CEOExpress Blogger Private Label
 CEOExpress Home


 Total visits to this poll: 21884

This icon appears on your homepage
when there are new posts.

      Search Messages:           
 
AllThis Forum

Do you think that the Trump Tax plan will help the middle class?

Yes
No
I have no idea



Forum View Preference: Basic | AdvancedOpen Forums/Previous Polls | Suggest a Poll
See All Messages

1-16 of 16

1. B Hoskins CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/4/2017 12:48:34 PM)
     Message ID #294720

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294719 )  Back To All Messages

Presumption of innocence? You can't have it one way and then not have it apply the other way.

You should presume Clinton innocent until proven guilty. You should do the same for Trump. Similarly, this should be the presumption for all those accused of sexual impropriety who have not been tried and convicted. Those who have ADMITTED wrongdoing, well, they're impacting their own right to presumption of innocence.

But you say that there should be proof of wrong? The FBI presented proof of wrong... then the FBI suggested that a reasonable DA would not prosecute. Whether that is the FBI's right or role to weigh in on that decision is up for debate, but the FBI clearly found wrong. What was not done was taking the next step for a trial and an ultimately binding finding.

But, back to the original statement, if you want HRC presumed innocent, you should concede DT gets the same presumption, as painful as either or both may be.

2. D Robb
     (12/4/2017 2:51:18 PM)
     Message ID #294721

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294720 )  Back To All Messages

No, you are comparing onions and apples. Your I'll wants a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton. trump, Moore, Lauer, Cosby, etc, have multiple credible women charging them with sexual assault. They will never see the inside of a court, but public opinion has taken the word of the women. trump is a self-admitted sexual predator.

3. D Robb
     (12/4/2017 1:13:20 PM)
     Message ID #294722

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294720 )  Back To All Messages

Petraeus committed crimes and lied about it to the FBI. He personally, knowingly gave TS material to someone not authorized to have it. He pleaded guilty and was given a slap on the wrist.

4. D Robb
     (12/4/2017 1:03:32 PM)
     Message ID #294723

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294720 )  Back To All Messages

The FBI found no evidence that Secretary Clinton intended to provide classified material to anyone not authorized to have it. Petraeus clearly intended to do that and then lied in an attempt to cover his crime.

5. B Hoskins CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/4/2017 1:00:47 PM)
     Message ID #294740

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294723 )  Back To All Messages

Your knowledge of criminal law is showing. Intent is not required to be guilty of negligence.

6. D Robb
     (12/4/2017 6:33:02 PM)
     Message ID #294763

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294740 )  Back To All Messages

You seem to have no ability to do critical thinking. I will try to type slow. There was clear intent by General Petraeus to violate the law. He knowingly passed documents containing TS intelligence to his mistress who had no need to know, and was not authorized to have them. In the opinion of the FBI Secretary Clinton had no intent to provide classified documents to anyone not authorized to have them, and there was no evidence that her actions resulted in compromising the low level documents she had on her server.

7. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/4/2017 6:31:44 PM)
     Message ID #294768

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294763 )  Back To All Messages

You try to belittle everyone you respond to in a sad attempt to lift yourself to their level.

You are the mouse that tried to roar...and failed.

8. D Robb
     (12/5/2017 9:25:47 AM)
     Message ID #294769

This message is in response to Robert Fahrbach ( message id #294768 )  Back To All Messages

You complete inability to post anything factual or meaningful on any subject is what reduces you to attacking other posters. You are a pathetic imitation of your bigoted, misogynic, bone spur, little hands hero. trump and moore, has the GOP ever been lower, can the GOP ever get lower?

9. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 11:14:55 AM)
     Message ID #294773

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294769 )  Back To All Messages

...I asked you nicely to stop proving all my points... you're spoiling the fun.

10. B Hoskins CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 9:36:24 AM)
     Message ID #294775

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294763 )  Back To All Messages

Please read slowly

Comey's report:

"there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail.."
"None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail." "..even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." "We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

Earlier drafts of Comey memos indicated his classification of her actions as grossly negligent.

