E-mail 'scandal' spreads- Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Q99
Continued investigation has uncovered that Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have done much same thing as Hillary Clinton-


Namely, sent no classified e-mails, and received none, but received e-mails that were at the time unclassified but become so after the fact! Different servers, but still passing around future-to-be-classified stuff in e-mail.


Which, in truth, should be a non-story, but you know how it goes. Mountains out of molehills, not only is nothing likely to come from it, it's not like anything should come from it.

jaden101
Trolling TI thread then yeah?

Q99
Originally posted by jaden101
Trolling TI thread then yeah?

Well, he's not the only one who follows the non-scandal.


Really, I can't wait for the news to shut up about it. We still got zero data breaches, and now it's revealed to be bi-partisan, so that should hopefully cut into the political hackery on the subject.

Robtard
Wasn't Hillary cleared of wrongdoing a few days ago?

snowdragon
Originally posted by Q99
Well, he's not the only one who follows the non-scandal.


Really, I can't wait for the news to shut up about it. We still got zero data breaches, and now it's revealed to be bi-partisan, so that should hopefully cut into the political hackery on the subject.


Maybe except one of the other things thats flogged hillary in this debacle is that she used her own server. Thats not something either Powell or Rice has done.

However I'm an equal opportunity type of guy. If they did anything to break the law, prosecute them.

Q99
Originally posted by snowdragon
Maybe except one of the other things thats flogged hillary in this debacle is that she used her own server. Thats not something either Powell or Rice has done.

Sure, but that doesn't really matter much if there was nothing classified sent.



That's the real thing: None of them have broken the law.


Unless we want the law to be really stupid and start throwing generals and *multiple* secretaries of state in jail for not knowing whether something *will* become classified in the future.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Q99
Sure, but that doesn't really matter much if there was nothing classified sent.

Here is a an article from reuters that would make things easier to digest in regards to information Hillary had:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...or-should-know/

With the last release and the top secret information realize this. That is the highest classification of information our govt uses. There is no way what so ever that said information was not sensitive prior to that label.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class...e_United_States

Fully explains all the levels of classification and the type of information in each.

The only thing more hillarious about this particular incident is the support she still receives.




I said IF they did. Also its been shown time and again Hillary supporters don't care about this email debacle. You are clearly a Hillary fan, hence no matter what I provided to you it doesn't matter you justify past facts.

Hillary is the only SoS to date that had her own server, realistically all she had to do was have all her emails forwarded (totally automated.) It would have taken an adiministrator less then a minute to create that function. Then all of her emails would have been backed up.

The reality is the "classified in the future" is simply a red herring for Hillary. Since literally ALL 60k (not all those are work but we'll never know) were sent to her private server. She even had labels taken off (in her own words in an email) to make sure it wouldnt cause problems.

Bernie is coming on strong and one of the HUGE reasons is Hillary was deceptive with her emails and blamed dumb about it.

dadudemon
I'd like to point out that, from the beginning, I've stated that this shady and dishonest bullshit is not isolated to just Hillary.


Originally posted by dadudemon
So, please, enough with the apologetic bullshit regarding Hilary's dishonesty. Let's also not pretend that Hilary is the only person to be a slimey, shadey, lying, politician, who purposefully leaked and/or mishandled government information.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why was she even allowed a personal e-mail server to conduct State business? Can you explain that?

I mean, the reason is obvious...so she could do things that would be illegal for any other person. It's one of those..."everyone else has to follow the law but not special politician x" situations. Like I said, Hilary is not the only one like that..



I could have sworn I posted somewhere else that any person who does this should be barred from ever being able to hold a public office for the rest of their life. no expression


Dishonest and slimey practices are not limited to the Democratic party (that much should be obvious).

Q99
Originally posted by snowdragon

I said IF they did. Also its been shown time and again Hillary supporters don't care about this email debacle. You are clearly a Hillary fan, hence no matter what I provided to you it doesn't matter you justify past facts.


Now that doesn't follow.

'Being a Hillary fan' doesn't translate into ignoring evidence- and by that logic, anything you provided could be disregarded because you don't like her.


