Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jack Skellington

Clinton email explanation not credible

815 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DieChecker

Full blown panic mode now...

NEW YORK TIMES headline this morning:

"Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email"

Of course, without notification or explanation beyond saying that Hillary Clinton campaign called to complain, they changed the headline to:

"Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account,"

I guess Hillary is still trying to find a little cover as her ship is sinking fast. 'Oh my-- no, it wasn't MY use of the email account that was wrong, it was just the account itself that was wrong. I was sloppy. Like Sandy Burglar.'

Mrs. Clinton's private account contained "hundreds of potentially classified emails." The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.

I knew it was only a matter of time. Eventually someone will figure out that most of the email they exchanged with her isn't accounted for in the paper copies she handed over. Then, inevitably, others will come forward with the same issue. She should have just handed over the server. The fact she didn't means she either is a Control Freak, or she was hiding something. My vote is "hiding something". And apparently 75% of the population agrees with me. She can't even fool part of the people part of the time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I don't think she has a choice because of all the money she has taken for later favors but I have to agree with you because she is such a train wreck and the cut and thrust hasn't even started yet!

Have any of the Republicans even taken serious swings at her yet? Or are they just allowing her to self destruct?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Have any of the Republicans even taken serious swings at her yet? Or are they just allowing her to self destruct?

They did early on but Trump is sucking all the oxygen out of the room at the moment. Anyways, as Harte has alluded to it may not be necessary http://dcwhispers.co...collapse/ From that link the following:

“They know this entire campaign could collapse in a matter of days. Hillary Clinton is not her husband. She’s someone who doesn’t enjoy the work of a long political campaign. She doesn’t trust the process. Actually it goes beyond that – she hates the process. Truth be told, she hates people. Bill enjoyed pressing the flesh. Ok, not the best phrase when applied to him, but he was in his element out there in the midst of the unwashed masses. Hillary on the other hand,
she gets this look in her eyes that isn’t so much about pressing the flesh, but wanting to burn it.”

“There won’t be nearly as much free and positive press for Hillary Clinton as there was for Barack Obama. They all know that. It’s going to take a lot of money to build and maintain her image over the next several months. She’s not a low maintenance, lipstick and rouge candidate. Hillary Clinton requires major renovations that come up often and that takes serious cash to keep going. Her campaign will be on edge and in crisis mode much more often than is normal. That will be a huge burden on all those around her, and it seems is already causing Hillary to show some premature wear and tear already as well.”

Read more at

hillary-clinton-old-hag-4.jpg

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Seeing that as of July 24, 2015 the spread between Hillary and the 2nd place D candidate is +41%, I don't see either the "collapse" or the "self destruction" these partisan websites have been reporting. It's going to take some help from the outside to achieve that, so DC, can you please provide a few good examples of what a Republican candidate taking a "serious swing" at Hillary is?

I guess when Donald Trump is your #1 candidate, the only way to take the focus off of that stunning and embarrassing fact is to focus on the other party's candidate instead. The main reason why nobody attacks her is because it looks terrible when they do (see above). And it looks terrible because they don't have anything substantial to attack her with. If they did find something substantial they'd have to shoot themselves in the foot over it, because they're guilty in substance just like Hillary Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Self Destruction... You already have this figured out. It is about the Rs versus the Ds. When Bush Jr #2 starts beating you in the polls. You are doing something wrong.

Taking a swing... I don't know. Maybe seriously speaking out about Benghazi, or the email scandal, or the Clinton Foundation appearance of money for favors, or Bill's association with child pimping socialites, or any of the other juicy scandals that really, lumped together, should disqualify Mrs Clinton from running.

Donald Trump... Not my candidate. He's a clown. He always does this every four years, gets a lot of publicity, and then goes back to doing what he was doing before. He's just an attention hound.

Nothing to attack her with... I'm just going to LOL that one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

But he thinks all that stuff is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

It's meaningful only because it's what the R's have to attack her with, Fess.

LOL DC "Seriously speaking out about Benghazi" is what's missing here? So following your statements, none of these R's are doing that, they all must be just-kidding when they talk about Benghazi. That they would do that over something as serious as Hillary Gate shows they're not qualified to be President.

If "R's vs. D's" is our "self destruction" we've been self destructing for many many decades, thus use of this phrase in politically charged campaign season stories like this one is misleading. Donald Trump is #1 and it's being said he's self destructing too. What's it mean when both parties #1 candidates are self-destructing? That once again, there's not a dimebag worth of difference between our two entitlement holders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

It's meaningful only because it's what the R's have to attack her with, Fess.

