Trump's Taxes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-10-2016, 10:30 AM
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 10:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  I've already told you. Your statement makes those two equivalent.
It would probably be more productive if you elaborated on what you mean by "makes those two equivalent" rather than repeating your claim. If you're trying to argue that they're not the same on a surface level, then you're just flat out wrong, but if your point is that they don't have equivalent significance, that's a different story entirely.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 10:48 AM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2016 11:07 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 06:19 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 06:05 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  "alleged lawyer"? Dodgy

Go fuck yourself Vosur. That's super shitty, and you know it.
Oh yeah, are you a psychic now? Anyone can claim to be a Harvard lawyer on a personal Internet blog, so yes, I say alleged lawyer.

For fuck's sake... Facepalm

https://www.dcbar.org/membership/find-a-member.cfm

Searching the DC area BAR for "Torrez" brings up a Phillip A Torrez, who shares the exact same name and address as the blog. He's an active member, with no disciplinary action, and has been active since 2000.

This took me literally 1 minute. It took me longer to write this than double check his credentials. Dodgy


Unless this is all an elaborate ruse. Maybe we should ask to see his birth certificate, just to be sure?


(06-10-2016 06:19 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 06:05 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I'm listening to it right now, and that is an important distinction. The FBI investigation also found evidence of thousands of clearly marked confidential email not being migrated. So yeah, when things were evidently marked as confidential with the proper headers, they were handled properly. Some however lacked the proper headers, and were mishandled. Should they have known better, taken better precautions? Yeah. But were they being purposely negligent with known classified material? The FBI did not think they were, and that is a huge distinguishing characteristic in comparison to all of the other Espionage Act cases he looked at.
You're not responding to the substance of my post. The only way for her and her aides not to have known that the material they handled was top secret is if they were unbelievably incompetent.

Except, the FBI disagrees with you. The not all of the emails were labeled properly, and the ones that did have the correctly formatted headers and footers were handled properly. Yes, people made mistakes; although the amount shared between Hillary or her aides is debatable. But as John Oliver conveniently pointed out, she's hardly the only person in public office using a private server for their emails, including those who took the stage at the RNC to throw shit at her as if she'd committed high treason.

Never assume to malice what can be explained through incompetence.


(06-10-2016 06:19 AM)Vosur Wrote:  It really is amazing that a classifying authority, i.e. a person who is responsible for looking at government documents and determining whether or not they contain classified information, can, with a straight face, tell the FBI that they didn't know that the e-mails they sent out contained classified information of the highest possible classification level and get away with it.

I defer to the expertise of the FBI, and they disagree with you.


(06-10-2016 06:19 AM)Vosur Wrote:  The markings are irrelevant, by the way. Why do you think the people in the other cases didn't use this defense? Because it's a completely absurd excuse that wouldn't hold up in court!

They couldn't because in all of those cases they knew the material was classified, they all admitted to it. It was never a point of contention dipshit. They were all cases of "Oh shit, I forgot to return and/or destroy this material properly, and knowingly neglected it". The FBI concluded that this was not the case with Clinton.


(06-10-2016 06:19 AM)Vosur Wrote:  She's very lucky that she will never see trial because her friends in the DOJ decided not to take this case to court.

So I guess I need to repeat the anti-conspiracy theory disclaimer again?

"I want to address a very, very specific legal argument; and I guess the way I want to talk about that is first by talking about what I don't want to address. Okay? Which is to say, if you believe that the director of the FBI has secretly conspired with the Clinton campaign to cover up the facts? If you think that the FBI findings, that Hillary Clinton was not aware and had no intent to remove confidential information from the chain of custody? If you don't believe that, then this podcast is not for you."


(06-10-2016 06:19 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Edit: I don't know if you realize this, but information is classified as top secret when it concerns thing such as military drone strike programs. Have you become so gullible that you believe anyone in such a high government position could confuse information like that for unclassified information?

Do I believe that people can make mistakes? Of course. Am I up to speed on the specific of chain of custody policies and email protocols for the federal government? No, I am not, but the FBI is. She also sat trough how many congressional investigations? If there was anything there, it would have come out by now. The fact is that after such close scrutiny, they found insufficient ground for bringing charges.

Unless you want to start throwing congressional investigation under the bus too. I mean, maybe 9-11 really was an inside job, and jet fuel really doesn't burn that hot?

