Author Topic: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server  (Read 7383 times)

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
Documents recently obtained by the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch show that in December 2010, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her staff were having difficulty communicating with State Department officials by e-mail because spam filters were blocking their messages. To fix the problem, State Department IT turned the filters off—potentially exposing State's employees to phishing attacks and other malicious e-mails.
The mail problems prompted Clinton Chief of Staff Huma Abedin to suggest to Clinton, "We should talk about putting you on State e-mail or releasing your e-mail address to the department so you are not going to spam." Clinton replied, "Let's get [a] separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal [e-mail] being accessible."

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/clintons-private-e-mail-was-blocked-by-spam-filters-so-state-it-turned-them-off/

Does her admission open her up to any charges?  Does proof that she lied about the reason for the private server have any political fallout even though everyone knew it was the 'real' reason?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2016, 01:25:28 PM »
Does her admission open her up to any charges?  Does proof that she lied about the reason for the private server have any political fallout even though everyone knew it was the 'real' reason?

Forcing state to turn off spam filters just to access her email is already pretty bad. But if the smoking gun points to the importance of keeping her private emails secret, we might ask why this was even an issue. Anyone who wants their private email to remain private can just have a private email address, and do their work from work. The only reason she'd need her work email to be kept on a private server in order to keep private emails safe can only be one thing: her work and her private affairs were intertwined and she was using the one to bolster the other. If she was using her private connections to further her position as Secretary of State, and her position as Secretary of State to achieve private ends (often involving the Clinton Foundation) then I can see how in her mind all of her email would basically be best kept on the same server, away from government eyes.

LR, everyone may have 'known' the real reason, but not the reason behind the reason. They may know she lied, but not the why of it.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2016, 09:23:35 PM »
Quote
The only reason she'd need her work email to be kept on a private server in order to keep private emails safe can only be one thing: her work and her private affairs were intertwined and she was using the one to bolster the other.

Is that the only reason you can think of? Your mind is literally unable to conceive of any other alternatives?

How about this: Hillary Clinton was intimately familiar from a decade of experience that the Republican party was perfectly capable of dreaming up fictional conspiracies and then using governmental investigative powers to dig up any possible evidence of anything that could be politically disadvantageous to her?

 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2016, 10:56:51 PM »
Greg, are you suggesting that Hillary knowingly violated the FOIA just to thwart malicious Republicans who would misuse the information they had a right to view in the first place? I suppose I wouldn't put that past her except to be honest I don't think she cared enough about the Republicans in particular to have gone through the hoops she must have done to get her private setup. That answer would also be admitting that she intentionally defied the law, since her official claim is that she had no intention of withholding information from anyone, and a claim that her intent was to withhold information from the GOP (in other words, from everyone) would be inconsistent with that.

But let's get real, Greg, that's not the real reason. We have enough grounded suspicion in what the real reason is to know basically what it is, even though there may be no hard proof of specifics (not revealed as yet, anyhow). It's kind of like when everyone pretty much knew what Michael Corleone was up to but no one could legally prove anything. When Hillary makes denials on various subjects it kind of reminds me of the court scene in Godfather II (I think) when he accused them all of making up stories when he was an innocent man. I know this sounds like begging the question but I'm sure in Michael's case there were people arguing too that those who made claims without proof were just conspiracy theorists.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2016, 01:34:37 AM »
What FOIA violation are you referring to?  This was an article on spam filters.

Your comment that: "We have enough grounded suspicion in what the real reason is to know basically what it is" sounds like you just want to believe that. If you are right, it ought to be easy to provide a compelling argument with evidence for your case, and I don't see any of that.   

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2016, 03:44:02 AM »
What FOIA violation are you referring to?  This was an article on spam filters.

Ok, maybe I misunderstood what you said. I thought you were suggesting that her rationale may have been to hide her emails from the GOP to avoid them sifting through it all to find something to use against her. The only way to bar them from making a FOIA request to access her data would be to...violate the FIOA. Have I missed a step? But if you meant something else then my apologies, and please let me know what you meant.

