China was hacking Hillary Clinton's e-mails in real time.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

That was Colin Powell and it only show he intended to keep his communications with his friends private.

You keep saying that while ignoring he literally said he used it for business communication too, even with foreign leaders.

Yes, what his intent was and what he did are two separate things.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

That was Colin Powell and it only show he intended to keep his communications with his friends private.

You keep saying that while ignoring he literally said he used it for business communication too, even with foreign leaders.

Yes, what his intent was and what he did are two separate things.

Again, he literally said that he did so to keep his communication off of the servers the law and policy dictate be used.

You don't have to read into that, or interpret that, it is said.... Unlike the language of intent in the law at question.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Again, he literally said that he did so to keep his communication off of the servers the law and policy dictate be used.

In regards to his friends, yes. He did not say that about official business.

You don't have to read into that, or interpret that, it is said.... Unlike the language of intent in the law at question.

Where did he say he did it to keep his official stuff off of the servers?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Again, he literally said that he did so to keep his communication off of the servers the law and policy dictate be used.

In regards to his friends, yes. He did not say that about official business.

You don't have to read into that, or interpret that, it is said.... Unlike the language of intent in the law at question.

Where did he say he did it to keep his official stuff off of the servers?

What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

Literally in the same paragraph.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Again, he literally said that he did so to keep his communication off of the servers the law and policy dictate be used.

In regards to his friends, yes. He did not say that about official business.

You don't have to read into that, or interpret that, it is said.... Unlike the language of intent in the law at question.

Where did he say he did it to keep his official stuff off of the servers?

What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

Literally in the same paragraph.

Ya, it does not say he did it with the intent to keep his official stuff off the server. Only that he wanted to communicate with friends without going through the SD server.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Again, he literally said that he did so to keep his communication off of the servers the law and policy dictate be used.

In regards to his friends, yes. He did not say that about official business.

You don't have to read into that, or interpret that, it is said.... Unlike the language of intent in the law at question.

Where did he say he did it to keep his official stuff off of the servers?

What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

Literally in the same paragraph.

Ya, it does not say he did it with the intent to keep his official stuff off the server. Only that he wanted to communicate with friends without going through the SD server.

He then continues to say he even uses it to conduct business with foreign leaders and senior folks in the department on their personal emails too.

I've shown you examples of his clear directive spelled out by him.

But again, it's a moot point seeing as intent is no where in the wording of the law we're discussing.

Funny how you're willing to read into things that are not there, and also motivated to ignore things that are spelled out.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

That was Colin Powell and it only show he intended to keep his communications with his friends private.

You keep saying that while ignoring he literally said he used it for business communication too, even with foreign leaders.

Yes, what his intent was and what he did are two separate things.

OMG if Hillarys email were all going directly to China like she CC d them .

WHO THE EFF CARES ABOUT INTENT?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

He then continues to say he even uses it to conduct business with foreign leaders and senior folks in the department on their personal emails too.

Yes, but he does not say what you claim.

But again, it's a moot point seeing as intent is no where in the wording of the law we're discussing.

It's moot because Powell has nothing to do with the topic. He was brought in to prove a point that no one seems able to make.

Again, the law does not state anything about intent, except for the lines about "willingly and knowingly". That is true.

The problem arises in it's application. Without intent, that law could be used to try just about anyone with a clearance, considering how government is ran and it;s classification policies.

That is why the running policy within the DoJ for years has been a matter of having to have intent to violate the law. That is why there are no cases to refer to, except one from the mid 1900's and that was dismissed, if I am not mistaken.

Funny how you're willing to read into things that are not there, and also motivated to ignore things that are spelled out.

I don't care about your petty bull#.

It is not my burden to live up to the expectations of the ignorant.

Hell, you couldn't even read what Powell said without having to take it out of context just to fit your narrative.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

That was Colin Powell and it only show he intended to keep his communications with his friends private.

You keep saying that while ignoring he literally said he used it for business communication too, even with foreign leaders.

Yes, what his intent was and what he did are two separate things.

OMG if Hillarys email were all going directly to China like she CC d them .

WHO THE EFF CARES ABOUT INTENT?

If she CC'd China in her emails, that would show clear intent.

You still don't get this, do you?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

That was Colin Powell and it only show he intended to keep his communications with his friends private.

You keep saying that while ignoring he literally said he used it for business communication too, even with foreign leaders.

Yes, what his intent was and what he did are two separate things.

OMG if Hillarys email were all going directly to China like she CC d them .

WHO THE EFF CARES ABOUT INTENT?

If she CC'd China in her emails, that would show clear intent.

You still don't get this, do you?

LOL ..

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

He plead guilty because he did it. He had no intent of wrongdoing, just like Hillary, he had zero intent to do anything bad with them according to your source. Intent is nowhere in the law, please cite it.

I cannot. Intent is not specified in the law, which is the problem and why is have not been perused, except in cases where intent can be proven.

So intent has nothing to do with it. The sailor had zero intent to do anything wrong, still prosecuted.

a reply to: introvert

I don't care about your petty bull#.

It is not my burden to live up to the expectations of the ignorant.

Hell, you couldn't even read what Powell said without having to take it out of context just to fit your narrative.

Again with the personal attacks, just because we view a topic differently.