LOL DC "Seriously speaking out about Benghazi" is what's missing here? So following your statements, none of these R's are doing that, they all must be just-kidding when they talk about Benghazi. That they would do that over something as serious as Hillary Gate shows they're not qualified to be President.

If "R's vs. D's" is our "self destruction" we've been self destructing for many many decades, thus use of this phrase in politically charged campaign season stories like this one is misleading. Donald Trump is #1 and it's being said he's self destructing too. What's it mean when both parties #1 candidates are self-destructing? That once again, there's not a dimebag worth of difference between our two entitlement holders.

The lady lied openly, and unconvincingly, to our faces. And maintains that she didn't. THAT is what makes someone not qualified to be President. And THAT is why I think R candidates should bring it up. BUT.... Surprisingly, they don't have to, because Hillary is bringing it up over and over again on her own, digging her own grave seemingly.

That you don't care for either party really just means you're going to be a sad non-entity in the elections, so have fun with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

The lady lied openly, and unconvincingly, to our faces. And maintains that she didn't. THAT is what makes someone not qualified to be President. And THAT is why I think R candidates should bring it up. BUT.... Surprisingly, they don't have to, because Hillary is bringing it up over and over again on her own, digging her own grave seemingly.

That you don't care for either party really just means you're going to be a sad non-entity in the elections, so have fun with that.

A sad non-entity like Ron Paul (no matter how much he's not running this time), and like Rand Paul (no matter how much he is).

The R entities of the election you do not single out would rather focus on yet another terrorist attack on yet another US diplomatic building. But not those buildings, just this building. Because it's the one building among over a dozen more that happened when Hillary was in office. As if we didn't know better that overthrowing Gaddafi for Al Qaeda was going to have catastrophic results. Still is catastrophic, btw. But as this discussion has shown, nobody cares about that.

Presuming open lies about emails doesn't even touch the cause and effect of what amounts to a horrifying foreign policy by the Obama administration. But instead of debating that, we have to focus narrow-mindedly on email because it's better for the politics. It's better to ignore blowback politically. Why? Because if the R's start blaming Hillary the dirt is going to go flying and it'll be all over their faces too. So again, back to the emails. A colossal waste of energy that's not going to fix one problem with the policy other than militarizing our embassies. To which I say, why aren't all our embassies in the Middle East guarded by soldiers regardless of the policy? It doesn't take an email server conspiracy to slam Hillary Clinton for not having soldiers there. They would have probably made the difference between life and death, to hold the fort until the cavalry arrived. We don't need any emails to show that a mistake was made. Skip the emails, go right to the mistake. Prosecute her for not having the vision to see that intervening in Libya was a horrible mistake. But it's more than just her, it's the Obama administration. It's Obama himself, first and foremost. But he already got reelected. So again, it's all about politics, so back to Hillary's emails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

A sad non-entity like Ron Paul (no matter how much he's not running this time), and like Rand Paul (no matter how much he is).

Oh, so you would vote R over D??

The R entities of the election you do not single out would rather focus on yet another terrorist attack on yet another US diplomatic building. But not those buildings, just this building. Because it's the one building among over a dozen more that happened when Hillary was in office.

Here I thought it was because that building had all kinds of excuses and lies, and questions, associated with it that others didn't. Did any of those other buildings that were attacked have the FedGov dismiss them due to an obscure video posted around the same time? Did any of the other buildings attacked request increased security, which never showed up till after the fight was basically over? Lots of questions, and few answers, but lots of deflection by the FedGov.

Presuming open lies about emails doesn't even touch the cause and effect of what amounts to a horrifying foreign policy by the Obama administration. But instead of debating that, we have to focus narrow-mindedly on email because it's better for the politics.

Dude, you do know that it is not Obama running for President next year, but Hillary? You can't attack Hillary on foreign policy she was ordered to perform by Obama.

It's better to ignore blowback politically. Why? Because if the R's start blaming Hillary the dirt is going to go flying and it'll be all over their faces too. So again, back to the emails. A colossal waste of energy that's not going to fix one problem with the policy other than militarizing our embassies.

So NOT the point. This isn't about figuring out how to fix anything... emails, or embassies. It is about establishing responsibility of people who lie constantly and expect us to eat it up, while they completely disregard taking responsibility for anything they said or did.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Oh, so you would vote R over D??

That's what I did when I voted for Ron Paul in the last two elections.

Here I thought it was because that building had all kinds of excuses and lies, and questions, associated with it that others didn't.

