The future

[AuxBatOn]

So your definition of "treason" is someone who used a personal email server so that she could do her job more efficiently? Doesn't that word normally mean someone who works *against* their country?

Storing classified information on any means other than approved ones is stricly against the law. I can't take my classified manuals and send them to my personnal server for sake of efficiency. This would be gross mishandling of classified information.

And the investigation found that she didn't purposefully mishandle classified information. All 3 classified emails just had small classified portions, marked by a "(c)" at the paragraph, which she may or may not have realised.

When you deal with classified information on a daily basis, you learn to look for the level of classifications of document, pages and paragraphs. The title page of the document would have the highest level of classification written in full with all the caveats. Each page has a header and a footer with the highest level of classification on that page and the associated caveats. Every paragraph has a one of two letter followed by caveats accronyms (for example, TS/TK). If you deal with this kind of information regularly, there is absolutely no excuse to miss them. The title of the emails should have the overall level of classification and individual paragraphs should be annotated like a document paragraph would be.

She certainly should have realized and if she didn't, she is absolutely incompetent and should not be trusted with this kind of information.

Other investigations revealed many more emails, some of them Top Secret, Special Compermentalized Information (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/h ... ret-217985)

Do you want to charge George W Bush with treason for using a personal email server as well?

The President gets to decide what is and isn't classified. He/She can do whatever he/she wants when he/she is in power. But the President should be trusted not to divulge any information "by mistake"

Being careless and technically clueless is quite a different crime from "treason".

In these positions, there is no such thing as careless and technically clueless.

[North Shore]

^My understanding was that many (all?) of the documents were not classified at the time they were on her server - they were retroactively classified. Besides that, didn't the FBI investigate, and conclude that no chagres were warranted?

[Rockie]

The attack in Benghazi was underestimated, mistakes were made, and 4 people died as a result. The Republicans have been on a witch hunt ever since characterizing Clinton's role as "treason" which is absurd. Their actions were clearly aimed at kneecapping (successfully as it turns out) a political opponent and future Democratic presidential candidate. The reason this is clear is because...

George Bush Jr. took the US to war by invading Iraq based on intelligence that was at best misrepresented, and at worse fabricated. That war cost the lives of 4491 American service men and women, and Iraqi lives estimated between 174,000 and 500,000...much of those civilian. Many, many more were wounded and maimed on both sides.

Yet I have never seen the Republicans attempt to hold Bush or any other Republican official responsible for that. This goes far beyond mere hypocrisy.

[AuxBatOn]

This isn't about Republican/Democrat. But go ahead and make this a left/right mud slinging. This is about the unavailability of a suitable candidate.

The actions you speak of happenned during the Presidency. In this case, Hilary's action happenned before she ran for President.

[Rockie]

This isn't about Republican/Democrat. But go ahead and make this a left/right mud slinging. This is about the unavailability of a suitable candidate.

The actions you speak of happenned during the Presidency. In this case, Hilary's action happenned before she ran for President.

What's the difference whether it happened during a presidency or not? Nobody was held responsible for GWII which was infinitely worse than the mistakes Clinton made. The Republicans made Benghazi the issue that it was for crassly political reasons, but I agree the Trump situation has nothing to do with left/right ideology. He's in a repugnant and dangerous class all his own, and if the Republicans had any testicles they would be as much appalled with Trump as anybody else.

[fixedpitch]

George Bush Jr. took the US to war by invading Iraq based on intelligence that was at best misrepresented, and at worse fabricated.

George W. Bush and coalition forces liberated 33 million Iraqis from a psychopath. What were you doing in March 2003?

That war cost the lives of 4491 American service men and women, and Iraqi lives estimated between 174,000 and 500,000...much of those civilian. Many, many more were wounded and maimed on both sides.

That was a slow decade in Saddam's Iraq.

Yet I have never seen the Republicans attempt to hold Bush or any other Republican official responsible for that. This goes far beyond mere hypocrisy.

Obama walked away from a stabilized Iraq in 2011. The result was chaos and the rise of ISIS.

Nobody was held responsible for GWII which was infinitely worse than the mistakes Clinton made.

Don't tell that to the Kurds. It might be a short conversation.

[Rockie]

George W. Bush and coalition forces liberated 33 million Iraqis from a psychopath. What were you doing in March 2003?

You don't really believe that do you? BTW, I served...have you?

Obama walked away from a stabilized Iraq in 2011. The result was chaos and the rise of ISIS.

Iraq was never stable after the US invasion, and the timetable for withdrawal was set by Bush when he signed the US/Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement late in his administration. You're also conveniently leaving out the fact ISIS wouldn't exist at all without GWII.

[geodoc]

Obama walked away from a stabilized Iraq in 2011. The result was chaos and the rise of ISIS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%8 ... _Agreement

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011

You might outta preface your posts with a little fact-checking. Just trying to be helpful.

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

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

[cgzro]

On an aviation related note (I know what a concept) Trump's plane getting an NYFD salut as it left NY last week.

Also does he now get F16 escorts or something when he uses his own aircraft?

http://www.nbcnews.com/widget/video-embed/805694531885

[fixedpitch]

You might outta preface your posts with a little fact-checking. Just trying to be helpful.

It's cute when people use Wikipedia for their fact checking. Sort of the lazy man's debating point.

I guess this guy doesn't know what he's talking about:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 87e67f40f9

Just trying to be helpful.

[Rockie]

You might outta preface your posts with a little fact-checking. Just trying to be helpful.

It's cute when people use Wikipedia for their fact checking. Sort of the lazy man's debating point.