Quote
Your comment that: "We have enough grounded suspicion in what the real reason is to know basically what it is" sounds like you just want to believe that. If you are right, it ought to be easy to provide a compelling argument with evidence for your case, and I don't see any of that.

I can provide a compelling example, if that's what you mean by an argument, but anything other than me suggesting it would require substantial investigative legwork that I'm not capable of doing. One easy thing to suspect Hillary of having done is using her SecState position to have easy access to foreign dignitaries and connections, and using her position to employ the Clinton Foundation as a means to launder political bribes. In fact, I suspect the FBI is investigation this very possibility right now along with the content of her emails. I can't tell you whether this is true or false, but can only say that it's plausible and that maybe we'll find out from the investigation and maybe we won't. But either way this scenario would certainly involve her using her work position to send private emails about her 'foundation' and exchange donations for favors or whatever else. If you want to say that I only believe this because I want to  believe it, I have done some legwork on the subject and have seen a correlation between the Clintons being involved in shady deals and people involved in those deals making substantial donations to the foundation; especially parties not legally allowed to make direct campaign contributions. And in any case I had no problem at all with Hillary a few years back until I started to learn some things, and so came into my reading with no predisposition to find anything wrong with her. In fact, I used to laugh at some Republicans who thought she was the devil incarnate.

This is, by the way, not the only example I could muster up, but it's the clearest and also one that I think has occurred to the FBI as well. If I'm wrong I'll actually be pleased, since I suspect Clinton will be the next president, and I'd frankly prefer to find out she can be trusted rather than what I currently believe is the case.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2016, 11:19:59 AM »
My thought was that Hillary Clinton was worried about scenarios such as Whitewater, which started as a Congressional investigation of a potentially illegal $300K business loan given to a partner of the Clintons by a third party 20 years earlier. Republicans used this to leverage $80 million in taxpayer funds, in combination with supoena power,  to conduct a virtually unlimited set of investigations to find political dirt.  Thus, long after that $300K loan was long forgotten, and a Benghazi-like train of other false accusations had been raised and debunked, the Independent Proscecutor's team iput a wire on a woman to entrap Monica Lewinski to disclose the affair she had with the President, which then was enough of a political threat that Bill Clinton lied under oath to deny it. 

Given this background, it is entirely plausible that Clinton wanted to minimize her exposure to future Republican attacks on false legal grounds. It would have been irrational of her not to prepare for years of such attacks. And while people today are professing shock at her use of a private server, when you look at what was common practice in December 2008, the White House had used a private server, and several of her predecessors had used private servers.

And if you don't remember, the first issue facing senior members of the Obama Administration was that the country was in the worst shape it had been in generations: biggest economic collapse in 80 years (yes, that had international ramifications as well), two ongoing wars, Taliban taking power not only in Afghanistan but also in Pakistani provinces, Iranian nuclear weapons development, etc. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2016, 01:33:56 PM »
Ok, but are you saying she was attempting to make her state emails inaccessible to the GOP? If so that would violate FOIA. If not, what was her strategy, mechanically, to avoid witchhunts against her? In other words, according to your theory how did her having a private server protect her in this sense?

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2016, 08:44:22 PM »
I believe that the relevant law at the time was that she had to be able to turn over government records and had discretion about which emails were private.

And note that she fully complied.

And when the Bush Administration accidently lost 24 million emails in 2007 from the private server used by the White House (when they were being sought in association with the firing of States Attorney's that led to 9 senior resignations in the Justice Department) which was technically a violation of the law (if they were intentionally destroyed, which is highly likely), no one sought to remove Bush or Cheney from office (or even to prosecute them). 
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 08:46:56 PM by Greg Davidson »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2016, 09:08:28 PM »
I believe that the relevant law at the time was that she had to be able to turn over government records and had discretion about which emails were private.

I don't believe FOIA would mean anything if a person's communications could be kept hidden by a government official who claimed they were "private". That's more or less the point of having email records kept on official servers, isn't it? That is, in addition to supposed security concerns. What would FOIA mean if communiques would only be accessible if an official felt like they were not "private"? Does not that compromise the purpose of FOIA, part of which is no doubt oversight and avoidance of corruption?

