What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XXIII: The Penultimate Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIII: The Penultimate Thread

dxmnkd316 said:
In industry, deleting emails is extremely common. We mandate that all emails be deleted or properly archived after 90 days. As long as you are properly following established retention policies, deleting is legit.
Click to expand...

45 at mine.

The issue is much more about classified e-mail either being sent unencrypted or being on an "unclassified" server. NISPOM has some fairly strict procedures on that sort of stuff. Obviously everything gets transferred through the same pipe with classified data being encrypted, so there isn't much you can do with that. However, are they obstructing justice through destroying/withholding evidence? Or were there violations in accordance with NISPOM?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIII: The Penultimate Thread

dxmnkd316 said:
In industry, deleting emails is extremely common. We mandate that all emails be deleted or properly archived after 90 days. As long as you are properly following established retention policies, deleting is legit.
Click to expand...

And while that is true it doesnt make what he did better as the article points out.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIII: The Penultimate Thread

The Sicatoka said:
Depends on what the meaning of "is" is. ;) :D


One of my cars is on the road. I'm on the title. I'm not in immediate possession of it, but it's still in my possession, right, as I'm on the title as owner.

Huma may have been separated, but still married, so by definition that computer is still joint community property and thus it's her's and thus legally in her possession until reported stolen or she destroys it and disposes of it. Just because you're not home right now does not mean your bed and pillow are not in your possession.
Click to expand...

It also doesnt mean she willfully perjured herself either.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIII: The Penultimate Thread

The Sicatoka said:
Depends on what the meaning of "is" is. ;) :D


One of my cars is on the road. I'm on the title. I'm not in immediate possession of it, but it's still in my possession, right, as I'm on the title as owner.

Huma may have been separated, but still married, so by definition that computer is still joint community property and thus it's her's and thus legally in her possession until reported stolen or she destroys it and disposes of it. Just because you're not home right now does not mean your bed and pillow are not in your possession.
Click to expand...

If I lent my car to someone for the night and a cop came to my door asking if the car was in my possession, I would say no. As would anyone not trying to be a "word weasel". Possession does not only refer to ownership, but can also refer to control (and I would argue that that's the more common usage).
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIII: The Penultimate Thread

GrinCDXX said:
If I lent my car to someone for the night and a cop came to by door asking if the car was in my possession, I would say no. As would anyone not trying to be a "word weasel". Possession does not only refer to ownership, but can also refer to control (and I would argue that that's the more common usage).
Click to expand...

So it comes down to what the words mean, and you just showed it can mean two similar but different things. She'll claim "actual physical control" and a prosecutor will say "ownership". Conundrum ( ... or weasel words ... ).
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIII: The Penultimate Thread

Handyman said:
And while that is true it doesnt make what he did better as the article points out.
Click to expand...

Good Lord! How stupid are these judges?

I mean good ol' reliable "There's 3 emails!" Eichenwald writes this article in a couple of hours pointing out all the tremendously illegal activity of Trump's dad, and his lawyers, and perhaps Trump himself, which takes place during these court cases right under the nose of these judges and yet "Trump was in a mental institution!" Eichenwald cannot turn up one instance where Trump's side was sanctioned by the court in these cases? Plus he didn't lose any of them?

It's all RIGGED I tell you!!!!
 
The Sicatoka said:
So it comes down to what the words mean, and you just showed it can mean two similar but different things. She'll claim "actual physical control" and a prosecutor will say "ownership". Conundrum ( ... or weasel words ... ).
Click to expand...

By suggesting that she had a problem because of something she said under oath, you were hinting at perjury, were you not? What you just described is a far cry from perjury.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIII: The Penultimate Thread

GrinCDXX said:
By suggesting that she had a problem because of something she said under oath, you were hinting at perjury, were you not? What you just described is a far cry from perjury.
Click to expand...

If she was under oath and claimed she turned over all devices she may have a problem with an (over) zealous prosecutor.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIII: The Penultimate Thread

The Sicatoka said:
If she was under oath and claimed she turned over all devices she may have a problem with an (over) zealous prosecutor.
Click to expand...

The article you linked didn't say she said that. It said she told the FBI she turned over all devices that she thought contained government work.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIII: The Penultimate Thread

Wisko McBadgerton said:
Good Lord! How stupid are these judges?

I mean good ol' reliable "There's 3 emails!" Eichenwald writes this article in a couple of hours pointing out all the tremendously illegal activity of Trump's dad, and his lawyers, and perhaps Trump himself, which takes place during these court cases right under the nose of these judges and yet "Trump was in a mental institution!" Eichenwald cannot turn up one instance where Trump's side was sanctioned by the court in these cases? Plus he didn't lose any of them?

It's all RIGGED I tell you!!!!
Click to expand...

Maybe that is what Drumpf is saying all along...he isnt saying it is rigged AGAINST him but he is flaunting it is rigged FOR HIM :eek:

#thetruthisoutthere #infowarsisthereals #sheeple
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIII: The Penultimate Thread

The Sicatoka said:
If she was under oath and claimed she turned over all devices she may have a problem with an (over) zealous prosecutor.
Click to expand...

That is true but if they cant prove she intentionally lied it will go nowhere.

I still have yet to hear how this has anything to do with Hillary outside of "6 degrees of Hillary Clinton" type crap. And the one man who knows isnt talking. Everyone is begging for more details (including both candidates) but he is off walking the Appalachian Trail somewhere ;)
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIII: The Penultimate Thread

SJHovey said:
For DJT, it is all about the power and prestige of being President, and being the first [non-establishment] President, and how much money can [he] later milk out of it.
Click to expand...

fyp

At least HRC has been a public servant for decades and while I am certain she's drunk with power is there anything in Trump's personality or demonstrated history that he's anything but a hype machine? The only time he stops to talk about himself is when he wants to talk about Hillary. :)

If Trumpsters want to talk about policy have at it but you all know you can't win that fight.

Yeah, yeah, none of you are Tumpsters yet you can't get enough of tearing down Hillary with nary a peep about her opponent. That's a highly convenient if not lame attempt at playing Switzerland. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top