Absolutely illicit. She does not get off by arguing that the documents were not classified at the time. You are required to submit documents to a classifier if the is any possibility that they should be classified.
Dan
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 06:32:50 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@krl.org" Gave us:
NO! You are required to NEVER use a not secured network attached device!
The email server was illicit, and an oath breaker.
The denial of relinquishing upon first request it should get her AND her husband charged.
The giving it up after having it (supposedly) "cleared" is yet another crime as well.
And look at the list of non vetted civilian personnel that were given access to it! Yet another series of crimes!
I went to "one of the better universities", too, but in the '70s the liberal arts and the entire, what we called "south campus", was already infiltrated with anti-war leftists. There was no critical thinking allowed. Take your choice, agree or fail. The sciences were still about science, mostly, though.
Dunno about the last part. Slowman's living off the spoils of your sort. He's got the government on his side, too.
She won't have to. Obama will pardon her as he's walking out the door, citing Ford/Nixon as the precedent.
ote:
ren't all that impressive.
Went to a better university than you, kept a job longer than you , and am r icher than you.
Let's examine your critical thinking skills. You think you are more intelli gent than I am - by which you mean that you think you have scored higher on an IQ test. You don't actually know what I've scored on any particular IQ test, and it's well known that what IQ tests measure is a rather crude prox y for real intelligence.
So the question of which of the two of us is more intelligent doesn't have a definitive answer.
You think you went to a better university than I did, but while your - unid entified - alma mater may now score higher on one of the many university ra nking schemes that exist today, that doesn't say much about how it might ha ve compared between 1960 and 1970, when I was at the university of Melbourn e. Furthermore, why should anybody care? Good people have emerged from medi ocre universities, and Dubbya graduated from Harvard.
You think that you have kept a job longer than I have - my record was nine years, pretty much to the day, at Cambridge Instruments, and you haven't sp elled out how long you kept the job you worked at longest, or where, and ag ain, why should anybody care?
Finally, you think that you are richer than I am, despite the fact that you don't know how much money I've got, and haven't admitted how much you have got.
As an exhibition of critical thinking, this looks remarkably like baseless boasting by somebody who doesn't understand how evidence works.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
rote:
aren't all that impressive.
Went to a better university than you, kept a job longer than you , and am richer than you.
Krw doesn't have a clue - as usual. The governments I've got on my side are the UK government, and Dutch government which each pay me an old age pensi on pension based on the - largely compulsory - contributions I made to the relevant National Insurance schemes. I get about as much again from occupat ional pensions to which I contributed when I was working. Neither income so urce looks like spoils from Dan's sort (whatever that might be).
My wife and I have got much too much money for me to get an Australian old age pension (which happens to be means-tested).
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Ask any right-wing nitwit. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton trained as lawyer and seems to have been tolerably successful practising as a lawyer. Lawyers do a lot of immoral things, but they are very careful to avoid doing anything that is actually illegal.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
e:
he could use to smear the Clintons.
er if she'd done things differently.
Ask any Republican.
Sadly for the argument, neither her nor her husband have ever been charged with anything, which rather suggests that there isn't anything that they ca n actually be charged with.
Karl Rove specialised in the kind of lying that wins elections - his "Swift Boat People" crap managed to make John Kerry look questionable, despite th e fact that Kerry, who had served in Vietnam, was running against Dubbya wh o had sat out the war in the Texas Air National Guard. This looks like more of the same.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
She's a Democrat. No Republican is ever going to admit that she's no more disreputable than a typical Republican politician - Newt Gingrich comes to mind.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
ligent than I am - by which you mean that you think you have scored higher on an IQ test. You don't actually know what I've scored on any particular I Q test, and it's well known that what IQ tests measure is a rather crude pr oxy for real intelligence.
e a definitive answer.
identified - alma mater may now score higher on one of the many university ranking schemes that exist today, that doesn't say much about how it might have compared between 1960 and 1970, when I was at the university of Melbou rne. Furthermore, why should anybody care? Good people have emerged from me diocre universities, and Dubbya graduated from Harvard.
e years, pretty much to the day, at Cambridge Instruments, and you haven't spelled out how long you kept the job you worked at longest, or where, and again, why should anybody care?
ou don't know how much money I've got, and haven't admitted how much you ha ve got.
s boasting by somebody who doesn't understand how evidence works.
I am still pretty sure about all of the above. I just do not care enough t o bother proving it.
Dan
d
o a > > lot of immoral things, but they are very careful to avoid doing any thing that > is actually illegal.
In Hillary's case it is that she has been very careful to avoid doing anyt hing that could be proved to be illegal. Note the time she was helped to m ake exactly $100,000 using cattle futures. Never did any cattle futures be fore or since. Just that one time when accepting $100,000 directly from th e source would have been a bribe.