But I can deal with that. Much as I imagine you will feel about Trump, even if the IRS finds nothing illegal (but still really, really scummy) with their tax audit.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
06-10-2016, 10:59 AM
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Much as I imagine you will feel about Trump, even if the IRS finds nothing illegal (but still really, really scummy) with their tax audit.

Wonder how we're gonna feel when we find out there was no audit? I for one will not be surprised in the least.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
06-10-2016, 12:20 PM
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  For fuck's sake... Facepalm

https://www.dcbar.org/membership/find-a-member.cfm

Searching the DC area BAR for "Torrez" brings up a Phillip A Torrez, who shares the exact same name and address as the blog. He's an active member, with no disciplinary action, and has been active since 2000.

This took me literally 1 minute. I took me longer to write this than double check his credentials. Dodgy
Why are you complaining about having to back up your claims? Do you think it's my responsibility to find your sources for you?

(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Except, the FBI disagrees with you.
[Citation required]

(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I defer to the expertise of the FBI, and they disagree with you.
See above.

(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The not all of the emails were labeled properly, and the ones that did have the correctly formatted headers and footers were handled properly. Yes, people made mistakes; although the amount shared between Hillary or her aides is debatable.
I already told you that the presence of labels is an irrelevant red herring. A classifying authority is trained to recognize and properly handle classified material regardless of whether or not it is marked as such. This is basic stuff, EK.

(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But as John Oliver conveniently pointed out, she's hardly the only person in public office using a private server for their emails, including those who took the stage at the RNC to throw shit at her as if she'd committed high treason.
Ah, that explains why you're so misinformed. You get your news from a liberal comedian. Hillary is, in fact, the only one who used a private server to store classified e-mails. What you're thinking of are commercial e-mail services such as Google Mail that other public officials use(d) for government business. As FBI director James Comey already pointed out, Clinton's server was less secure than a commercial one like that.

"The IG report also said the only other secretary of state to use personal email 'exclusively' for government business was Colin Powell, contrary to Clinton's claim that her 'predecessors' — plural — 'did the same thing.' The IG also said that, like Clinton, Powell did not comply with policies on preserving work-related emails. But the IG report said the comparison to Powell — who did not use a private server — only goes so far. It said during Clinton’s tenure, the rules governing personal email and the use of nongovernment systems were 'considerably more detailed and more sophisticated,' citing specific memos that warned department employees about the security risks of not using the government system."
Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-repo...ns-emails/

"None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail."
Source: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-...ail-system

See that, EK? This is what substantiating your claims looks like. You should try it some time.

(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  They couldn't because in all of those cases they knew the material was classified, they all admitted to it. It was never a point of contention dipshit. They were all cases of "Oh shit, I forgot to return and/or destroy this material properly, and knowingly neglected it". The FBI concluded that this was not the case with Clinton.
Yeah, that's what I said. The difference is that they didn't claim to be ignorant about the classified nature of the documents they mishandled because it would have been ludicrous to do so. If Clinton ever went to trial like these people, it would be just as inane for her to deny that she knew the material wasn't classified because she was the Secretary of State. It was part of her job to look at information and decide whether or not it should be classified as top secret or secret.

Executive Order 13526 - Original Classification Authority
"Pursuant to the provisions of section 1.3 of the Executive Order issued today, entitled 'Classified National Security Information' (Executive Order), I hereby designate the following officials to classify information originally as 'Top Secret' or 'Secret':

[...]

The Secretary of State"
Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off...-authority

(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So I guess I need to repeat the anti-conspiracy theory disclaimer again?
What conspiracy theory? Are you trying to deny that Loretta Lynch is friends with the Clintons? Their history goes back more than 15 years; Bill Clinton appointed her as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York way back in 1999. Have you already forgotten the controversy she caused by secretly meeting with Bill Clinton in his plane?

(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  "I want to address a very, very specific legal argument; and I guess the way I want to talk about that is first by talking about what I don't want to address. Okay? Which is to say, if you believe that the director of the FBI has secretly conspired with the Clinton campaign to cover up the facts? If you think that the FBI findings, that Hillary Clinton was not aware and had no intent to remove confidential information from the chain of custody? If you don't believe that, then this podcast is not for you."
This might be news to you given your uninformed ramblings so far, but James Comey is not the head of the DOJ.

(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Do I believe that people can make mistakes? Of course.
That's what you call it? The act of storing thousands of classified e-mails (a hundred of which were classified at the time) is simply a mistake? You brain dead Clinton drones are really something.