Quote
And note that she fully complied.

I tend to agree with your statements, but not always with your interpretation of what they imply. In this particular case I don't agree with your statement at all. There could almost not have been anything more suspicious about the manner in which she 'complied' in this scenario. Note that I'm not particularly hung up on the private server aspect of things in terms of whether or not it was illegal in and of itself, despite my thread concerning the chance she could get in trouble for it.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2016, 11:45:08 PM »
Greg

Is your assertion here that because Bush and Cheney got away with breaking the law, that it's only fair that Clinton also gets away with it?

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2016, 11:53:24 PM »
Fenring, the law allows a person to decide what are official records and what are not - there is no requirement to have every email in a record that can be searched. And FOIA requires information to be made available that is relevant to a specific inquiry - and the recipient of the FOIA request makes that determination.

DJQuag, the Bush Administration destroyed records and Hillary Clinton did not - it is illegal to destroy 24 million emails. Hillary Clinton did not destroy any emails (in the Bush case, they found copies of the emails from or to the Bush private server in the email accounts of others - for Clinton, they did not find any emails anywhere to or from the Clinton server that were not also made available by Hillary Clinton). 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2016, 01:46:45 AM »
Greg, you're not doing Hillary any favors by comparing her to the Bush admin. Even by suggesting she's better than them by some kind of margin you still aren't really saying much. I don't see the treatment of their actions as particularly relevant to hers, since if misdeeds in the past went unpunished the desirable correction would be to avoid a repeat of that. I understand that you think her treatment of her emails in particular doesn't seem to be enough to warrant serious accusations against her. You may note, to offer a potentially unfair comparison, that Al Capone eventually went down for the mundane offense of tax evasion, which certainly wasn't what they were after him for but was all they could pin on him. Perhaps something similar is happening now, perhaps not, but if so the argument would be that Hillary can't be held to any other potential misdeed but if they can at least get her on this (despite it being smallish in comparison) at least it's something. I don't think GOP smear-doctors think of it this way since they would no doubt go after her for anything, whether or not she deserved it, but objectively it may be factually true that she is only exposed on a lesser issue but 'ought to' face charges on general principle.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2016, 08:17:50 AM »
Quote
Greg, you're not doing Hillary any favors by comparing her to the Bush admin.
It's useful to see what historical precedents might be relevant, and then to measure the public responses to each of them.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2016, 12:53:58 PM »
Quote
I don't think GOP smear-doctors think of it this way since they would no doubt go after her for anything, whether or not she deserved it, but objectively it may be factually true that she is only exposed on a lesser issue but 'ought to' face charges on general principle.

The problem with this "general principle" is that it is applicable to any politician one thinks is guilty of wrongdoing, regardless of the merit of that belief.

And the GOP smear-doctors have been so busy, especially with the Clintons, for so long, that, like the boy who cried wolf, I don't believe anything they say anymore.  They'll make stuff up at the drop of a hat, in a long-shot hope that something will stick.

So while some believe that all this smoke around the Clintons means there is some fire, I just see a lot of smoke being blown.  And to say that she should be convicted of a "lesser issue" because she is guilty of a greater one would mean that the smear-doctors have won, and convinced people that she did things she never did.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2016, 02:27:31 PM »
The problem with this "general principle" is that it is applicable to any politician one thinks is guilty of wrongdoing, regardless of the merit of that belief.

Just to be clear, when I said "factually true" I meant from a gods-eye-view. It is either a fact or it is not a fact that Hillary (or whoever else) did certain bad things, whether or not we can know those facts or demonstrate them. The ability to pin anything on Michael Corleone, for instance, was obviously not a good argument for everyone to just leave him alone to do his 'business'. So you must distinguish between cases where there is pretty obviously some wrongdoing but no proof, and where there is really no evidence of anything other than a smear campaign. I think think both of these scenarios apply to Hillary, which makes it sometimes muddy to discuss.

