Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
CIA labels Trump 'threat to national security'
OZONE
Member Posts: 2,510
in Tug Tavern
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/michael-morell-clinton-endorsement/index.html
1st time in history a candidate has been so bad that the former CIA chief was compelled to denounce him like this.
Comments
-
But unsecured servers aren't an issue
-
I'm sure he was compensated well to issue that statement.OZONE said:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/michael-morell-clinton-endorsement/index.html
1st time in history a candidate has been so bad that the former CIA chief was compelled to denounce him like this. -
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.RaceBannon said:But unsecured servers aren't an issue
-
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.OZONE said:
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.RaceBannon said:But unsecured servers aren't an issue
-
So a Obamao appointee says Trumps bad. That means Trumps not bad. But you don't get it. Jim Jones is serving Kool Aid drop by for a cup.OZONE said:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/michael-morell-clinton-endorsement/index.html
1st time in history a candidate has been so bad that the former CIA chief was compelled to denounce him like this. -
I've already essentially said this, why do I need to repeat it in every post? I agree she is not a great candidate, and I was in favor of somebody else, but it is time to move forward and choose from the two options, as bad as they both are.Swaye said:
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.OZONE said:
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.RaceBannon said:But unsecured servers aren't an issue
I'm just having fun pointing out, daily, what an idiot the (R) party chose as their nominee. Regardless of how bad Clinton is, Trump is 1000 times worse, and so bad, that we are making history on a daily basis with people coming out against him. Republicans, government officials, etc. -
Unsecured server >>> insecure self-serverRaceBannon said:But unsecured servers aren't an issue
-
We really need to be able to flag moderatorsDerekJohnson said:
I'm sure he was compensated well to issue that statement.OZONE said:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/michael-morell-clinton-endorsement/index.html
1st time in history a candidate has been so bad that the former CIA chief was compelled to denounce him like this. -
Yeah, why is he still here?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
We really need to be able to flag moderatorsDerekJohnson said:
I'm sure he was compensated well to issue that statement.OZONE said:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/michael-morell-clinton-endorsement/index.html
1st time in history a candidate has been so bad that the former CIA chief was compelled to denounce him like this. -
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.Swaye said:
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.OZONE said:
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.RaceBannon said:But unsecured servers aren't an issue
Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist. -
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.2001400ex said:
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.Swaye said:
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.OZONE said:
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.RaceBannon said:But unsecured servers aren't an issue
Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist. -
A Bush appointee is the one that made the call to not recommend charges.Sledog said:
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.2001400ex said:
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.Swaye said:
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.OZONE said:
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.RaceBannon said:But unsecured servers aren't an issue
Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
HTH -
Sledog said:
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.2001400ex said:
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.Swaye said:
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.OZONE said:
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.RaceBannon said:But unsecured servers aren't an issue
Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.<img src="http://vault-cdn.si.com/SI_ISSUE_IMAGES/Sports%20Illustrated/1965/12/19651206/Sports_Illustrated_43446_19651206-001-2048.jpg" /> -
But HOW is @Sledog a stupid prole?OZONE said:
A Bush appointee is the one that made the call to not recommend charges.Sledog said:
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.2001400ex said:
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.Swaye said:
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.OZONE said:
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.RaceBannon said:But unsecured servers aren't an issue
Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
HTH -
Let's see...the political appointee that started the Benghazi YouTube video lie and now works for a consulting firm supporting Hillary says Hillary is good and Trump is bad. News at 11.
Yet lemmings like OZONE lap this stuff up... -
HoustonHusky said:
Let's see...the political appointee that started the Benghazi YouTube video lie and now works for a consulting firm supporting Hillary says Hillary is good and Trump is bad. News at 11.
Yet lemmings like OZONE lap this stuff up...
-
So what you're saying is that we shouldn't take anything the CIA director says seriously when it comes to what is and isn't a national security threat?
-
You should probably stick to sharing infections with Race.Fenderbender123 said:So what you're saying is that we shouldn't take anything the CIA director says seriously when it comes to what is and isn't a national security threat?
-
Oh, and here is food for thought.
There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).
They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job. -
Sledog said:
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.2001400ex said:
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.Swaye said:
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.OZONE said:
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.RaceBannon said:But unsecured servers aren't an issue
Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
-
That doesn't mean what you think it means.Sledog said:
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.2001400ex said:
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.Swaye said:
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.OZONE said:
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.RaceBannon said:But unsecured servers aren't an issue
Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]
Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.
Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]
In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).
Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.
In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:
As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.
Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18] -
Agree2001400ex said:
That doesn't mean what you think it means.Sledog said:
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.2001400ex said:
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.Swaye said:
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.OZONE said:
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.RaceBannon said:But unsecured servers aren't an issue
Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]
Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.
Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]
In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).
Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.
In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:
As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.
Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18] -
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...OZONE said:Oh, and here is food for thought.
There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).
They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job. -
None of them started World War 3.HoustonHusky said:
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...OZONE said:Oh, and here is food for thought.
There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).
They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job. -
Rommel had a good record in the Middle East and North Africa.HoustonHusky said:
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...OZONE said:Oh, and here is food for thought.
There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).
They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job. -
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entailsHoustonHusky said:
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...OZONE said:Oh, and here is food for thought.
There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).
They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job. -
And where does arming ISIS and Al Qaueda fall on your scale Hondo?2001400ex said:
That doesn't mean what you think it means.Sledog said:
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.2001400ex said:
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.Swaye said:
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.OZONE said:
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.RaceBannon said:But unsecured servers aren't an issue
Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]
Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.
Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]
In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).
Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.
In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:
As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.
Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18] -
'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'BearsWiin said:
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entailsHoustonHusky said:
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...OZONE said:Oh, and here is food for thought.
There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).
They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
Brilliant. -
So the solution is Donald Trump?HoustonHusky said:
'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'BearsWiin said:
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entailsHoustonHusky said:
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...OZONE said:Oh, and here is food for thought.
There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).
They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
Brilliant. -
A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.BallSacked said:
So the solution is Donald Trump?HoustonHusky said:
'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'BearsWiin said:
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entailsHoustonHusky said:
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...OZONE said:Oh, and here is food for thought.
There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).
They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
Brilliant.
I'd trust him over a proven liar that set a few more Middle Eastern countries ablaze in her limited tenure as Sec of State.
