7 ms·

Why would you assume that? Nuclear bombing and not caring about civilians is not normal behavior. The Clinton emails were supposed to be private, yet never had

Why would you assume that? Nuclear bombing and not caring about civilians is not normal behavior. The Clinton emails were supposed to be private, yet never had anything close to that type of behavior.

dmix 10y ago
There were a number of emails that alluded to "let's say no more and discus important stuff on other more secure channels". If I'm not mistaken. They were savvy enough not to put anything damming down in writing. That's one of the reasons they were motivated to use private email. Because they were fully aware it was one FOIA away from being a public forum. But at the same time, all of the important stuff was via other channels. There was hardly any direct work stuff at all in those emails. Mostly just her foundation and campaign conversations.
- wfunction 10y ago
  You've still provided zero evidence that they would have had interest in nuking anyone.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  That's a feature of modern American life. I would guess that easily 60% of large company CEOs, Mayors, Governors, etc either don't use email or at all or limit its use to trivial matters. Since 2006 when the courts changed their rules, any email sent for official or business purposes, with the except of client-attorney email is potentially postcard. Nothing important to a company should be in there.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  There is no evidence that Clinton used private email in order to skirt FOIA.
  - 13years 10y ago
    Apparently there is: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160623/09170034795/emails-show-hillary-clintons-email-server-was-massive-security-headache-set-up-to-route-around-foia-requests.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160623/09170034795/email...
    - lern_too_spel 10y ago
      There is one email in that blog post that mentions FOIA requests, and there is no response to it from Clinton saying that it's why she won't use her state.gov email address. We already know why she used her own private email server — to use her Blackberry. This has been repeatedly established by the inquiries and the FBI investigation. We even have an email to Powell in 2009, well before any of the emails in that blog post, that shows her reason. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324
      - 13years 10y ago
        Yet the state dept was willing to issue her an approved Blackberry which she declined. Evidence exists to support this was intentional to hide information. Evidence doesn't equal proven. Granted it is not proven, but saying there exists no evidence doesn't seem to be accurate.
        lern_too_spel 10y ago
        > Yet the state dept was willing to issue her an approved Blackberry which she declined. That is exactly backwards. She requested a Blackberry-like device similar to the one given to Obama but was denied. https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/emails-show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-request-for-secure-smartphone/ https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/emails-s... > Evidence exists to support this was intentional to hide information. No such evidence exists, which is why all inquiries and investigations came to the conclusion I stated above.
        13years 10y ago
turar 10y ago
Well at least one US president actually did nuke civilians, on purpose, twice, instead of merely talking about it. Another fire bombed them. And that's even before Vietnam, Laos, Iraq, or drone assassinations where any civilian can just be labeled as non-civilian by the government without much proof or oversight.
- int_19h 10y ago
  That was in the middle of something that was referred to (at that time already, by the participants themselves!) as "total war".
  - pikzen 10y ago
    That doesn't change the fact that it was a crime, even at the time and considering the conditions.
    - gizmo686 10y ago
      By what legal standard was it a crime? Keep in mind, that it has to be a standard that was at force at the time of the attack; and that the nuclear bombings were not even the deadliest air raids during the war.
      - turar 10y ago
        > Keep in mind, that it has to be a standard that was at force at the time of the attack Does that mean that Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were just a farce?
        gizmo686 10y ago
        "[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas." - US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone [0] "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." - US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 [1] "No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed." - United Nations Universal Declaration of human rights. Article 11 [2] [0] http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_webera.html http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_webera.html [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9 [2] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
tyingq 10y ago
>Why would you assume that? Nuclear bombing and not caring about civilians is not normal behavior. Did not say, or imply that they were normal behavior. I said that other presidents (not all other, some other) have probably said similarly disturbing things. >The Clinton emails were supposed to be private, yet never had anything close to that type of behavior. Clinton wasn't who I had in mind, but I suspect private, verbal conversations would be more revealing than emails.

dmix 10y ago

There were a number of emails that alluded to "let's say no more and discus important stuff on other more secure channels". If I'm not mistaken. They were savvy enough not to put anything damming down in writing. That's one of the reasons they were motivated to use private email. Because they were fully aware it was one FOIA away from being a public forum. But at the same time, all of the important stuff was via other channels. There was hardly any direct work stuff at all in those emails. Mostly just her foundation and campaign conversations.

wfunction 10y ago
You've still provided zero evidence that they would have had interest in nuking anyone.
Spooky23 10y ago
That's a feature of modern American life. I would guess that easily 60% of large company CEOs, Mayors, Governors, etc either don't use email or at all or limit its use to trivial matters. Since 2006 when the courts changed their rules, any email sent for official or business purposes, with the except of client-attorney email is potentially postcard. Nothing important to a company should be in there.
lern_too_spel 10y ago
There is no evidence that Clinton used private email in order to skirt FOIA.
- 13years 10y ago
  Apparently there is: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160623/09170034795/emails-show-hillary-clintons-email-server-was-massive-security-headache-set-up-to-route-around-foia-requests.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160623/09170034795/email...
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    There is one email in that blog post that mentions FOIA requests, and there is no response to it from Clinton saying that it's why she won't use her state.gov email address. We already know why she used her own private email server — to use her Blackberry. This has been repeatedly established by the inquiries and the FBI investigation. We even have an email to Powell in 2009, well before any of the emails in that blog post, that shows her reason. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324
    - 13years 10y ago
      Yet the state dept was willing to issue her an approved Blackberry which she declined. Evidence exists to support this was intentional to hide information. Evidence doesn't equal proven. Granted it is not proven, but saying there exists no evidence doesn't seem to be accurate.
      - lern_too_spel 10y ago
        > Yet the state dept was willing to issue her an approved Blackberry which she declined. That is exactly backwards. She requested a Blackberry-like device similar to the one given to Obama but was denied. https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/emails-show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-request-for-secure-smartphone/ https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/emails-s... > Evidence exists to support this was intentional to hide information. No such evidence exists, which is why all inquiries and investigations came to the conclusion I stated above.
        13years 10y ago

turar 10y ago

Well at least one US president actually did nuke civilians, on purpose, twice, instead of merely talking about it. Another fire bombed them. And that's even before Vietnam, Laos, Iraq, or drone assassinations where any civilian can just be labeled as non-civilian by the government without much proof or oversight.

int_19h 10y ago
That was in the middle of something that was referred to (at that time already, by the participants themselves!) as "total war".
- pikzen 10y ago
  That doesn't change the fact that it was a crime, even at the time and considering the conditions.
  - gizmo686 10y ago
    By what legal standard was it a crime? Keep in mind, that it has to be a standard that was at force at the time of the attack; and that the nuclear bombings were not even the deadliest air raids during the war.
    - turar 10y ago
      > Keep in mind, that it has to be a standard that was at force at the time of the attack Does that mean that Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were just a farce?
      - gizmo686 10y ago
        "[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas." - US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone [0] "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." - US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 [1] "No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed." - United Nations Universal Declaration of human rights. Article 11 [2] [0] http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_webera.html http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_webera.html [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9 [2] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

tyingq 10y ago

>Why would you assume that? Nuclear bombing and not caring about civilians is not normal behavior. Did not say, or imply that they were normal behavior. I said that other presidents (not all other, some other) have probably said similarly disturbing things. >The Clinton emails were supposed to be private, yet never had anything close to that type of behavior. Clinton wasn't who I had in mind, but I suspect private, verbal conversations would be more revealing than emails.