(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Am I up to speed on the specific of chain of custody policies and email protocols for the federal government? No, I am not, but the FBI is. She also sat trough how many congressional investigations? If there was anything there there, it would have come out by now. The fact that after such close scrutiny, that they found insufficient ground for bringing charges.

Unless you want to start throwing congressional investigation under the bus too. I mean, maybe 9-11 really was an inside job, and jet fuel really doesn't burn that hot?

But I can deal with that. Much as I imagine you will feel about Trump, even if the IRS finds nothing illegal (but still really, really scummy) with their tax audit.
What are you talking about? There was something there, she blatantly violated the (spirit, if not the letter of the) laws that govern the handling of classified information. It makes sense that they wouldn't find evidence of criminal intent because that is notoriously hard to prove, but there is little justification for claiming that she didn't act with gross negligence (as many legal experts pointed out, following Comey's statement to the press). Ideally this would be decided by a judge in a proper trial, but in your sham of a legal system they chose to skip this step entirely.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 12:49 PM
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 09:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 08:08 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  Are you telling me that if someone offered you $250,000 to talk at them for thirty minutes, you'd turn down the gig?
First, I'm not running for president. Second, she wasn't "offered" 250k. That's another much repeated lie from the Clinton campaign. The e-mail leaks that came out this year showed that her aides demanded $250,000 and asked the banks to cover the flight and luxury hotel costs as well. I'll go dig up the relevant e-mail(s) in case you haven't seen them already.

(06-10-2016 09:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are the one who made them equivalent. Read your own damn posts.
No, I didn't. At no point in my post did I say that they're equivalent or use a phrase like "She did the same thing" that implies equivalence. Maybe you should read my posts more carefully.

If a Wall Street Bank worth billions in profits each year asks you to speak, you're not going demand a few hundred thousand dollars and have them pay for a temporary sky-palace with room service, cable tv, and call-boys? You'd be a fool not to.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Old Man Marsh's post
06-10-2016, 02:14 PM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2016 02:21 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  For fuck's sake... Facepalm

https://www.dcbar.org/membership/find-a-member.cfm

Searching the DC area BAR for "Torrez" brings up a Phillip A Torrez, who shares the exact same name and address as the blog. He's an active member, with no disciplinary action, and has been active since 2000.

This took me literally 1 minute. I took me longer to write this than double check his credentials. Dodgy
Why are you complaining about having to back up your claims? Do you think it's my responsibility to find your sources for you?

No. I expect that if someone presents themselves as a professional, that unless you have sufficient grounds to doubt that claim, you take them at their word. What reason did you have to doubt Torrez claim of being a lawyer? Near as I can tell, because he simply disagreed with you.

You were being a dick, stop pretending otherwise.



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Except, the FBI disagrees with you.
[Citation required]

(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I defer to the expertise of the FBI, and they disagree with you.
See above.

As a result, [FBI] Director Comey recommended that no criminal prosecution be undertaken with respect to Clinton’s use of email. Here’s the justification he gave:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. … In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The not all of the emails were labeled properly, and the ones that did have the correctly formatted headers and footers were handled properly. Yes, people made mistakes; although the amount shared between Hillary or her aides is debatable.
I already told you that the presence of labels is an irrelevant red herring. A classifying authority is trained to recognize and properly handle classified material regardless of whether or not it is marked as such. This is basic stuff, EK.

And I quote...

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. … In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

Notice, they did not find "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information". Congrats, all you've argued that these people simply cannot make mistakes; when evidently they can.

You want a cookie?



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But as John Oliver conveniently pointed out, she's hardly the only person in public office using a private server for their emails, including those who took the stage at the RNC to throw shit at her as if she'd committed high treason.
Ah, that explains why you're so misinformed. You get your news from a liberal comedian. Hillary is, in fact, the only one who used a private server to store classified e-mails. What you're thinking of are commercial e-mail services such as Google Mail that other public officials use(d) for government business. As FBI director James Comey already pointed out, Clinton's server was less secure than a commercial one like that.

That might be true, it was also entirely incidental to the point at hand. Yeah, she made mistakes, but when you're using a Gmail for official business you really shouldn't be one to talk; that was the point.