Nobody asked about the others, so there was nothing to make excuses or lie about. People died though, if that matters. Same failure, different politics.

Did any of the other buildings attacked request increased security, which never showed up till after the fight was basically over? Lots of questions, and few answers, but lots of deflection by the FedGov.

Lots of questions about that attack, because Hillary's email server is the one political attack that's safe for R's. We know nothing about the other attacks because nobody cared. It's not motivated by actually caring about the people who died, it's about politics.

Did any of those other buildings that were attacked have the FedGov dismiss them due to an obscure video posted around the same time?

There'd have to be an obscure video posted around the same time, so no. That's another weaksauce attack on Hillary. Attacking her about a coincidence, not about the policy.

Dude, you do know that it is not Obama running for President next year, but Hillary? You can't attack Hillary on foreign policy she was ordered to perform by Obama.

Oh so she was just following orders. Welcome to Nuremberg.

So NOT the point. This isn't about figuring out how to fix anything... emails, or embassies. It is about establishing responsibility of people who lie constantly and expect us to eat it up, while they completely disregard taking responsibility for anything they said or did.

You're denying her responsibility while you're talking about her responsibility! I'm sorry you think that foreign policy isn't her responsibility and I suggest you Wiki what it is the Secretary of State does. She will have a lot to answer for in this election, happy to tell ya. But you and other enthusiastic opponents have to be willing to ask first.

Now back to the Safe Zone, back... to the Email!

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

That's what I did when I voted for Ron Paul in the last two elections.

Doesn't that make you part of the problem that you are always going on about?

Nobody asked about the others, so there was nothing to make excuses or lie about. People died though, if that matters. Same failure, different politics.

Not the same failure, and not the same politics. This failure could have been prevented, and then when that came out, evidence started disappearing that referenced the failure.

Politics (at least the part where opponents seek to discredit each other) is vital. It is like lions taking the weak wildebeest. Those politicians that are caught in wrongdoing, or even just mistakes, are weeded out by their competitors.

Lots of questions about that attack, because Hillary's email server is the one political attack that's safe for R's. We know nothing about the other attacks because nobody cared. It's not motivated by actually caring about the people who died, it's about politics.

Hillary's email is a subject because she openly lied to everyone. Repeatedly.

We know nothing about the other events because, I suspect, that no one lied about it, and, I also suspect, few to no one cares that much. It is callous, but true. A guy blows himself up on the other side of the world and injures three marines and really no one is going to care.

I think what you are going on about is two different issues. Respect for military lives is one issue. And ferreting out the lies is another issue. Unfortunately our media and military are both hopelessly entangled in politics.

There'd have to be an obscure video posted around the same time, so no. That's another weaksauce attack on Hillary. Attacking her about a coincidence, not about the policy.

There is no coincidence. Though I guess you may be right that the whole "video" thing was probably NOT Hillary's idea. She pushed that explanation pretty hard, but I think she probably was ordered to do so.

Oh so she was just following orders. Welcome to Nuremberg.

Yes, she was. It is yet to be shown that anything connected to Hillary caused anyone to die directly. Though it could well be that the evidence was on her server and now is gone forever.

You're denying her responsibility while you're talking about her responsibility! I'm sorry you think that foreign policy isn't her responsibility and I suggest you Wiki what it is the Secretary of State does. She will have a lot to answer for in this election, happy to tell ya. But you and other enthusiastic opponents have to be willing to ask first.

Now back to the Safe Zone, back... to the Email!

Still not the point of investigating the email. You're going on about a subject that is only tangentially associated with the subject of this thread. If you want to talk about other dirt on Hillary. About mistakes she made while the SoS, then start your own thread and I'll be happy to post there with you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

The latest on the email scandal...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/investigation-sought-into-hillary-clintons-emails-1437714369

An internal government review found that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent at least four emails from her personal account containing classified information during her time heading the State Department.
The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially confidential, secret or top-secret information.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-i-received-no-emails-marked-classified-n398451

"I did not receive anything that was marked as classified," Clinton told reporters after a campaign event in Winterset, Iowa.

Interestingly she may technically be telling the truth. None of the email that she handed over, so far, appears to have been classified.

However, I find it EXTREMELY strange that the US Secretary of State could receive 30,000+ emails and not a single one had any classified information in them at all. This is one of the most powerful people on Earth and she had nothing to do with anything classified while receiving hundreds of emails per day? It stretches the imagination in my opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Seeing that as of July 24, 2015 the spread between Hillary and the 2nd place D candidate is +41%, I don't see either the "collapse" or the "self destruction" these partisan websites have been reporting.

