41–50 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her?" Two wrongs don't make a right. Should failure to prosecute prior crimes mean that charges for the same crimes in the future be dropped? "Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?" The regulat…
Well, you can still go back and prosecute them now. Is that what you propose? That we also prosecute Rice and Powell?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate this argument because Colin's actions were so overt that extra regulations were passed after he left to flat out make what he and and others did against standard operating procedure. Stop using this as your argument.
Tell me more about this. In particular, I am curious about "extra regulations were passed." Did Congress pass new laws because of Colin Powell?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email... Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?
"If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her?" Two wrongs don't make a right. Should failure to prosecute prior crimes mean that charges for the same crimes in the future be dropped? "Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?" The regulat…
Here is a law intended to keep vital secrets out of the hands of enemies who might do harm to the national interest. And you want to apply it, broadly, to government officials who are trying to do their job.
I don't think Rice or Powell intended to do any harm, or wanted to give any secrets out to any enemy. I also think the likelihood that their use of non-government servers on a tiny number of emails really caused such an issue.
Yet you are advocating to end their careers, put them behind bars, subject them to years of trouble.
Doesn't something seem off here?
(I am putting aside Hillary for now because she is just such an emotionally supercharged example at the moment that it is hard to talk about her and just discuss the facts, so I am using the other two as examples).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you can still go back and prosecute them now. Is that what you propose? That we also prosecute Rice and Powell?
No one is saying we shouldn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't assume anything about your "feelings regarding previous people who may have done". And your feelings regarding over-classification is not irrelevant to whether something is "wrong". Wrong is not the same as legal, which is why there is discretion.
I'm not trying to get into an argument, but you specifically said: "If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her?" That pretty clearly implicated previous people and my beliefs/feelings, no? I feel like you're trolling me here.
I chose your response because you seemed more balanced than some of the other people who are way out on one side of the debate or the other.
So I wondered why you, evidently relatively moderate in your view, fell where you did.
In my eyes, the fact the key issue was the accepted actions of the predecessors. (I may have this wrong, though, based on another response I received in this thread, but that response was somewhat unclear.)
So, I wonder if you accept that her predecessors did the same thing (which, I assume, is accepted fact that they did, so nothing to do with emotions), you feel the way you do about her.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell me more about this. In particular, I am curious about "extra regulations were passed." Did Congress pass new laws because of Colin Powell?
I tried updating my post but because this post was flagged away it seems to have duplicated somewhere else: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037507 -- This article explains it a bit, it's also light on the details. If you read the Judicial Watch testimony of her staffers, a lot of them touch on this.
p.s. what article?
No surprise here, the fix was in. Very odd conference though, he lists all manner of violations then says no prosecutor would take the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried updating my post but because this post was flagged away it seems to have duplicated somewhere else: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037507 -- This article explains it a bit, it's also light on the details. If you read the Judicial Watch testimony of her staffers, a lot of them touch on this.
okay, well, if this bears out what you said, I'll stop using this argument. p.s. what article?