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  They couldn't because in all of those cases they knew the material was classified, they all admitted to it. It was never a point of contention dipshit. They were all cases of "Oh shit, I forgot to return and/or destroy this material properly, and knowingly neglected it". The FBI concluded that this was not the case with Clinton.
Yeah, that's what I said. The difference is that they didn't claim to be ignorant about the classified nature of the documents they mishandled because it would have been ludicrous to do so. If Clinton ever went to trial like these people, it would be just as inane for her to deny that she knew the material wasn't classified because she was the Secretary of State. It was part of her job to look at information and decide whether or not it should be classified as top secret or secret.

Except that's basically what she already did, before both congressional hearings and the FBI. They believed her testimony, enough so that they weren't confident enough to bring the case to trial given the facts they were reasonably certain of.

Was it incompetent? Sure, I can buy that. Whereas you seem intent, much like Trump, that it was intentional. If she wasn't incompetent, then she did it on purpose. To what end? Do you think she is a spy?


(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Executive Order 13526 - Original Classification Authority
"Pursuant to the provisions of section 1.3 of the Executive Order issued today, entitled 'Classified National Security Information' (Executive Order), I hereby designate the following officials to classify information originally as 'Top Secret' or 'Secret':

[...]

The Secretary of State"
Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off...-authority

And if somebody fucked up and forgot to place the proper header? Citing the header itself is not an argument against someone forgetting to put it there... Facepalm



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So I guess I need to repeat the anti-conspiracy theory disclaimer again?
What conspiracy theory? Are you trying to deny that Loretta Lynch is friends with the Clintons? Their history goes back more than 15 years; Bill Clinton appointed her as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York way back in 1999. Have you already forgotten the controversy she caused by secretly meeting with Bill Clinton in his plane?

Great, that's a potential conflict of interest within the DOJ. You still need to make that stick to the FBI.



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  "I want to address a very, very specific legal argument; and I guess the way I want to talk about that is first by talking about what I don't want to address. Okay? Which is to say, if you believe that the director of the FBI has secretly conspired with the Clinton campaign to cover up the facts? If you think that the FBI findings, that Hillary Clinton was not aware and had no intent to remove confidential information from the chain of custody? If you don't believe that, then this podcast is not for you."
This might be news to you given your uninformed ramblings so far, but James Comey is not the head of the DOJ.

No shit, he's the Director of the FBI.



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Do I believe that people can make mistakes? Of course.
That's what you call it? The act of storing thousands of classified e-mails (a hundred of which were classified at the time) is simply a mistake? You brain dead Clinton drones are really something.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained through incompetence.

Malice requires intent.

You've yet to show intent, let alone prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'll still take occasional incompetence over world ending stupidity. Even if you assume the worst about Clinton, she's still the less terrifying option in comparison to Trump. Drinking Beverage



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Am I up to speed on the specific of chain of custody policies and email protocols for the federal government? No, I am not, but the FBI is. She also sat trough how many congressional investigations? If there was anything there there, it would have come out by now. The fact that after such close scrutiny, that they found insufficient ground for bringing charges.

Unless you want to start throwing congressional investigation under the bus too. I mean, maybe 9-11 really was an inside job, and jet fuel really doesn't burn that hot?

But I can deal with that. Much as I imagine you will feel about Trump, even if the IRS finds nothing illegal (but still really, really scummy) with their tax audit.
What are you talking about? There was something there, she blatantly violated the (spirit, if not the letter of the) laws that govern the handling of classified information. It makes sense that they wouldn't find evidence of criminal intent because that is notoriously hard to prove, but there is little justification for claiming that she didn't act with gross negligence (as many legal experts pointed out, following Comey's statement to the press). Ideally this would be decided by a judge in a proper trial, but in your sham of a legal system they chose to skip this step entirely.

Except, as Torrez rather succinctly explained, even assuming for the sake of argument that Clinton’s conduct was indeed “grossly negligent,” her case doesn't fit the prosecution standards of the particular sections of the Espionage Act.

Commey stated "…our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case.” That's not to say that she's innocent, only that they found insufficient merit to bring the matter to court, precisely because they were not confident they could show beyond a reasonable doubt that said person unambiguously knew the material they were removing was confidential.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-10-2016, 02:38 PM
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 02:14 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Why are you complaining about having to back up your claims? Do you think it's my responsibility to find your sources for you?

No. I expect that if someone presents themselves as a professional, that unless you have sufficient grounds to doubt that claim, you take them at their word. What reason did you have to doubt Torrez claim of being a lawyer? Near as I can tell, because he simply disagreed with you.

You were being a dick, stop pretending otherwise.