Maybe you'll believe Gallop?

http://www.gallup.co...vorability.aspx

gkvzmimch0ucdpf9mbe3rw.png

suwmgztpvkgedwhaav_bng.png

Self destruction well under way.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.

snapback.pngYamato, on 24 July 2015 - 06:43 PM, said:

Seeing that as of July 24, 2015 the spread between Hillary and the 2nd place D candidate is +41%, I don't see either the "collapse" or the "self destruction" these partisan websites have been reporting.

I'll remember you said that.

I'm counting the days until the wheels come off.

Edited by ZZ430

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

More Clinton email fall out.... She can't get out of her own way. It's now very clear that there was a lot of sensitive information on her "private" email server and that she was not safely securing that information. It's also clear that even now she has not properly stored the record as required by law.... she's in violation.

It gets worse for her by the day and Dems are worried. So worried that even Joe Biden is starting to look good to them.

Today Hillary's gal pal Huma is in the news.... something about triple dipping from the Department of State, the Clinton Foundation and a company owned by a donor who was contracting with the State Department. Huma was getting paid by all three at the same time and where are her emails? On that same private server. But Hillary gets to decide what was personal and private and none of your business.

After all-- it's her business. And it's very profitable.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

NOT HUMA!!!

She's innocent.... I know this because she is pretty. :innocent: :innocent: :innocent:

I've wondered if Clinton wiped her Server, and her assistants had accounts on that server... where are the piles of print outs of those emails also? Did she knowingly delete OTHER PEOPLEs email? True, she probably had an understanding with those people, BUT the FedGov still can demand those emails, and if they are gone, then she willfully destroyed them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

There should be a Caption Contest for that pic....

Huma whispers-- "I have a Weiner."

Hillary says-- "Talk to the hand. I have one too."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

NOT HUMA!!!

She's innocent.... I know this because she is pretty. :innocent: :innocent: :innocent:

I've wondered if Clinton wiped her Server, and her assistants had accounts on that server... where are the piles of print outs of those emails also? Did she knowingly delete OTHER PEOPLEs email? True, she probably had an understanding with those people, BUT the FedGov still can demand those emails, and if they are gone, then she willfully destroyed them.

I'm sure Russia, China, N. Korea and a dozen other countries have complete copies of her entire server since it wasn't locked down correctly. This kind of reminds me of when Sandy Burglar walked out of the federal archives with secret documents (presumably tying Bill Clinton in with UBL) stuffed down his underpants and the press just laughed it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Drip.... drip.... drip.... drop.

Huma-- prepare for launch.

A federal judge ordered the State Department to have Clinton, Abedin and Cheryl Mills, another Clinton aide when she was secretary of state, confirm they have turned over all government records and describe how they used Clinton’s private server to conduct official business.

They had until Friday to turn over the information “under penalty of perjury.”

Clinton is already facing questions about using the server and private email accounts while she was the country’s top diplomat from 2009 to 2013.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wickian

I just found this article today:

BREAKING: Cheryl Mills To Destroy Emails About Boss Hillary Clinton

In a letter sent to the U.S. State Department and just filed today with U.S. federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the counsel for Cheryl Mills wrote: “Ms. Mills does not believe that she has paper copies of potential records in her possession. Following our production on August 10, 2015 [of the defense counsel’s version of the electronic records], we have instructed her to delete any and all electronic records in her possession.”

That is a far stretch from a statement by Ms. Mills under penalty of perjury, and she and her lawyers are planning to delete the emails Judge Sullivan wants produced?

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

All of you were die hard Obama and Clinton supporters and now are so disappointed in Clinton's explanation of her emails. So disappointed you can no longer support clinton and will be supporting extreme right wing wackos. Give us all a break. Nothing she would say to you folks would matter. you could care less what the truth is. So go watch fox and friends. i think they have a great feature on how liberals hate kittens and puppies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

I don't see a poster on this page who's ever been a possible Clinton or Obama supporter let alone a diehard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

All of you were die hard Obama and Clinton supporters and now are so disappointed in Clinton's explanation of her emails. So disappointed you can no longer support clinton and will be supporting extreme right wing wackos. Give us all a break. Nothing she would say to you folks would matter. you could care less what the truth is. So go watch fox and friends. i think they have a great feature on how liberals hate kittens and puppies.

Huh??! At least try and write a coherently when you are whining. :rolleyes:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.