"You can't provide evidence for someone unless you're against them, you can't provide evidence against them unless they're for them," is ultimately a very pointless standard to hold to- especially for people who have not shown a history of disregarding evidence.

It's convenient to assume bias (factual bias, not just what side they prefer) of everyone who disagrees with you, but it's not the same as proving factual bias, and ultimately leads to no-one being able to prove anything.




It is your opinion that is the case, but even so, the actual investigators have yet to say that is the case and the factual information released so far does seem to solidly indicate that it was not classified at the time.



But, the thing is, you're still relying on your assumption of what will happen, not what has actually happened or been released by investigators.

Assuming evidence that proves your point will be released is not the same as having said evidence- and also points out a problem with your 'don't accept argument from defenders,' thing, namely, most defenders are saying the situation as it currently is, and you're still talking about the situation as you think it will develop.


Remember, the Department of Justice already went over things and declared they don't care. So those saying it's not anything important aren't simply holding their hands over their ears, they're looking what the actual Department of Justice has already said.

dadudemon
Let's also draw attention to something else going on, here:

Hillary and her staffers deleted the shit out of her activities. On purpose.


Let's look at these other two:







Hmm...something seems odd. Their e-mail history, while they were serving as Secretary of State, is archived and review-able? Where's Hillary's archives? Oh, right, she had it deleted.



I'd say that Powell and Rice's situation is a level 2 or 3. Hillary's is a level 9 (out of 10).


IMAO, this "news" article is just to take pressure of the bullshit Hillary did. It is a distraction tactic. It is not honest. And it is not a good parallel to Hillary's situation, either. If Powell or Rice deleted tons and tons of e-mails in a very suspicious fashion while attempting to run for public office, their asses would be held to the fire, too...probably 10x more so because the Libtards in America go apeshit over this stuff.

Q99
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd like to point out that, from the beginning, I've stated that this shady and dishonest bullshit is not isolated to just Hillary.



I could have sworn I posted somewhere else that any person who does this should be barred from ever being able to hold a public office for the rest of their life. no expression


Dishonest and slimey practices are not limited to the Democratic party (that much should be obvious).

Personally, I don't think it's dishonest or slimey- and Colin Powell especially has been a stand-up guy for most of his career.


This is still information being passed between cleared personal who have a reason to have that information, information that at-the-time is cleared to be passed, only risen to 'don't send via e-mail' level later.

Oh, and in all cases, even *that* information is generally going to, not coming from, the important persons in question.


In the end, in all cases, there was no leak, and rules have changed since then.


Who's being deceived? Who's being hurt? What's leaked? Why should we care if Colin Powell got information-that-will-be-classified-years-later via e-mail using a method he and current people no longer use? Why should we care if Hillary did?


Why's this a 3 with these two and a 9 with Hillary if there's no damage to anyone? What's a 10, if a 9 still involves no information leaking or any uncleared personal coming into contact with classified information?

Isn't that just a '1 to 10 on a scale of scandals that still involve no damage or broken laws or, in fact, anyone being mislead'? Because I'd think anything involving damage or information broken or something that's actually illegal? still outranks the lot of 'em.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Q99
Now that doesn't follow.

'Being a Hillary fan' doesn't translate into ignoring evidence- and by that logic, anything you provided could be disregarded because you don't like her.

Except I didn't write those articles, you can choose to disregard (you already have) because you simply want her to get elected and are naive apparently in regards to email servers and circumventing systems to prevent her emails being captured and stored.




I look at a chain of events and communication that occurs and then build up to a judgement, it is assumptive however that doesn't make it incorrect. Which is really no different then making assumptions about the type of president she would be based on what she is presenting now.................

Hillary hid her email server then lied about.

She wiped her server and even gave said contents to her attorney on a thumbdrive to hold.

During her time as SoS her foundation more then thrived it was immensely prosperous and she ran her money through canada to protect it (and look she hid emails and her server too) nothing suspicious to see here.

Like I said this email bit means very little to hillary supporters (ie you.) Just let the FBI do their work, since they have been doing this for awhile now.



I simply took the time to educate you on what others have done with top secret clearance(reuters article) and gave you the link to understand the types of clearance and the information involved.