You may view people wanting to hold accountability and transparency for those in office as petty, but that is your opinion.

I used Powell in this instance because I get tired of the "blame Hillary" for everything as much as the next person. It deludes the argument and keeps the partisan lines drawn in the sand so that we will never get any progress in regards to holding politicians accountable.

We're obviously not going to change each other's minds. Sorry we all wasted your mental superiority and time, good day sir.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

That was Colin Powell and it only show he intended to keep his communications with his friends private.

You keep saying that while ignoring he literally said he used it for business communication too, even with foreign leaders.

Yes, what his intent was and what he did are two separate things.

OMG if Hillarys email were all going directly to China like she CC d them .

WHO THE EFF CARES ABOUT INTENT?

If she CC'd China in her emails, that would show clear intent.

You still don't get this, do you?

Actually it would not as that would be a completely different crime.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

He plead guilty because he did it. He had no intent of wrongdoing, just like Hillary, he had zero intent to do anything bad with them according to your source. Intent is nowhere in the law, please cite it.

I cannot. Intent is not specified in the law, which is the problem and why is have not been perused, except in cases where intent can be proven.

So intent has nothing to do with it. The sailor had zero intent to do anything wrong, still prosecuted.

Intent had a lot to do with it.

The sailor admitted he intended to break the law by taking pictures and sharing them with people.

And so he plead guilty.

That is not applicable to the Hillary case whatsoever.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Again with the personal attacks, just because we view a topic differently.

Where did I say it was because we hold different views?

I said what I said because it appears you are, literally, having comprehension issues, or you are choosing to be willfully ignorant.

Just like you did with Powell, you are putting words in my mouth to fit your agenda.

You may view people wanting to hold accountability and transparency for those in office as petty, but that is your opinion.

Your actions are petty, not your....wait for it...intent. Funny though. You are trying to discredit my posts by implying I "view people wanting to hold accountability and transparency for those in office as petty".

I've not said any such thing and it appears you are trying to use an appeal to emotion.

I used Powell in this instance because I get tired of the "blame Hillary" for everything as much as the next person. It deludes the argument and keeps the partisan lines drawn in the sand so that we will never get any progress in regards to holding politicians accountable.

So you used another example, that does not apply, because you are tired?

Ok. I don't care and that is illogical.

We're obviously not going to change each other's minds.

I don't want you to change your mind. I want you to present the facts honestly and within context. You have not done so.

Sorry we all wasted your mental superiority and time, good day sir.

What? Again, I've not said anything of the sort.

Are you trying to hold your inferiority complex against me?

That is some poor form.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

That was Colin Powell and it only show he intended to keep his communications with his friends private.

You keep saying that while ignoring he literally said he used it for business communication too, even with foreign leaders.

Yes, what his intent was and what he did are two separate things.

OMG if Hillarys email were all going directly to China like she CC d them .

WHO THE EFF CARES ABOUT INTENT?

If she CC'd China in her emails, that would show clear intent.

You still don't get this, do you?

Actually it would not as that would be a completely different crime.

Yes, it's a different crime, but the act itself would show intent to give info to China, correct?

Why else would she CC them on the emails?

a reply to: introvert

What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

How could I take something that is spelled in black and white out of context?

You keep on talking about intent when it isn't in the law, and call people ignorant and imply reading comprehension skills when someone says something you don't like.

It's just a discussion to me, sorry for getting you worked up enough to call people petty, ignorant, blast reading skills, so on and so forth.

Go have some hot tea and get some fresh air bud, looks like ya need it.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

He plead guilty because he did it. He had no intent of wrongdoing, just like Hillary, he had zero intent to do anything bad with them according to your source. Intent is nowhere in the law, please cite it.

I cannot. Intent is not specified in the law, which is the problem and why is have not been perused, except in cases where intent can be proven.

So intent has nothing to do with it. The sailor had zero intent to do anything wrong, still prosecuted.

The sailor admitted he intended to break the law by taking pictures and sharing them with people.

Please show me the quote where the sailor claims he intended to break the law.

a reply to: introvert

The intent occurred when she used a private server to HIDE all of her communication. That is intent under the law. WTF are you even arguing?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

How could I take something that is spelled in black and white out of context?

Because you choose to. He did not say what you claimed.

Read what you posted and read what he said.

You keep on talking about intent when it isn't in the law,

Because it is important to how it is prosecuted or applied. Did you not listen to Comey and the other legal experts that confirmed what he said on the matter?

and call people ignorant and imply reading comprehension skills when someone says something you don't like.

I call people ignorant and question the comprehension skills when people such as yourself have to put words in people's mouths, when the words in black and white do not say what you assert.

It's just a discussion to me, sorry for getting you worked up enough to call people petty, ignorant, blast reading skills, so on and so forth. Go have some hot tea and get some fresh air bud, looks like ya need it.

Worked up? Do you just make things up for the sake of it?

I call people petty, ignorant and question reading skills because they show the signs of being as much and their posts are proof of it.

For example, you took Powell's words out-of-context and claimed he said something he did not. You choose to do that out of your own ignorance, or whatever other issue you have, and me pointing that out is not because I'm worked up.

It's because your ignorant, dishonest, whatever.

That is your burden to bear, not mine.