Okay, you see the part in there where I said the exact rule of formal logic that the argument follows? Modus tollens?
No amount of eye rolling will make that cease to exist.
I bet she thinks it’s a big deal now.
You can blow off the rules if you want. But don’t bitch when it comes back to bit you in the butt.
It’s fair to bitch about biased and unequal application of the rules, though.
IOIARDI
Or maybe she’s just disappointed by how many Americans got fooled into thinking it was a big deal.
I know I am.
What she was trying to hide was likely her deliberations with staff about her political ambitions. If she had used the State Department’s email address then all of her communication would have been subject to FOIA requests by the press, except for the classified stuff. Her love of secrecy and hatred of the press is well known.
Another thing she gained was that she did not have to change devices. She and her staff used blackberries and she could not integrate those in to the official system and she would have had to use a different device to do email with her staff.
If you read the IG’s report there were many instances of classified information being emailed to and from Clinton’s email. We have no way of knowing who was able to access that information and what they did with it.
This is only true if you know that Russian intelligence is only interested in Hillary’s electoral prospects. There are lots of ways for Russians and every other intelligence service in the world to use classified information to harm the US without notifying Wikileaks. The definition of classified information is that it would harm the country if it got into the wrong hands.
If I remember, only 110 out of 30,000. All but three carried any “classified” markings at all, those three had paragraph markings, none had header markings.
Foolish Americans who think it is a big deal that a presidential candidate puts her privacy and convenience over the security of the country and thinks that laws are only for the little people.
I think these actions showed some severe problems for Hillary… unfortunately, her opponent was so much worse, on these and many other issues (from the personal to the professional to the issue-based), that she was still the only reasonable choice. Trump has shown (and showed during the campaign) even less regard for the security of the country, the rule of law, and much more.
So… nothing. She was hiding absolutely no wrongdoings by using her blackberry. I’m glad that’s settled.
So the entire “scandal” is about poor email security, from which we have absolutely zero evidence that any classified information was lost.
Let us compare to our current president’s National Security Advisor who puts troop movements on a big yellow pad and holds it up to be photographed by a room full of reporters. Or our current president’s insistence on giving his fool of a son in law clearance that all of his advisors advised against.
Uh, yeah. You say this as if getting the other side to agree would be an admission of some sort, but the whole “scandal” all along was about poor email security, right? Was there ever anything more to it?
This is an honest question - from your statement here I feel like I must be missing something.
The real scandal was that she thought she was above the law. The Republicans were playing it for politics, playing up the classified info, risk to the country, etc., which is all bullshit. But as a voter my biggest concern was that it showed arrogance and a willingness to circumvent regulations that are there for a good reason for the sake of her personal convenience because she didn’t feel it had to apply to her.
Well, I’m glad we dodged THAT bullet, and elected someone who respects the law.
By which you mean, she thought the rules (and lax enforcement thereof) that had applied to all other politicians in her position applied to her.
Nope. The fallacious argument being presented – “If the server were hacked, the emails would have been released; Not B therefore not A” – is fabricated only to serve the purpose of defending Clinton, as opposed to being a reasonable method of describing what hackers do.
We know this because there’s been many, many intrusions into government servers – including the White House – that were not followed up with email releases. Further, we know that the Russians weaponized Wikileaks, but Russians aren’t the only hackers in the world – so why should we expect all other adversaries to act like the Russians did in one particular year?
The argument is BS because it asks reasonable people to forget everything they think they know about intelligence operations, and focus on just one element of an active measures campaign as being the signature of all intelligence operations. It’s just a dumb argument.
But my point is the same: we don’t have any strong evidence to believe that Clinton’s email was in fact hacked, but we do have strong evidence that her security at times was awful. Given what we know, it is far more likely that she was not successfully hacked, even though at times her email was turned off to defend against intrusions, but we don’t know as a fact that her emails were never obtained by an adversary.
How about weak evidence, or any evidence?
More blind defense of Clinton. Come on, I voted for her, I think she would have been a good President, but we don’t need to embarrass ourselves by asserting “facts” – “she was never hacked” – that are speculation. Let’s have a little respect for the truth here, fellas.
I don’t know what *all *other Secretaries of State have done (although apparently Powell told her to just do whatever she wanted). But the last time a S of S was elected president was 1849, so maybe she was the first one to be so scrutinized.
Also, “everybody does it” has never been a good defense.
Cut the crap and answer the question: Is there any evidence that her private emails were hacked? When you use the term “strong evidence”, it definitely implies that there might be other, weaker evidence out there, otherwise you would have just used the term “evidence”.
Don’t you ‘nope’ me - I explicitly said that the strength of the conclusion was dependent upon the strength of the premises - specifically the assumption that if somebody’d hacked her we’d have heard about it. That part can be debated, but independent of that your claim that “affirming the consequent” was occurring is definitively not correct.
I’m arguing that the logical structure of the argument is fine. Your critique of it was incorrect. Your attack on the premise is not something I’m particularly concerned with, at least from a logical perspective.
From a pragmatic perspective I’m not particularly concerned either - this entire affair smells of making a mountain out a molehill where the resulting mountain is a mountain of bullshit. But I will readily concede that the presented evidence is not sufficient to conclude that nobody hacked Hillary’s emails and then kept their findings to themselves.
On an unrelated now, I’m also quite certain that it’s logically impossible to give a shit about Hillary’s emails while also giving Trump a pass without being a massive hypocrite.