Quote
And the GOP smear-doctors have been so busy, especially with the Clintons, for so long, that, like the boy who cried wolf, I don't believe anything they say anymore.  They'll make stuff up at the drop of a hat, in a long-shot hope that something will stick.

Yes, and in a way they've done Hillary a favor. By making accusations without proof previously they do become the boy who cried wolf, and so they hurt their own case. That being said, I don't really think the GOP's central goal is to establish honorable governance but rather to win, and part of winning is dividing the country through partisan chicanery, which in turn helps both parties (including Hillary herself). I view the 'game' in this sense as being a sort of cooperative competition, much like the major banks have with each other; they want to individually win, but collectively they work together to maintain their system. The RNC and DNC work for the same people; the rest is a shell game.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2016, 10:09:40 PM »
Any candidate that the Democrats will run will face a level of opposition from Republicans that is greater than anything done to the Republicans in turn, at least for the past 40 years.  There is nothing comparable to the birther attacks on Obama. Nothing compares to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" used against Kerry. Nothing compares to the Whitewater investigation. Or the Benghazi investigation.

This is why I favored Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders - she's shown over the past few decades that she can deal with this bogus crap. 

And the reason that I make references with the past is to show that what anti-Hillary forces are hyperventilating over now was no big deal in past elections and will be no big deal in future elections. Republicans have intentionally created an environment that creates the appearance of flames but is all just blowing smoke.  As another example, 24 years ago the Republican mantra was that character was everything - they actual got Focus on the Family to be given free airtime on the radio with public service announcements proclaiming the message that "Character Counts", meaning Bill Clinton's infidelities.  That's because it was an issue that favored George H. W. Bush over Bill Clinton. I notice now that the same issue would favor Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, somehow character doesn't count any more.  Did the world change? Or just Republican expedience?
 

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2016, 03:39:35 AM »
Quote
Greg, you're not doing Hillary any favors by comparing her to the Bush admin.
It's useful to see what historical precedents might be relevant, and then to measure the public responses to each of them.

Pretending for the sake of argument that we can guage "public response" to "historical precedent" as meaningful as court precedent, let me ask (since I never heard of these Bush deletions you speak of), were these supposed deletions exposed prior to Bush's campaign for reelection?  Because otherwise, your analogy is obfuscatory; you're passing off pomegranates for grenades.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2016, 03:43:10 AM »
As another example, 24 years ago the Republican mantra was that character was everything - they actual got Focus on the Family to be given free airtime on the radio with public service announcements proclaiming the message that "Character Counts", meaning Bill Clinton's infidelities.

So you say, but the quote from Dobson that you provided on the other thread, said quite the opposite, i.e. that Bill Clinton's character defect manifested primarily not in his sexual infidelities, but in his perjury and general dishonesty to cover up his infidelities, just as King David's primary sin wasn't his adultery with Bathsheba but his lies and murder and betrayal of his most faithful lieutenant, to cover up David adultery.  He'd rather make Uriah a corpse than let Uriah know that he'd made Uriah a cuckold.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2016, 04:25:31 AM »
Quote
Pretending for the sake of argument that we can guage "public response" to "historical precedent" as meaningful as court precedent...
Not what I'm (or I think what Greg was) talking about.

Quote
...let me ask (since I never heard of these Bush deletions you speak of), were these supposed deletions exposed prior to Bush's campaign for reelection?
Why is that relevant?

Quote
Because otherwise, your analogy is obfuscatory; you're passing off pomegranates for grenades.
Why are intentional deletions of emails by other Administrations "obfuscatory"?


Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2016, 05:13:07 AM »
Quote
Pretending for the sake of argument that we can guage "public response" to "historical precedent" as meaningful as court precedent...
Not what I'm (or I think what Greg was) talking about.

Then I'm not sure what you're talking about.  If you have any idea, please let me know.

Quote
...let me ask (since I never heard of these Bush deletions you speak of), were these supposed deletions exposed prior to Bush's campaign for reelection?
------
Why is that relevant?