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  [Citation required]

See above.

As a result, [FBI] Director Comey recommended that no criminal prosecution be undertaken with respect to Clinton’s use of email. Here’s the justification he gave:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. … In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I already told you that the presence of labels is an irrelevant red herring. A classifying authority is trained to recognize and properly handle classified material regardless of whether or not it is marked as such. This is basic stuff, EK.

And I quote...

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. … In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

Notice, they did not find "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information". Congrats, all you've argued that these people simply cannot make mistakes; when evidently they can.

You want a cookie?



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Ah, that explains why you're so misinformed. You get your news from a liberal comedian. Hillary is, in fact, the only one who used a private server to store classified e-mails. What you're thinking of are commercial e-mail services such as Google Mail that other public officials use(d) for government business. As FBI director James Comey already pointed out, Clinton's server was less secure than a commercial one like that.

That might be true, it was also entirely incidental to the point at hand. Yeah, she made mistakes, but when you're using a Gmail for official business you really shouldn't be one to talk; that was the point.



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Yeah, that's what I said. The difference is that they didn't claim to be ignorant about the classified nature of the documents they mishandled because it would have been ludicrous to do so. If Clinton ever went to trial like these people, it would be just as inane for her to deny that she knew the material wasn't classified because she was the Secretary of State. It was part of her job to look at information and decide whether or not it should be classified as top secret or secret.

Except that's basically what she already did, before both congressional hearings and the FBI. They believed her testimony, enough so that they weren't confident enough to bring the case to trial given the facts they were reasonably certain of.

Was it incompetent? Sure, I can buy that. Whereas you seem intent, much like Trump, that it was intentional. If she wasn't incompetent, then she did it on purpose. To what end? Do you think she is a spy?


(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Executive Order 13526 - Original Classification Authority
"Pursuant to the provisions of section 1.3 of the Executive Order issued today, entitled 'Classified National Security Information' (Executive Order), I hereby designate the following officials to classify information originally as 'Top Secret' or 'Secret':

[...]

The Secretary of State"
Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off...-authority

And if somebody fucked up and forgot to place the proper header? Citing the header itself is not an argument against someone forgetting to put it there... Facepalm



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  What conspiracy theory? Are you trying to deny that Loretta Lynch is friends with the Clintons? Their history goes back more than 15 years; Bill Clinton appointed her as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York way back in 1999. Have you already forgotten the controversy she caused by secretly meeting with Bill Clinton in his plane?

Great, that's a potential conflict of interest within the DOJ. You still need to make that stick to the FBI.



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  This might be news to you given your uninformed ramblings so far, but James Comey is not the head of the DOJ.

No shit, he's the Director of the FBI.



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  That's what you call it? The act of storing thousands of classified e-mails (a hundred of which were classified at the time) is simply a mistake? You brain dead Clinton drones are really something.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained through incompetence.

Malice requires intent.

You've yet to show intent, let alone prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'll still take occasional incompetence over world ending stupidity. Even if you assume the worst about Clinton, she's still the less terrifying option in comparison to Trump. Drinking Beverage



(06-10-2016 12:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  What are you talking about? There was something there, she blatantly violated the (spirit, if not the letter of the) laws that govern the handling of classified information. It makes sense that they wouldn't find evidence of criminal intent because that is notoriously hard to prove, but there is little justification for claiming that she didn't act with gross negligence (as many legal experts pointed out, following Comey's statement to the press). Ideally this would be decided by a judge in a proper trial, but in your sham of a legal system they chose to skip this step entirely.

Except, as Torrez rather succinctly explained, even assuming for the sake of argument that Clinton’s conduct was indeed “grossly negligent,” her case doesn't fit the prosecution standards of the particular sections of the Espionage Act.

Commey stated "…our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case.” That's not to say that she's innocent, only that they found insufficient merit to bring the matter to court, precisely because they were not confident they could show beyond a reasonable doubt that said person unambiguously knew the material they were removing was confidential.
The standard of evidence you're asking for is borderline impossible to meet. Short of Clinton explicitly admitting that she had criminal intent or that she knew that the e-mails she mishandled were classified the way the people who have been prosecuted before her did, it is impossible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the state of someone's mind. I should mention that a few of the e-mails that Clinton mishandled were actually marked as classified with a ©. You know what James Comey said when he was asked about that particular fact while he was testifying in front of Congress? That Clinton, a former Secretary of State who was in charge of classifying information, might not have known that "©" stands for classified. She is making an absolute mockery of the US legal system. I don't think she's stupid and I don't think she's incompetent, I think she's pretending to be both because under the current laws, that allows her to walk away scot-free with her borderline criminal actions. I might be wrong, maybe she really is a senile old woman who doesn't know any better, but either way, someone like that should not, under any circumstances, be given unlimited access to classified information in the form of the presidency.

