable. And 400 of the emails on her server were deemed classified. It doesn't really matter though, since a comparison of gross negligence can be made whether one email is classified and handled without proper procedure or a million emails are classified and handled without proper procedure. Once is too much and is totally unacceptable. There's a reason these people are held to higher standards than the rest of us -- because their jobs are that important. If Hillary, Bush, Cheney, et al can't do their jobs, they shouldn't be allowed to hold public office, and they clearly can't do their fucking jobs. If any regular person fucked up as bad as Hillary did at her job, they would be fired immediately.

Nobody else set up their own private email server. That was Hillary's initiative alone. And again, it doesn't matter how many people break the law; it doesn't make it any better when she does it. Hers was the first time it was held up to scrutiny, and should have been the last time. Now the precedent has been set that you can take classified material from secure locations and house it however you want without any repercussions. Unless, that is, a different law applies to Hillary Clinton than applies to everybody else! No, couldn't be...

Most people don't trust Hillary because we can tell she's dishonest and a crook. You people who honestly can't see that are totally the exception.

Yes, you're right Lynn, no point in prosecuting criminals for their crimes. Why, that would set the precedent that there are laws we have to obey. So long as Bush and Cheney aren't running for office, I don't care if they raped and murdered every Iraqi on the planet. Let's punish the real criminals, i.e. the poor black people.

 

One of the reasons I tell people to vote third party is because they'd at least be doing something. The two biggest problems with our political process are the Democrat and Republican parties; when it comes right down to it, they are the two biggest special interest groups to have infiltrated our government. Their interest is in getting elected, and they have been good at it. But the Whigs were once a major party until they were voted into obscurity and extinction. It happened fairly quickly too. Replacing the current two party system isn't a solution in and of itself, but I don't see any chance of improvement until we get rid of the usual suspects.

 

Somehow I'm surprised you've come back with this long bunch of on and on that is covering the very same thing already gone over multiple times PLUS you've further managed to twist my word. That last little paragraph is quite the gem! Did you have to work very hard to associate that with me/my words or did it just come together easily for you? You've certainly got a lot of experience in tossing words together.

I actually felt for you earlier in the thread as you explained over and over (and yes OVER) basically the same thing.

And now...I'm not feeling for you anymore.

Lastly, the only reason I replied to what I feel like is an utterly ridiculous post is so you can know that if I should, in the future, post in this (already very/too long) thread, and you have a (similar) reply to me...the reason I won't be replying is because I see there is no point in it.

You think one thing and I think another....and it seems there is nothing too low for you to stoop to say to get your point across.

 

Suck it up. Only you are to blame for the things you have said. If I make it a point to point out how ridiculous something is it isn't anything personal. I just don't get your whole positive attitude towards this thing. Nothing we're discussing is positive. In fact it's god damned shameful that we even have to discuss it.

 

I really hope this both thread and the Donald Trump thread die after the election.

 

See what I mean? This argument could go on all through the next 4 years and beyond.

First of all, I never disregarded the facts of the issue. I have merely been pointing out possible reasons why those facts do not point to the same conclusions that you have. Because here is another fact---one that you seem to ignore: the FBI chose not to charge Clinton. There are many possible reasons to why they chose not to---insufficient evidence, the crime was too wide and too massive and would have irreplaceably damaged the good faith of the US Government on all sides, it was deemed that the case would be too hard to actually prove, and/or prosecute, the Clinton’s paid them off, Some higher authority instructed them to drop the investigation, Satan owns the souls of the Clintons and no matter what they do no harm will ever come of them… But these are all unfounded assumptions. All we know for sure is that Clinton was not charged. Another fact is that many others in top positions were doing the same thing. You may think that doesn’t matter, but the fact is, it would be wrong to single her out, and only charge her.

Do you know another way to spot a failing argument? When one is relying on one or more fallacies to prove their point.