I'm often shocked at what you can say with a straight face.  It is relevant because it's reasonable and bleeding obvious that the voting public (unlike a court) is more concerned with the honesty of someone who is running for election or re-election.

Quote
Because otherwise, your analogy is obfuscatory; you're passing off pomegranates for grenades.
----
Why are intentional deletions of emails by other Administrations "obfuscatory"?

Because when you argue based on the assumption that the voting public should not be more concerned by dishonest activity by someone who is currently running for president, than they are by a former administration or lame duck administration, you obfuscate the difference between the wrongness of an activity, and whether an activity disqualifies one from winning an election.  You play us for fools, sir, and it's offensive.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2016, 10:06:55 AM »
Quote
Then I'm not sure what you're talking about.  If you have any idea, please let me know.
We weren't talking about "court precedent".  I'm not sure why you introduced it.

Quote
I'm often shocked at what you can say with a straight face.  It is relevant because it's reasonable and bleeding obvious that the voting public (unlike a court) is more concerned with the honesty of someone who is running for election or re-election.
Did you go to the "Purple Prose School of Law"?  Did you ace the "Berate Your Opponent Until They Surrender" class of rhetoric?  Nothing I can think of would stop you from willfully misinterpreting what I (or others) say and then using your interpretation to beat us over the head with it.  It may be "bleeding obvious" that they public is more concerned with some things than others, but the supposed context and consequences of the fact of millions of deleted emails spanning the years 2001 through 2008 vs. the fact of some far smaller number of deleted emails over a significant (but less consequential) span from 2010 - 2013 is worth discussing and contrasting.

Since you talk to so many of us in an insulting way, I wonder do you talk that way to everyone you know?

Quote
you obfuscate the difference between the wrongness of an activity, and whether an activity disqualifies one from winning an election.  You play us for fools, sir, and it's offensive.
I wasn't obfuscating that.  I never considered that someone would not only insist that the distinction makes all the difference, but also that I would be insulted for not knowing how significant you would find the difference.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #22 on: June 29, 2016, 01:29:14 AM »
Pete: "I never heard of these Bush deletions you speak of"

Quote
The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.[5]

The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an abbreviation for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The server came public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas.[7] Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc."[8]) and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"[9]), but, unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it — it is used only for email.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy


Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2016, 01:34:21 AM »
Anyone who flips out about Hillary's emails (which were not destroyed) but is unfamiliar with this massive destruction of evidence is not behaving in a consistent manner. What was done under the Bush Administration was far more wrong than even what Hillary is accused of, let alone the much lesser actions of what so far she has been shown to have done.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2016, 01:46:08 AM »
Quote
It may be "bleeding obvious" that they public is more concerned with some things than others, but the supposed context and consequences of the fact of millions of deleted emails spanning the years 2001 through 2008 vs. the fact of some far smaller number of deleted emails over a significant (but less consequential) span from 2010 - 2013 is worth discussing and contrasting.

It's ABSOLUTELY worth discussing, assuming that it's true.  What I objected to was your argument that lack of public outrage over that incident, discovered after all elections had passed, somehow meant that we shouldn't be making such a big deal about Hillary's alleged deletions during the last 60 days before her election.  If Bush were running against Hillary, that argument would be appropriate.  Since he's never running for anything again, the argument seemed intentionally obtuse, obfuscatory, and playing your reader for fools.

If you're saying put her alleged actions into context, it's less than

Quote
Then I'm not sure what you're talking about.  If you have any idea, please let me know.
We weren't talking about "court precedent".  I'm not sure why you introduced it.

I introduced court precedent (which are supposed to be based on law) to distinguish from what you called "historical" precedent, which in this case referred to public outrage over allegations of government misbehavior. 

Quote
Quote
I'm often shocked at what you can say with a straight face.  It is relevant because it's reasonable and bleeding obvious that the voting public (unlike a court) is more concerned with the honesty of someone who is running for election or re-election.
Did you go to the "Purple Prose School of Law"?  Did you ace the "Berate Your Opponent Until They Surrender" class of rhetoric?