Does that mean that Trump should become president? Fuck no. But what it does mean is that she should have stepped down and allowed Bernie to run against Trump. He was polling ahead of Trump in the double digits during the primaries and would presumably be wiping the floor with him right about now. Meanwhile Trump and Clinton are in a dead heat and you guys are fucked no matter which one of the two is elected. I have a lot of friends in the US so I'd rather that a sane person like Bernie or Webb become president. Politics is one of those subjects that just really gets people riled up, myself included. I know you only want the best for the US as well, buddy. Sorry about all the condescension.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
06-10-2016, 05:23 PM
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 02:38 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 02:14 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No. I expect that if someone presents themselves as a professional, that unless you have sufficient grounds to doubt that claim, you take them at their word. What reason did you have to doubt Torrez claim of being a lawyer? Near as I can tell, because he simply disagreed with you.

You were being a dick, stop pretending otherwise.




As a result, [FBI] Director Comey recommended that no criminal prosecution be undertaken with respect to Clinton’s use of email. Here’s the justification he gave:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. … In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."




And I quote...

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. … In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

Notice, they did not find "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information". Congrats, all you've argued that these people simply cannot make mistakes; when evidently they can.

You want a cookie?




That might be true, it was also entirely incidental to the point at hand. Yeah, she made mistakes, but when you're using a Gmail for official business you really shouldn't be one to talk; that was the point.




Except that's basically what she already did, before both congressional hearings and the FBI. They believed her testimony, enough so that they weren't confident enough to bring the case to trial given the facts they were reasonably certain of.

Was it incompetent? Sure, I can buy that. Whereas you seem intent, much like Trump, that it was intentional. If she wasn't incompetent, then she did it on purpose. To what end? Do you think she is a spy?



And if somebody fucked up and forgot to place the proper header? Citing the header itself is not an argument against someone forgetting to put it there... Facepalm




Great, that's a potential conflict of interest within the DOJ. You still need to make that stick to the FBI.




No shit, he's the Director of the FBI.




Never attribute to malice what can be explained through incompetence.

Malice requires intent.

You've yet to show intent, let alone prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'll still take occasional incompetence over world ending stupidity. Even if you assume the worst about Clinton, she's still the less terrifying option in comparison to Trump. Drinking Beverage




Except, as Torrez rather succinctly explained, even assuming for the sake of argument that Clinton’s conduct was indeed “grossly negligent,” her case doesn't fit the prosecution standards of the particular sections of the Espionage Act.

Commey stated "…our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case.” That's not to say that she's innocent, only that they found insufficient merit to bring the matter to court, precisely because they were not confident they could show beyond a reasonable doubt that said person unambiguously knew the material they were removing was confidential.
The standard of evidence you're asking for is borderline impossible to meet. Short of Clinton explicitly admitting that she had criminal intent or that she knew that the e-mails she mishandled were classified the way the people who have been prosecuted before her did, it is impossible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the state of someone's mind. I should mention that a few of the e-mails that Clinton mishandled were actually marked as classified with a ©. You know what James Comey said when he was asked about that particular fact while he was testifying in front of Congress? That Clinton, a former Secretary of State who was in charge of classifying information, might not have known that "©" stands for classified. She is making an absolute mockery of the US legal system. I don't think she's stupid and I don't think she's incompetent, I think she's pretending to be both because under the current laws, that allows her to walk away scot-free with her borderline criminal actions. I might be wrong, maybe she really is a senile old woman who doesn't know any better, but either way, someone like that should not, under any circumstances, be given unlimited access to classified information in the form of the presidency.

Does that mean that Trump should become president? Fuck no. But what it does mean is that she should have stepped down and allowed Bernie to run against Trump. He was polling ahead of Trump in the double digits during the primaries and would presumably be wiping the floor with him right about now. Meanwhile Trump and Clinton are in a dead heat and you guys are fucked no matter which one of the two is elected. I have a lot of friends in the US so I'd rather that a sane person like Bernie or Webb become president. Politics is one of those subjects that just really gets people riled up, myself included. I know you only want the best for the US as well, buddy. Sorry about all the condescension.