I guess this guy doesn't know what he's talking about:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 87e67f40f9

Just trying to be helpful.

Bush signed the SOFA and Obama adhered to it. But you're right, some people argued Obama should have violated that agreement and go against the wishes of the majority of Americans at the time and keep an occupational force there. He didn't. You're omitting why the Americans were there in the first place though....

Note: It wasn't actually bush who signed it but someone else on behalf of the United States on November 17th, 2008. Look at paragraph 1 of article 24 (top of page 20).
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

[geodoc]

Is there something in the Wikipedia entry that you would site as being incorrect? In this case establishing the basic content of the Iraq SOFA and under whose presidential tenure it was concluded, it serves most adequately.

As to the efficacy of maintaining and probably expanding a US military involvement in Iraq beyond the end date in the SOFA, a larger question is posed which you might just distill down to "So, how's that been working for 'ya?"

Andrew Bacevich has considerable experience in this and has some thoughts that you might find worth contemplation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bacevich (sorry, if you want to get some deeper background, you're on your own)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZnAja0wLlc

You're welcome .........................................

You might outta preface your posts with a little fact-checking. Just trying to be helpful.

It's cute when people use Wikipedia for their fact checking. Sort of the lazy man's debating point.

I guess this guy doesn't know what he's talking about:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 87e67f40f9

Just trying to be helpful.

[CpnCrunch]

There never were any WMDs in Iraq...most of us could see that at the time, and recent reports such as the Chilcot enquiry have confirmed that. Saddam was a nasty SOB, but the second gulf war just created a huge mess that is only now starting to be cleared up (mostly by the Iraqi people themselves).

Hillary Clinton's misdeeds pale in comparison to that sh*tshow.

[fixedpitch]

Hillary Clinton's misdeeds pale in comparison to that sh*tshow.

You mean the war that Hillary Clinton voted in favour of?

[CpnCrunch]

Hillary Clinton's misdeeds pale in comparison to that sh*tshow.

You mean the war that Hillary Clinton voted in favour of?

Good point. But did she actually create those WMD lies, or was she just dumb enough to believe them? Just like a lot of people seem to believe Trump's lies...

[Rockie]

Hillary Clinton's misdeeds pale in comparison to that sh*tshow.

You mean the war that Hillary Clinton voted in favour of?

Unlike the manchild - elect, I admit to reluctant support of the war at first too based on Bush's sell job...but then the truth started to come out.

[B208]

"Confidential" is a classification you put on something that contains innocuous items like a social insurance number. When I was in we regularly looked at grainy old photos of soviet equipment classified as "secret" when much better photos were published routinely in Janes.

Somehow I don't think someone goes to the trouble of bleaching a hard drive to erase innocuous items.

In terms of severity of risk to the country wrt classified information I would be much more concerned about an emotionally unstable, sociopathic 13 year old President who likely is financially compromised (and probably in other ways as well) having access to America's most carefully held secrets.

Dude, did you do an M.D. with a clinical practicum in psychiatry over the weekend? I'm just curious as to how you are now qualified to diagnose the President-Elect. Also, WRT financial compromise, are you not at all concerned with the fact that the Saudi's, (yes, those very same fun loving guys that brought you Osama Bin Ladin, 9/11 and most likely Gulf War II) put tons of cash into your candidate?

Like I said before; Relax. The Donald isn't nearly as bad as the main stream media paints him. Breath deeply & drink heavily, maybe try a little weed. You'll get through this just fine big guy.

[B208]

Hillary Clinton's misdeeds pale in comparison to that sh*tshow.

You mean the war that Hillary Clinton voted in favour of?

Unlike the manchild - elect, I admit to reluctant support of the war at first too based on Bush's sell job...but then the truth started to come out.

Off course she voted in favour of it. She, just like the Bush family, is firmly in Saudi's pocket. The Saudis wanted Saddam gone. They got it. Next they want Iran gone, and if elected that is what Hillary would have delivered.

[Rockie]

Trump is worse, the mainstream media was being far more polite than where you get your news.

[B208]

Trump is worse, the mainstream media was being far more polite than where you get your news.

I think I'm going to call you 8088 from now on; You are so very easy to program.

[geodoc]

[Cat Driver]

Donald Trump has built an empire by building things.

What product or service have the Clinton's built or designed that they sold to make their hundreds of millions?

Better still what are they selling to get those enormous speaking fees?

[cdnpilot77]

Trump is worse, the mainstream media was being far more polite than where you get your news.

Yup, NYTimes, CNN, The above quoted Washington Post....they are all completely unbiased mainstream, media that provide strictly factual information. Fox News, nope they're just as corrupt as Hillary...I mean as an African war lord. Come on man, the rebel has more legitimacy now than these crimes syndicates

Cap'n Crunch

Hillary Clinton's misdeeds pale in comparison to that sh*tshow.

You are smarter than this...this is opinion, not fact. Funny how her foundation income dropped by more than 37% in the first week after the election...pay to play, that's legal, not at all grey....right?

[geodoc]

Donald Trump has built an empire by building things.

Actually, I think that it was other people that did the actual building. And a lot of them still seem to be waiting to get paid.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /85297274/

OK, OK ................... part of the Left Wing Media Conspiracy. How's about the WSJ then?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trum ... 1465504454







.

[Rockie]

OK, OK ................... part of the Left Wing Media Conspiracy. How's about the WSJ then?

How about Trump's character and behavior? Far from hiding it, he revels in it. He proudly puts his ignorance and every other despicable character trait on full display. You don't have to read or watch anything but him.