I never said that she did not receive the training. I said that neither one of us have proof of the scope of the training. This is a Historian Fallacy, in that you are assuming that use of private e-mails is a subject that was sufficiently covered in the training, and also represents the fallacy known as Appeal to the Stone, as you are dismissing this suggestion without demonstrating its absurdity, because rather than providing a proof of the scope of the training, you simply argue that she signed the agreement that she had taken the training.

I never argued that she didn’t understand what she was legally bound to. She is an attorney. I argued that she may not have understood the technological aspects of what she was doing, and this circles back to the argument around her training. She was legally bound to the training she received.

I am very familiar with the legalities and responsibilities around such agreements and the standards that signatories to such agreements are held to. My lifelong career involved many such things from regulatory licenses to all kinds of other regulatory training including anti-fraud and account confidentiality, money laundering, and so forth. I had a Branch Manager’s license which meant that no matter what I did I was held to a higher moral standard than many of the other employees, who did not have the same level of license.

See my next response.

Again, this falls back to a Historian Fallacy because it assumes that use of a private e-mail server at that time was recognized to be a criminal act as it is now---or at least as the anti-Clinton crowd claims it is----perhaps this is an issue that still needs to be clarified by law.

Let’s examine the criminal code you provided us:

Clearly, when this was written, the technology did not refer to something as fluid, technologically abstract and transferrable as an e-mail. These all referred to physical objects, such as a code book, signal book, etc. Information is broad enough that it covers an e-mail, and of course an e-mail can have images of many of these objects and have the same confidential information. But this law does not address the nuances, implications, and different problems presented by an e-mail.

For example, there is the problem of the person who, “(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed…” Or the person who, “(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer.”

These are a problem because we know that many people were aware that she was using her own e-mail, and we are now saying that this was gross negligence on the part of Hillary, and put our nation at risk. But to follow this law to the letter places the liability of criminal negligence on many more people. Basically anyone who knew she was using her own e-mail servers and still e-mailed confidential or sensitive information to her is liable based on the first part. And anyone who received e-mail from Clinton and anyone else who knew she was using her own servers is liable based on the second part (because obviously no one reported it). Then there are not only all those other government officials who used their own e-mail, but also all the people who e-mailed to, or received emails from, each of these other officials and those who simply knew that these individuals were using their own e-mails.

This too is a fallacy---the Fallacy of Proving Too Much, wherein the conclusion of the argument extends way beyond what it was intended to, to many undesirable results as well. In fact, knowing how government actually works, it is safe to assume that even the training of today does not properly address this issue, meaning that even post-Clinton –e-mail-scandal, people are probably still able to take the training, sign the agreement, and get away with using private e-mails.

There are other fallacies that we can point out in your argument---such as the Fallacy of Begging the Question, Proof by assertion, argument from repetition, equivocation (in your definition of gross negligence), and others. Likewise you can probably find fallacies in my own arguments (though as I said, I am not trying to prove that she is not guilty, rather providing suggestions as to why the other facts which you discount are what they are, and why your conclusion may not be true)----all arguments on both sides of this issue are probably filled with fallacies because as I stated in my last post----they are all meaningless.

And as I have said over and over------who else is there to vote for?

 

Yes, you did disregard the facts of the issue. And now your argument against those facts is: But if we prosecute Clinton, think of the consequences. What name would you put on that fallacy? Other than that, you are again reaching for straws that are not there, as evidenced by your "possible reasons to why they chose not to" theory. I've put the facts in front of your face. And despite the facts of the case, which are so in your face as to be undeniable, you still hold on to that frail idea that the case would be too hard to prove. Let me once again remind you of 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 that she signed. _________________________________________________________________​_________________________

​ And let me once again remind you that you've offered nothing to rebut these facts.


As far as your opinion that it would be wrong to single out and charge only Clinton, the fact is that she didn't have a government email address during her whole time at the State Department, and her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act. What a gross sense of entitlement she has, huh. Who else has done this?? And you speak of email as if Clinton and her aides didn't understand the danger of using a personal email address exclusively for government business as Secretary of State. That's ridiculous.