Gross negligence - n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil.

Note the definition doesn't require intent. Reckless carelessness would fit within the definition.

There is a standard of what other reasonable persons would do in the same situation. She didn't meet that standard, as clearly stated. She was negligent, and grossly negligent.

So, notwithstanding your (ill-informed) statement that there was no evidence that her actions resulted in compromising the documents she had on her server. You also suggested that her documents were low level... implying that all her emails were low level. That also is ill-informed, and actually false.

My critical thinking would lead me to conclude that based on the empirical evidence you have freely provided on a regular and continuous basis, your ability to think critically is severely impaired.

If your thinking were critical, you would be open to the contention that sometimes you're right, and sometimes you're wrong. We all are. However, I've yet to see you admit you've been wrong on anything. I'm not quite sure (actually I'm pretty sure) you belittle anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with you. How sad.

In my own critical thinking, I can learn much when someone challenges my statements with logical and factual statements. It calls me to re-think and often change conclusions to fit new or more accurate info.

11. D Robb
     (12/5/2017 12:29:24 PM)
     Message ID #294776

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294775 )  Back To All Messages

Right. General Petraeus committed worse and lied to the FBI about it, and got a slap on the wrist. That is the standard we are dealing with. Get over it.

12. D Robb
     (12/5/2017 12:13:05 PM)
     Message ID #294777

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294775 )  Back To All Messages

Please read: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/23/timeline-general-david-petraeus-paula-broadwell-jill-kelley/26245095/
• October 2012: After an investigation, FBI agents confront Petraeus in his office. Petraeus denies sharing classified information.
Nov. 9, 2012: Petraeus resigns from the CIA after President Obama is told the day before about the affair and the FBI investigation. Petraeus signs a form saying he has no classified material.
• April 2013: FBI seizes eight binders of classified material in a search of Petraeus' Arlington, Va., home, where he had kept them in the unlocked drawer of a desk.
• March 3, 2015: Petraeus reaches a deal with federal prosecutors to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified materials.
• April 23, 2015: Petraeus pleaded guilty in federal court in Charlotte, N.C.

13. B Hoskins CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 9:47:26 AM)
     Message ID #294779

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294777 )  Back To All Messages

Read more slowly next time..

I don't care about what they've found out with Petraus. They're doing what they're going to do, and it's not in my hands.

You said there was no evidence against HRC. I simply provided the facts. Whether they do anything with it or about it is way out of my hands. Nobody with the DOJ is calling me and asking me what I think they should do, and I'm fine with that.

For me, there's nothing to get over.

You, however, can't seem to get over that everyone who disagrees with you is not necessarily wrong. But, as you say, get over it.

14. D Robb
     (12/5/2017 1:27:53 PM)
     Message ID #294782

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294779 )  Back To All Messages

I have read it dozens of times. Comey said she should not have had a private server, but there was no evidence of a prosecutable crime. You are the one that refuses to accept reality.
In Petraeus case, he committed two prosecutable crimes, (far worse than anything Secretary Clinton was accused of) but they let him plead guilty and keep his 4 Star pension because they made a judgement call that the embarrassment and loss of his position as CIA Director was enough punishment.
The FBI found in the case of Secretary Clinton that there was no evidence of a prosecutable crime, full stop, end of story.

15. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 10:13:52 AM)
     Message ID #294724

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294720 )  Back To All Messages

Is that hysterical, or what...

...you merely propose to the guy that the presumption of innocence should be applied equaly to all... and he responds with three successive posts to refute it.

His game is to invent a false premise and get you to help make it real by denying it. Once you argue against it - it graduates from silliness to a matter of opinion - and thus has a 50-50 chance of being true.

16. B Hoskins CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 2:24:11 PM)
     Message ID #294741

This message is in response to Robert Fahrbach ( message id #294724 )  Back To All Messages

It would be hysterical... if....

But it's not really funny...

Grandpa still summed it up pretty nicely... You can't fix stupid.
  1-16 of 16