There's no course in that, because in law school classes people don't play stupid in order to "win" an argument.  I've been on Ornery before I ever even considered going to law school, and I've always treated people this way when they were intentionally obtuse.  You berate people for different reasons, according to your own triggers; you're berating me right now.

Quote
Since you talk to so many of us in an insulting way, I wonder do you talk that way to everyone you know?

When they play stupid, yes.  It doesn't play very well when the person who is being intentionally obtuse is a government official, but it's hard to disguise my facial disgust.  That's why I'm not a trial lawyer.

Quote
 
Quote
you obfuscate the difference between the wrongness of an activity, and whether an activity disqualifies one from winning an election.  You play us for fools, sir, and it's offensive.
I wasn't obfuscating that.  I never considered that someone would not only insist that the distinction makes all the difference [snip self-pity]

You "never considered" that someone would consider that public discussion is more focused on allegations against someone who is currently running for president, than they are with allegations with someone who will never be up for any more elections?  Really?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 01:51:29 AM by Pete at Home »

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2016, 02:08:56 AM »
Quote
When they play stupid, yes.  It doesn't play very well when the person who is being intentionally obtuse is a government official, but it's hard to disguise my facial disgust.  That's why I'm not a trial lawyer.
Consider that the person you are so often insulting (for example, moi) is not stupid, not saying something stupid, not even trying to provoke someone into an insult contest, but only expressing an opinion.  Or - in your way of handling that kind of thing - are you too stupid or obtuse to understand that?

Quote
You "never considered" that someone would consider that public discussion is more focused on allegations against someone who is currently running for president, than they are with allegations with someone who will never be up for any more elections?  Really?
No, but I would welcome a response that sought to engage on a different basis than I presented my comments, as long as the person doesn't call me vile, stupid, ignorant, obfuscating, uttering a blood libel, etc.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2016, 02:39:32 AM »
Quote
When they play stupid, yes.  It doesn't play very well when the person who is being intentionally obtuse is a government official, but it's hard to disguise my facial disgust.  That's why I'm not a trial lawyer.
Consider that the person you are so often insulting (for example, moi) is not stupid, not saying something stupid, not even trying to provoke someone into an insult contest, but only expressing an opinion. [/i]

The only person I've ever believed was actually stupid on this forum, left over 9 years ago.  I don't think that you are stupid.  I think you often pretend to be stupid, i.e. pretend not to understand an argument that you understand, to make opponents waste their time writing arguments you don't bother to read.

Quote
Or - in your way of handling that kind of thing - are you too stupid or obtuse to understand that?

Nope, that's not my way of handling things. If I believed that was your honest opinion of me, I would challenge you to find any QUOTE where I said such a thing. 


Quote
You "never considered" that someone would consider that public discussion is more focused on allegations against someone who is currently running for president, than they are with allegations with someone who will never be up for any more elections?  Really?
No, but I would welcome a response that sought to engage on a different basis than I presented my comments, as long as the person doesn't call me vile,
[/quote]

Please don't play stupid.  I said that something specific that you said was vile.  I did not call YOU vile.  Some of the things you've said are stupid, and I've said stupid things too, and that doesn't mean that we're stupid.  The fact that I admitted my errors on reflection while you cling to them for dear life has more to do vanity than actual stupidity.

If you don't like being accused of making a blood libels, then don't make one.

I assure you, Al, if I thought you were actually stupid, I'd be very kind to you.  Indulgent.  And I'd never call you stupid.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 02:46:28 AM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Smoking gun on the real reason clinton had private email server
« Reply #27 on: June 29, 2016, 02:43:43 AM »
Anyone who flips out about Hillary's emails (which were not destroyed) but is unfamiliar with this massive destruction of evidence is not behaving in a consistent manner. What was done under the Bush Administration was far more wrong than even what Hillary is accused of, let alone the much lesser actions of what so far she has been shown to have done.

It seems silly to confuse being uninformed about a particular event, with inconsistent behavior.  Frankly I'm more interested in who took President Kennedy's brain than any of this election crap, but no one seems forthcoming on that.