And since when does someone being investigated for such a serious breach of trust get to decide which emails to turn over to the State Department, and which to not turn over? Doesn't raise any red flags for you? Really?

Former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs acknowledge it for what it is--a serious breach. Jason Baron, a lawyer and former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013, said, “It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business."

“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business."

Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records. But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so. It's called gross negligence, and does not require malicious intent. It didn't in the case of Bryan Nishimura, and it doesnt' in the case of Hillary Clinton.

And I'll also remind you of this:

"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."
_________________________________________________________________________

Basically, even after being shown that Clinton is legally bound to the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed, and having been shown that she did indeed violate the terms of that agreement from the git go, you believe you can nullify all that by stating that FBI Director Comey did not recommend charges. This should tell people that Comey arbitrarily amended the U.S. Code concerning this issue to include an "intent" clause. He doesn't have the authority to do so. It wasn't done for Nishimura, and it shouldn't be done for Clinton.

 

I've provided proof positive that she received the training. In fact, the extent of her training is clarified in the agreement she signed in which she acknowledged her legal obligations.

Have a look:

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-classified-NDA1.pdf

So tell me again how we just don't know if she was trained in the procedures concerning the handling of classified material.

 

I never said that she did not receive the training. I said that neither one of us have proof of the scope of the training.

 

You have offered nothing to substantiate that statement; it is a hopeful guess. I, on the other hand, have provided proof that Clinton received not only training in the proper procedure concerning the handling of classified material, but also that she acknowledged her legal obligations concerning the handling of that classified material. I'm afraid that the onus is on you to explain how the scope of the training was insufficient. You should probably look over this document, as it clarifies what I am saying.
__________________________________________________________________________

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-classified-NDA1.pdf

 

And yet no charges were filed against her---and that is also a fact. (Which you seem to disregard----another fallacy, the fallacy of Cherry Picking).

And as far as the “think of the consequences” as a possible suggestion to why no charges have been filed---I have suggested that since one of my first responses to you---probably over in the Trump thread.

And what fallacy would I apply here? Well, I am suggesting that you are oversimplifying the cause---a Fallacy of the Single Cause---where there could be more than one mitigating circumstance that enabled her to use her own e-mail server without seeing the risk that it entailed.

If you want to come up with fallacies on your own to apply to my argument, or get better definitions, or get better definitions, or get better definitions, or get better definitions, or get better definitions, or get better definitions, or get better definitions, or get better definitions, or get better definitions, or get better definitions, or get better definitions, or get better definitions, or get better definitions, or get better definitions---or whatever----just go to Wikipedia.org and type in List of Fallacies and you will get the complete list. (And you can even use the list to apply a Holier-than-Thou Fallacy (----yes there is one.).)

But you still insist that I disregard the facts. I understand your reasoning. You have tried to counter various points I have made----but I still don’t understand how you think I am disregarding the facts, even if my suggested alternatives don’t fit your narrative.

And then here comes these fallacies again---Proof By Assertion and the Argument from Repetition:

And then----

To the extent I do not deny what you are saying---I wouldn’t rebut these facts. However I have offered plenty of suggestions of why she should not be charged, or why she wasn’t charged, or why at the time she did this it did not make her criminally negligent.

And yet so many others used private e-mails too----Republicans, Democrats…

Ok----that’s a better rebuttal. A point you should’ve probably run with more.

Once again----I will point out that even if she did break the law and should be punished----it still means that we have a choice in the election between 2 criminals-----and the real question is, which of the 2 is more dangerous?

If there were circumstances that allow for her not to be charged, and that she was not in fact guilty of crime----then we have a choice between a criminal and someone whose name has been smeared in the mud for years, and ultimately all the criminal things that she has been accused of is without merit.