Absolutely no integrity. You just have a problem with perception.
Dan
It suggests that she or her husband were very careful to avoid being caught. It does not suggest there is no illegal things done.
Dan
About half of the Democrats say she is not trustworthy when polled.
Dan
:
elligent than I am - by which you mean that you think you have scored highe r on an IQ test. You don't actually know what I've scored on any particular IQ test, and it's well known that what IQ tests measure is a rather crude proxy for real intelligence.
ave a definitive answer.
unidentified - alma mater may now score higher on one of the many universit y ranking schemes that exist today, that doesn't say much about how it migh t have compared between 1960 and 1970, when I was at the University of Melb ourne. Furthermore, why should anybody care? Good people have emerged from mediocre universities, and Dubbya graduated from Harvard.
ine years, pretty much to the day, at Cambridge Instruments, and you haven' t spelled out how long you kept the job you worked at longest, or where, an d again, why should anybody care?
you don't know how much money I've got, and haven't admitted how much you have got.
ess boasting by somebody who doesn't understand how evidence works.
to bother proving it.
Sadly, that's what critical thinking is about. Your "pretty sure" and "just do not care enough" makes you a posturing buffoon, and if you had any idea what critical thinking involved you wouldn't have made quite such as ass o f yourself.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
: :
fectly respectable conventional politician, if you respect conventional pol iticians.
ctable politician
re disreputable than a typical Republican politician - Newt Gingrich comes to mind.
She's a politician. The amazing thing is that half the Democrats are prepar ed to claim that she is "trustworthy", or at least are prepared to say that they think she's trustworthy.
You elect politicians to make the best deals they can when they are in powe r. Politics is the art of the possible, and what they might have hoped to b e possible when they were on the campaign trail always turns out to be only partially attainable when they get into power. You could - in theory - ele ct trustworthy politicians who wouldn't be able to get anything to happen, but in practice the electorate is a trifle more realistic.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Actually, it does. By far the most effective way of avoiding getting caught is not to do anything that's technically illegal in the first place.
It irritates the hell out of people who think that the technically legal behaviour is immoral, but morality is posturing buffoon territory, and the law demands critical thinking - which isn't your strong suit.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 16:18:52 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org Gave us:
That doesn't mean they did not *do* anything.
If you want to exercise your imagination, feel free. But you are talking about real people, who were investigated at length by Kenneth W. Starr, who couldn't find anything that he could make stick in a court of law. The internet is rather less rigorous.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
te:
te:
erfectly respectable conventional politician, if you respect conventional p oliticians.
pectable politician
more disreputable than a typical Republican politician - Newt Gingrich come s to mind.
ared to claim that she is "trustworthy", or at least are prepared to say th at they think she's trustworthy.
wer. Politics is the art of the possible, and what they might have hoped to be possible when they were on the campaign trail always turns out to be on ly partially attainable when they get into power. You could - in theory - e lect trustworthy politicians who wouldn't be able to get anything to happen , but in practice the electorate is a trifle more realistic.
That "pragmtism" crap is the big lie Hillary's handlers told her to repeat over and over and over and over...again. The woman is the most blatant croo k ever to hit politics at the national level, aside from the semi-humanoid riffraff from places like Texas and Arkansas.
Here's the real rationale behind her political realism as regards single-pa yer health care:
As they explain here:
"Myth: The goal of establishing a single-payer system in the U.S. is unreal istic, or "politically infeasible." Reality: It's true that single-payer he alth reform faces formidable opposition, especially from the private insura nce industry, Big Pharma, and other for-profit interests in health care, al ong with their allies in government. This prompts some people to conclude t hat single payer is out of reach and therefore not worth fighting for. Whil e such moneyed opposition should not be underestimated, there is no reason why a well-informed and organized public, including the medical profession, cannot prevail over these vested interests. We should not sell the America n people short. At earlier points in U.S. history, the abolition of slavery and the attainment of women's suffrage were considered unrealistic, and ye t the movements to achieve these goals were ultimately victorious and we no w wonder how those injustices were allowed to stand for so long.
What is truly "unrealistic" is believing that we can provide universal and affordable health care, and control costs, in a system dominated by private insurers and Big Pharma."
All the work has been done, the plan already exists but has been sabotaged year after year by the crooks in Congress bought out by the for-profit inte rests:
Then evil witch has the nerve to accuse Sanders of being "single-issue," pr obably as regards campaign finance reform, but we see time and time again j ust exactly how campaign finance corruption is central to so much dysfuncti on in the U.S. government. It therefore should be a central issue.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.