One might call my "bluster" having a modicum of perspective.
If one were a liar, perhaps, and needed to inflate a baseless claim into something that might be confused as a winning argument, or deflate a well-founded claim into something that looks more like--well, like what you typically have to offer.
So basically, your argument comes down to original classifying authority, and that if you want to be really technical about it, Clinton was unknowingly in violation of an obscure executive order.
This is what I mean when I say bluster. Anyone who can read can recognize that you've misrepresented my argument--or rather, my five distinct arguments (i.e., (1) Clinton's server included information classified at the time it was placed on the server; (2) Clinton's server included information that would have been recognized as classified by a person who cared about following the rules regarding classification; (3) The status of information as classified is not altered by its being marked, or not marked, as such; (4) Clinton knew that; and (5) The State Department can't declassify information classified by another agency.) You make no serious effort--who am I kidding? No effort, serious or otherwise--to address these arguments. You handwave away the first four and try to hide your dishonesty with a "so basically" that can't even "basically" get the one argument it does address right. You have to misrepresent it by adding in the unproved assertion that Clinton was unaware she was playing host to classified information and adding the adjective "obscure" to a fundamental element of the classification system in the United States (that Hillary expressly agreed to follow).
Who. Gives. A. Shit.
It's purely a technical argument (one might even say semantic) with no ethical implications whatsoever. You're sure living up to your tag.
As
I've pointed out before, the people arguing that the
only thing that matters is whether Clinton violated the criminal law are the ones taking a hyper-technical posture. You're projecting your own frailties onto me, Jack.
Your style is really great sometimes. "See here, here and here. Source: my ass."
You're being dishonest again. From the links I gave you, I further linked to or referenced the following sources:
- A letter from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and State Department regarding top secret information found last summer among Clinton's emails;
- A review by the CIA and NGA confirming the conclusion of that letter that such information was classified when sent;
- Another letter from the ICIG referring to other information found in Clinton's emails as having been derived from classified IC materials;
- An NDA relating to Sensitive Compartmented Information, signed by Clinton;
- An NDA relating to classified information generally, signed by Clinton;
- EO 13526.
Try this for once, Jack: respond to the argument
honestly, representing it
honestly; or don't post at all. No one in this thread is interested in continuing to discuss the Clinton email controversy, so the least you could do is not post about it unintelligently.
Not much of an attack when I stand by every one of those posts.
Even the ones that got you banned? Inquiring minds and all that.
EDIT:
Exactly which field of law do you currently practice in?
Civil, transactional work. Taxes, estates, real estate, business organizations.
Tweets from
@jameshohmann
@jameshohmann WaPo reporters were 44 mins into a phone interview w Trump abt his finances when asked about John Miller. The phone went silent, then dead.
@jameshohmann Trump's line went silent, then dead, this afternoon when WaPo asked: “Did you ever employ someone named John Miller as a spokesperson?"
@jameshohmann When WaPo reporters called back and reached Trump’s secretary, she said, “I heard you got disconnected. He can’t take the call now..."
Seems like Trump Tower does not have the classiest, most luxurious phone systems.
He should have just called "John" over and then lowered his tone and continued the interview.