I highlighted up above the big points for me, she lied about something that realistically didn't need to be covered up if there was nothing to hide. The only reason to use a private server and circumvent the govt email is to hide information and to control whats released.



I've never read that article nor have you shared it with me when I've asked.

At the end of the day you don't care about this issue other then to defend Hillary who has shown a serious character flaw and judgement.

Q99
Or to put it another way, comparing me vs Dadudemon, I take a much more pragmatic view-

"Did anything bad happen? Was anything bad *likely* to happen? If no, then friend or foe, I don't care that much."

(View also my opinion on Cruz's Canadian birth stuff- Is there any harm in allowing him? No? Then I don't care, he can run just fine, and oppose trying to press him on a technicality which may-or-may-not exist.)

Thus, on my scale, Hillary's like, a 2, and Colin and Rice are like a 1.

Dadudemon (and sorry if I get stuff wrong, this is admittedly speculation, just an impression) has more of an opinion on what he'd like the activity to be like, and if someone doesn't fit his image of a properly security-minded high ranking person, even when it doesn't actually involve a leak or breaking the rules-of-the-time, he holds it against it more. And the thing is, there's nothing wrong with that image and wanting people to follow it! I'd admit it's a plus, I just don't find it as important as what they do policy and decision wise.

Does that sound accurate/fair?

Surtur
So once again it seems it boils down to: it's not so bad, other politicians are shady too. Just like hey..at least Hilary lies less then the other guys. It'd sure be something if she didn't lie at all, but we take what we can get.

If there was legit wrong doing, go after these people as well. If there wasn't? Then meh.

Nobody has ever painted Hilary as the first politician to lie or be shady or be a flip flopper. She is all of those things, but yes definitely not the first.

Q99
Originally posted by Surtur
So once again it seems it boils down to: it's not so bad, other politicians are shady too. Just like hey..at least Hilary lies less then the other guys. It'd sure be something if she didn't lie at all, but we take what we can get.

If there was legit wrong doing, go after these people as well. If there wasn't? Then meh.

Nobody has ever painted Hilary as the first politician to lie or be shady or be a flip flopper. She is all of those things, but yes definitely not the first.


Pretty much my thoughts, yea.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by jaden101
Trolling TI thread then yeah?

What the baiter forgot to mention was there was a law change after Rice and Powell that made what they did legal and what Hilary did illegal.

Tzeentch
Originally posted by Q99
Really, I can't wait for the news to shut up about it. It's not even really news anymore. News entities still toss out the occasional article on it, sure, but those articles really aren't anything other than just click-bait for their republican demographics.

The general public never really gave a shit about "emailgate" to begin with. Now that she's been cleared in the various investigations on the matter, the chances of it ever becoming front-line news again strikes me as being fairly low.

Q99
Originally posted by Tzeentch
It's not even really news anymore. News entities still toss out the occasional article on it, sure, but those articles really aren't anything other than just click-bait for their republican demographics.

The general public never really gave a shit about "emailgate" to begin with. Now that she's been cleared in the various investigations on the matter, the chances of it ever becoming front-line news again strikes me as being fairly low.


And of course, the 24 hour news channels automatically cover it (how I noticed it).

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What the baiter forgot to mention was there was a law change after Rice and Powell that made what they did legal and what Hilary did illegal.

Time-Immemorial
Dodging Dodger Q9..

snowdragon
Originally posted by Tzeentch
The general public never really gave a shit about "emailgate" to begin with. Now that she's been cleared in the various investigations on the matter, the chances of it ever becoming front-line news again strikes me as being fairly low.


Lulz, she hasn't been cleared. Also ALOT of people were concerned about it just not her supporters.

Bernie is benefiting immensely from her deception.

Mindship
As I see it, anyone who's been doing a job long enough, especially if it's routine in some way, sooner or later "streamlines" what they're doing. Corners are cut; the letter of the job, so to speak, settles into the spirit of the job. I've seen this happen time and again in various professions (including my own). And now, given the informal Big-Brother prevalence of recording tech + the big cultural push for *transparency*, we as a society are being forced to face this common, all-too-human practice.

People not yet under the gun can still afford to sit back in hypocritical judgment of those who are, but I'd bet dollars to donuts they're quietly hoping that they/their occupation, at some point, won't be next in the spotlight. It doesn't have to be public service or be newsworthy. All it takes is a single, overseeing/micromanaging administrator, and the way you personally used to do your job is over, whether it hurt anyone or not, whether it was even a better way of doing the job or not.

Q99
Originally posted by snowdragon
Lulz, she hasn't been cleared. Also ALOT of people were concerned about it just not her supporters.

No investigations so far have come up with jack that's actually illegal, though. There's a lot of people who really, really want her to be guilty, and are thus making the most out of broadcasting everything... but you can't want something into being retroactively illegal.

You're putting the cart before the horse, to say the least.



He's benefiting from the negative coverage, but note how he thinks it's bunk and is not spending any effort on it, even though he'd benefit more.


This latest bit revealing, hey, this way of handling e-mails and the whole retro-classification being a thing that catches multiple people as it is common, being another nail in the coffin to the odds of anything going on.

Surtur
The thing is at this point Bernie doesn't need to spend any effort on it, it's getting plenty of coverage already. Why do it when the media is doing it for him?

Bardock42
It seems likely that it would be advantageous for Sanders to attack her on it, and run ads against her on the topic.

Surtur
Ah but if Bernie takes the high road he can let the media do the work for him while having not actually stooped low enough to attack her.

Bardock42
Well, like I said, the consensus seems to be that Sanders is hurting his campaign by not using this, I can see your POV, it just doesn't seem to be what most pundits think is the case.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Surtur
Ah but if Bernie takes the high road he can let the media do the work for him while having not actually stooped low enough to attack her. Seems like a smart plan.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, like I said, the consensus seems to be that Sanders is hurting his campaign by not using this, I can see your POV, it just doesn't seem to be what most pundits think is the case.

I think he'd hurt himself either way then. I think the best thing he can do is not seem like every other politician out there.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Q99
No investigations so far have come up with jack that's actually illegal, though. There's a lot of people who really, really want her to be guilty, and are thus making the most out of broadcasting everything... but you can't want something into being retroactively illegal.


The FBI doesn't discuss ongoing investigations and more emails are yet to be released. Congratulations you can use the newest media bites on the retroactively classifying information. There's alot of people that want to see a rule maker actually have to follow the rules, the same as the rest of us.




I've watched all his debates and I've NEVER heard him say that, not once. That's called a false narrative aka a lie you seem to perpetrate. Bernie has said he wants to focus on policy discussions.



Yeah of course if you end up with over a thousand emails being retro-classified from your private server that doesn't raise any flags.

"Did anything bad happen? Was anything bad *likely* to happen? If no, then friend or foe, I don't care that much."

That statement sums you up perfectly, except you forgot to add that in this particular incident you do really care about the outcome for Hillary. Thats your narrative, it is what it is.

I'm also pretty positive with that kind of an attitude its going to be hard to be in any position of authority.

Time-Immemorial
I'm going to laugh my ass off when she gets indicted. I hope Q9 never comes back to the forum after that in shame.

Adam_PoE

Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm going to laugh my ass off when she gets indicted. I hope Q9 never comes back to the forum after that in shame.


There's still the issue that there's no sign of that happening. If it did happen, then it'd be due to information as-yet-released, so there's no shame in that (and the same, btw, can be said of any candidate- to my knowledge, none of them have done anything illegal that'd get them indicted). You're merely 'sure' she's guilty because you dislike her... and you were wrong all the prior times you said that on this and other topics, so your opinion is not much of a prediction.


And hey, you stick around even after you've been caught outright lying a bunch of times. It doesn't seem to bother you. If I was wrong, then it'd simply be being wrong. Much less embarrassing.




Well, exactly. You're insisting she's guilty, when really, the FBI isn't saying jack, the departments that have already investigated have given an all clear, and what's left is just speculation.

Do you have an inside source with the FBI? If not, then you've got no more information than I, and the released information does not lend itself to your conclusions.



The retroactive thing has been known for months, and I'd hope it'd apply to everyone- I wouldn't want to see some lowly staffer get in trouble for sending something that gets classified a couple years later any more than I would a high ranking person.

Bardock42
Seems like Sanders is on top of it, telling misbehaving supporters to follow his lead and not go over the line, people who do these things should be called out and not tolerated. On the other hand the media narrative that Sanders supporters are mainly young white men is just not true. In fact Sanders has more support among young women than Clinton, and the majority of his millennial support being women.

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-bro-is-a-myth/

At any rate, I do agree with you that Clinton gets viewed much more negatively than her policies and track record deserves, and I also agree that this is likely in large part down to her being a woman (and to some degree with her being in the Republican crosshairs for decades for fighting them).

Q99
Originally posted by Bardock42
Seems like Sanders is on top of it, telling misbehaving supporters to follow his lead and not go over the line, people who do these things should be called out and not tolerated. On the other hand the media narrative that Sanders supporters are mainly young white men is just not true. In fact Sanders has more support among young women than Clinton, and the majority of his millennial support being women.

Agreed, Sanders himself has been handling it well. Having young supporters can be a problem, but he's keeping on top of it.






The last name is certainly no small part of it smile

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Q99
There's still the issue that there's no sign of that happening. If it did happen, then it'd be due to information as-yet-released, so there's no shame in that (and the same, btw, can be said of any candidate- to my knowledge, none of them have done anything illegal that'd get them indicted). You're merely 'sure' she's guilty because you dislike her... and you were wrong all the prior times you said that on this and other topics, so your opinion is not much of a prediction.


And hey, you stick around even after you've been caught outright lying a bunch of times. It doesn't seem to bother you. If I was wrong, then it'd simply be being wrong. Much less embarrassing.




Well, exactly. You're insisting she's guilty, when really, the FBI isn't saying jack, the departments that have already investigated have given an all clear, and what's left is just speculation.

Do you have an inside source with the FBI? If not, then you've got no more information than I, and the released information does not lend itself to your conclusions.



The retroactive thing has been known for months, and I'd hope it'd apply to everyone- I wouldn't want to see some lowly staffer get in trouble for sending something that gets classified a couple years later any more than I would a high ranking person.

It won't just mean that you been wrong, it will mean you been downplaying and slanting everything.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It won't just mean that you been wrong, it will mean you been downplaying and slanting everything.

I don't think that's what it means. If she were to be found guilty of something it would means that Q99 was wrong, either because new information surfaced or they misinterpreted or missed information that is already evident, but you couldn't claim that they have been downplaying or slanting really, not that that would stop you, of course.

Time-Immemorial
Are you being slow? She broke the law. She is currently under federal investigation by the FBI whom which 95% chance will recommend indictment.

That's all there is too it.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Are you being slow? She broke the law. She is currently under federal investigation by the FBI whom which 95% chance will recommend indictment.

That's all there is too it.

Well the 95% thing...I've just not seen anything indicating that to be accurate...

Q99
Oh yea, Time, snow- what do I get if she doesn't get indicted?

You two are rather insistent, and Time wants me to leave. Would one or both of you be willing to put up or shut up, and agree to similar consequences if she's still in the clear past a certain deadline? Especially Time.




But note- I support Hillary because I think she's done nothing all that bad. I don't think that because I support her she should get a blank check if she actually did anything bad.

If she actually did something that caused a major breach, that'd throw qualifications into question, but I am not going to assume she did so without evidence. Got it? I'm judging her as my current understanding of the facts are, just as I am for the other candidates.

In no cases is this unlimited leeway to act as they want, that's just the conclusion you've come to, and "only goes by what she's actually shown to have done," is not exactly strong evidence that I would provide unlimited leeway.



Yet it's turning out a lot of our people in positions of authority had the exact same issue, and it didn't involve databreach.

Colin Powell didn't do a bad job at all, and this doesn't give me a sign that his performance was retroactively worse. Condoleezza Rice is someone I'm not fan of, and yet, I again don't think this affects my opinion of her performance.

I'm for holding everyone to the same standard and all, but 'retroactive classification' seems to be hitting people pretty broadly, and never sounded all that suspicious to start with.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.