ILA's "Hillary's email lies debunked once and for all"

Jarod said:
I've explained this several times in the last few weeks.

Originally I thought it was a great idea, however as it is enforced it does not work.

The "rules" have been used to prevent me from making relevant analogies based on claims that they are off topic.

So, when I would make an argument such as... "That would be as if you..." or "In the past you felt differently when you claimed..." it was erased by the moderators.

I hated when that happened and felt censored from valid and relevant argument, they were using the rules to avoid open discussion. They were using the rules to shut down dissent and claim victory. So, While I dislike the name calling and flame wars, I put up with them and avoid APP.
Click to expand...

If the analogy is relevant, then how can it be off topic??
Can you give an example?
 
Jarod said:
Yes, I considered that, and looked at the possibility, but I determined that my posts were not diverting or obfuscating, they were directly related to the topic.
Click to expand...

You just made the mistake of "debating" a whiny crybaby who reported your use of analogy as "going off topic" in order to shut down your line of reasoning.
 
Jarod said:
So, using your logic, every email Secretary Clinton ever received is required to be treated as classified because if it is ever later classified it will be determined to have always been classified?

Sorry, you cant enforce an ex post facto law in criminal court.
Click to expand...

no. the latter classifications aren't the same as "presumed classified" when originated. as sec of State she can classify anything she sees that is sensitive.

you should please do some research on this -here is a decent source -WAPO which is pretty friendly to Hillary..

How did ‘top secret’ emails end up on Hillary Clinton’s server?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/04/how-did-top-secret-emails-end-up-on-hillary-clintons-server/
 
Jarod said:
That's the point, it was not off topic, they simply used that as an excuse to erase my comments from the thread.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't off topic it would not have been erased.

BTW how do you explain your most recent foray into APP to join in a debate? It was only a couple of weeks ago
 
NOVA said:
<snip>

Richard Armitage CONFESSED to outing Plame's name to Novak and even told Bob Woodward Plame's identity three weeks before talking to Novak.....when Novak told
Rove he was going public with an article, it was Rove that confirmed what Novak already knew....and in the end, NOBODY was 'charged' with outing Plame's identity....
Rove testified to the grand jury that he had heard from Libby that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Rove testified that Libby told him that he heard the information from journalists.
Rove's lawyer asserted that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA."

Seems it fairly common knowledge by then.

Nice try at diversion though.

And you keep whining republicans, republicans, republicans, republicans,.....its the FBI and Obama State Dept, investigating, not Republicans....
Click to expand...

So let's get this straight. Armitrage was the Deputy Secretary of State, he admitted that he leaked confidential information, and escaped any repercussions. And you think that's nothing. What else did he leak?

That leak destroyed Plame's career. And all you can say is the equivalent of "so what."
 
christiefan915 said:
So let's get this straight. Armitrage was the Deputy Secretary of State, he admitted that he leaked confidential information, and escaped any repercussions. And you think that's nothing. What else did he leak?

That leak destroyed Plame's career. And all you can say is the equivalent of "so what."
Click to expand...

but the left didn't want Armitrage.....they wanted Rove, settled for Libby......neither of which did anything........
 
christiefan915 said:
Stop whining about Libby, he was just a sop. bush pardoned him almost immediately.
Click to expand...

They had the guilty party confess, Armitrage.....after that it was a typical witch-hunt, and in the end, got nobody......

Libby for lying.....a scapegoat so the prosecutor could save face.....
 
christiefan915 said:
So let's get this straight. Armitrage was the Deputy Secretary of State, he admitted that he leaked confidential information, and escaped any repercussions. And you think that's nothing. What else did he leak?

That leak destroyed Plame's career. And all you can say is the equivalent of "so what."
Click to expand...

What about Libby, caught in the witch-hunt.....wasn't his career destroyed ?
======================================

WOW....tell us, tell us.....who else did he leak ?

in an October 27, 2005, appearance on Larry King Live, Bob Woodward commented: "They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that [former ambassador] Joe Wilson's wife [Plame] was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone, and there was just some embarrassment."[192]

In an appearance the next night, October 28, 2005, on Hardball, Andrea Mitchell was quoted as saying: "I happen to have been told that the actual damage assessment as to whether people were put in jeopardy on this case did not indicate that there was real damage in this specific instance."[193]

Following Mitchell's appearance on Hardball, on October 29, 2005, The Washington Post's Dafna Linzer reported that no formal damage assessment had yet been conducted by the CIA "as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted." Linzer writes: "There is no indication, according to current and former intelligence officials, that the most dire of consequences—the risk of anyone's life—resulted from her outing.

On November 12, 2010, The Washington Post published a letter to the editor written by R.E. Pound. According to the Post, Pound served in the CIA from 1976 to 2009. Pound writes, "I was at one point charged with looking into possible damage in one location caused by Valerie Plame's outing. There was none. ... It was wrong to expose Plame. It was ludicrous for her to claim that the exposure forced an end to her career in intelligence."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top