I wish I could understand any of the positions you take. You have a really high TTA reputation, and I want to believe that means something in terms of your thinking and (sorry if this is weird) moral understanding...yet you are supporting, without seemingly any reservations, an absolute asshole as compared with business as usual--imperfect, but someone who knows the international community and its rules, etc. I really don't understand your disdain being so much more heaped on Hillary as opposed to Trump. As it is, in terms of the choice between Trump and Clinton, it does not seem to me as a US citizen that I am utterly fucked simply by having to choose between these two. One of these Presidents is not, for example, advocating that Korea and Japan and China be allowed to settle the differences among them using nuclear weapons. I'm not going to choose Trump.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like julep's post
06-10-2016, 06:07 PM
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 05:23 PM)julep Wrote:  I wish I could understand any of the positions you take. You have a really high TTA reputation, and I want to believe that means something in terms of your thinking and (sorry if this is weird) moral understanding...yet you are supporting, without seemingly any reservations, an absolute asshole as compared with business as usual--imperfect, but someone who knows the international community and its rules, etc.
I've defended both Trump and Hillary from criticism on TTA, that doesn't mean that I support either of them. I think my post was very clear about my desire for someone else to become president. I've been voicing my support for Jim Webb for some seven months at this point. He's someone I genuinely believe would be a great president.

(06-10-2016 05:23 PM)julep Wrote:  I really don't understand your disdain being so much more heaped on Hillary as opposed to Trump.
It's primarily because she has a record of (policy) decisions that you can look at to get an idea as to what kind of president she would be. Trump has never held public office, all we have to go on is what he says on the campaign trail and that tends to change from day to day, week to week and month to month. He once said that women who get an abortion should be punished, for instance, and then walked his statement back the very same day. I'm surprised he's even running as a Republican given that he clearly has, as Ted Cruz so candidly pointed out during the primary debates, New York (i.e. liberal) values. Well, that's what the interviews he gave prior to running for president show anyway.

(06-10-2016 05:23 PM)julep Wrote:  As it is, in terms of the choice between Trump and Clinton, it does not seem to me as a US citizen that I am utterly fucked simply by having to choose between these two. One of these Presidents is not, for example, advocating that Korea and Japan and China be allowed to settle the differences among them using nuclear weapons. I'm not going to choose Trump.
You're right, Hillary isn't advocating for that. However, she did vote for the Iraq war and heavily advocated for the military intervention in Libya that ended up wrecking the whole country. She's as much, if not more of a war hawk than Trump is. Neither of them should be commander in chief. Compare that to Sanders who voted against the Iraq war and is advocating for peace and Jim Webb would likewise be much more wise about the use of military force given that he is a decorated war hero himself and has seen the horrors of the Vietnam war first-hand.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
06-10-2016, 08:42 PM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2016 09:27 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 02:38 PM)Vosur Wrote:  The standard of evidence you're asking for is borderline impossible to meet. Short of Clinton explicitly admitting that she had criminal intent or that she knew that the e-mails she mishandled were classified the way the people who have been prosecuted before her did, it is impossible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the state of someone's mind. I should mention that a few of the e-mails that Clinton mishandled were actually marked as classified with a ©. You know what James Comey said when he was asked about that particular fact while he was testifying in front of Congress? That Clinton, a former Secretary of State who was in charge of classifying information, might not have known that "©" stands for classified. She is making an absolute mockery of the US legal system. I don't think she's stupid and I don't think she's incompetent, I think she's pretending to be both because under the current laws, that allows her to walk away scot-free with her borderline criminal actions. I might be wrong, maybe she really is a senile old woman who doesn't know any better, but either way, someone like that should not, under any circumstances, be given unlimited access to classified information in the form of the presidency.

Does that mean that Trump should become president? Fuck no. But what it does mean is that she should have stepped down and allowed Bernie to run against Trump. He was polling ahead of Trump in the double digits during the primaries and would presumably be wiping the floor with him right about now. Meanwhile Trump and Clinton are in a dead heat and you guys are fucked no matter which one of the two is elected. I have a lot of friends in the US so I'd rather that a sane person like Bernie or Webb become president. Politics is one of those subjects that just really gets people riled up, myself included. I know you only want the best for the US as well, buddy. Sorry about all the condescension.

Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. I wanted Elizabeth Warren.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: