Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pghoilman; Attention Surplus Disorder
...he hoped Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, essentially sanctioning a foreign power’s cyberspying of a secretary of state’s correspondence...

Since Hillary's correspondence was done outside of the official government communications and security system which was not authorized or sanctioned by the United States government, I'd say it was not entitled to any status as protected information. Legally, it was fair game to be hacked by anyone and not a violation of any diplomatic protocols.

Please, somebody, make this argument.

47 posted on 07/27/2016 9:27:25 AM PDT by henkster (Liberals need to learn there is no "F" in "Money.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: henkster

The DNC is already making that argument. No need for anyone else to do so. Especially Republicans who will not be believed.

That’s why this (Trump presser) eye-poke is so powerful, it has converted DNC talking points into arguing against themselves.

It is they who have now claimed that it was those evil Russians who hacked HRCs server, right? They’ve reflexively gone for the victim card and it is they who are attempting the standard play of misdirection-—it’s not the content of those emails that matters, it’s the idea that wicked people broke into HRCs private domain. And now they (the MSM) find themselves making the precise argument as to why those emails should have never been on such a server.

They have been brilliantly gambited and completly faked out by Trump. This is a shining stroke of political genius, perhaps one of the best in history. Understand, this is far above merely proving somebody wrong even with facts. Facts mean utterly nothing to fact and word twisters and 3rd-grade playground dirtbomb throwers. You can always question the motives of the fact finders. You can say that the facts have been taken out of context. You can say that the bad outcomes were not done for malicious reasons, “they only mean well”. Sound familiar?

But you cannot get the other side to argue against themselves unless you can somehow hypnotize them or somehow twist their logic stream into a pretzel. And this is precisely what has been done.

Though I am not one, I have reasonable experience with litigation, with lawyers and lawyering. And I can tell you with a good deal of certainty, the single most elegant, cherished and exalted chess move in all of lawyering is to cause the opposite side to make your argument.


61 posted on 07/27/2016 10:01:03 AM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (I apologize for not apologizing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson