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

Yamato

Yes you can. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice by the House. He was acquitted by the Senate, but that doesn't change the fact that he was impeached. An impeachment is like a indictment.

And here I thought an acquittal cleared the person of the charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

:w00t:

Obama wasn't elected for his Foreign Affairs abilities, or his ability with the Military. He was elected to "fix the economy", which he tried, and failed (in my opinion). Even most Democrats admitted that McCain would have made a much better Foreign Affairs and Militarily Concerned President.

If Presidents are elected to fix the economy, then we deserve the economy we get. It becomes our fault, not Bill Clinton's, George Bush's, or Barack Obama's.

Isn't it actually just highly suspected that Bush manipulated the CIA and demanded bad data? From what I've read the CIA was definitely being pressured to provide data that could lead into the war, but I don't think anyone forced them to make that report of WMD. CIA basically decided to give Bush what he wanted. Therefore it was CIAs fault.

The CIA was the Bush Administration. If the President asks the CIA to do something, it does it. Legally, suspicion is grounds for probable cause. The suspicion, at least my skepticism, comes from multiple independent sources from inside the CIA.

Impeachment has never been successful at the Presidential level, so its a punishment that has never been used, and so is likely a joke as a deterrent to criminal activity. Clinton got every single Dem Senator to vote Not Guilty, even when many of them reported on the record that what he did was wrong. That is partisanship, which is actually the biggest problem the US FedGov has. If the government didn't have to fight partisanship on every single issue, we'd get a lot more done. If only Congressman could THINK and vote their conscience, instead of having to vote the party line, or face the wrath of their Party.

If everything legally unprecedented were a joke, there would be no legal progress.

I'm sure the BJs didn't end.

A horrible threat to the nation. Maybe impeachment wouldn't be a joke if the reasons for it weren't so laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Hillary can't get out of her own way.

She's answered 8 questions in the past month. Evasively.

Now today, the former CIA Director came out to talk about what? Ben Ghazi saying...

“no doubt in my mind that there was a failure at the State Department. No doubt about it.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/11/exclusive-ex-cia-leader-morell-these-are-very-dangerous-times/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

ALL of those emails were transmitted over wireless networks which means they passed through Verizon, or AT&T, or whatever wireless carrier Hillary subscribes to for her mobile communications. --Which means that all of those emails are available. It isn't her private server we need access too, though that would be nice. As this progresses and the election nears, you will see the most incriminating emails start to surface... from hackers, from anonymous sources, from enemies, from rivals, from investigations.... wait and see.

A federal judge has agreed to reopen a lawsuit that seeks to gain access to emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server.

Judge Reggie B. Walton’s decision Friday came after the State Department and Judicial Watch, which brought the lawsuit, agreed that the documents that Clinton kept on her own email server separate from the government should be turned over.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told Fox News on Tuesday that the decision is an "extraordinary development." He said it could ultimately lead to the department having to "explain itself under oath."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/12/federal-judge-agrees-to-reopen-hillary-clinton-email-lawsuit/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

not sure about that, i have work issued BB, we have our own encripted server that we send\recieve work email, on top of that our BB have special security software installed, ATT or verizon may have routed encripted data they can't access. they wont be much help

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Claims being made here that these email shenanigans are unprecedented? Maybe it's unprecedented at being the thing that Republicans can snip at Democrats about it instead of the other way around?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

If only Democrats care about this controversy, and only Republicans care about the OP's controversy, we don't really care about email shenanigans, we just care about playing partisan politics with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

It was rotten then, it's rotten now.

It's willful.

It's deliberate.

It's deceitful.

It's wrong.

The biggest difference between now and then is that we never learned anything then that makes any difference now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Claims being made here that these email shenanigans are unprecedented? Maybe it's unprecedented at being the thing that Republicans can snip at Democrats about it instead of the other way around?

http://en.wikipedia....ail_controversy

If only Democrats care about this controversy, and only Republicans care about the OP's controversy, we don't really care about email shenanigans, we just care about playing partisan politics with it.

After reading that I definitely say that George W Bush should not be allowed to be President again, and Hillary should not be allowed to either. Both were hiding something. Both should step away from further politics.

It would appear that Hillary has quite a bit of similarities with Bush once the veneers are stripped away.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

After reading that I definitely say that George W Bush should not be allowed to be President again, and Hillary should not be allowed to either.

The email controversies are small potatoes not to support Bushes and Clintons. All the email controversy falls on a President and a Madame Secretary, what about everyone else? All the rest of the politicians and bureaucrats like Clinton who have left office, where are all their records held at?

Where's the long list of politicians that didn't do with their records as they wanted? Were they supposed to leave all their files there in the cabinets or did they clear out their personal effects and make room for the new officials who succeeded them?

Everyone's hiding something, that's what privacy is, sharing only with yourself.

Is this email outrage all about "Benghazi gate?" Other than that, what reason for suspicion to determine probable cause to even be talking about digging her emails up from other servers or her own computers is there? But if there is probable cause, get a warrant or get off the pot. This endless rolling political attack and its lack of probable cause doesn't look very interesting to put so much focus on in the big picture.

When hate mongering idiots make "Innocence of Muslims" to further antagonize our bombing victims, when we turn Libya over to Al Qaeda Inc we were negligent not to see it was vulnerable to attack. I think the Charlie Hebdos we're getting have proven that thinking a movie was related to the attack on our embassy was reasonable to think. The movie may not have caused the attack, but it may well have had an effect on the timing of the attack.

Let's not forget the events in Libya that led up to the attack. Obama launched missile attacks on Libya in effectual alliance with terrorists resulting in the death of a nation and the birth of chaos and a new base of operations for Al Qaeda in Benghazi itself. Bonus! But nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. Hillary deleted her emails so, that's more important and relevant to "Benghazi" than President Obama's missile attacks, their aftermath, the current state of affairs in Libya today, his willful snubbing of the War Powers Resolution, the lack of a war declaration as usual, or many notable Republicans slobbering for more of Obama's worst foreign policy ideas.

So "email explanations" are the gristle left on the bones of Benghazi that Republicans can safely chew on without incriminating themselves, so they focus only on the details that are closest to Madame Secretary. "Benghazi" is a coverup masquerading as an investigation. Republicans are too impotent to challenge Obama. Why? Because they'll want to fire missiles willy nilly around the world themselves one day too once they're in the new magic White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sundew

I can't believe that 42% of Americans find this despicable human being in any way trustworthy? Hillary and Cattle futures, google it FTBs

No doubt "yellow dog" Democrats and those receiving largess from the government. Oh, and of course the lame-stream-media who would be ALL over this were a Republican in the same position.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

And here I thought an acquittal cleared the person of the charges.

It does, but it doesn't mean that they weren't ever charged.

Jameis Winston was never charged, George Zimmerman was charged and acquitted.

Reagan was never impeached, Clinton was impeached and acquitted.

Edited by Bama13
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

The email controversies are small potatoes not to support Bushes and Clintons. All the email controversy falls on a President and a Madame Secretary, what about everyone else? All the rest of the politicians and bureaucrats like Clinton who have left office, where are all their records held at?

I imagine that 99.9999% of Federal employees simply use their Federal email for everything, since they could be fired if they did not. Not everyone has the political pull to ignore the rules like a Bush or a Clinton. Also not every Federal Employee is mandated by law (as far as I know) that their records need to be captured for safekeeping. Such WAS the case with Bush and with H Clinton. At least procedurally, if not legally.

Where's the long list of politicians that didn't do with their records as they wanted? Were they supposed to leave all their files there in the cabinets or did they clear out their personal effects and make room for the new officials who succeeded them?

I'm sure that could be found out, if anyone cared. I was in the military at a very low level... enlisted... and yet everything I signed is (was) stored for years and years. Most of it probably is still being stored 18 years later. Politicians definitely are not supposed to just destroy records. They hand them over to various archives, who box them up and put them in warehouses.

Everyone's hiding something, that's what privacy is, sharing only with yourself.

That's fine. No one is asking for Hillary's PRIVATE email, just the email that is Federal in nature. That she deleted all her email..... AFTER knowing that she was in trouble, leads directly to suspicion being placed on her. If she'd just let some impartial investigators look through her email, and sift out any that has Subjects that were Federal in nature, she would have had a lot less grief. But she didn't.... did she? She printed out what she wanted to hand over and deleted everything else. And we have only her Good Word that she didn't do anything shady.

Is this email outrage all about "Benghazi gate?" Other than that, what reason for suspicion to determine probable cause to even be talking about digging her emails up from other servers or her own computers is there? But if there is probable cause, get a warrant or get off the pot. This endless rolling political attack and its lack of probable cause doesn't look very interesting to put so much focus on in the big picture.

It started as Benghazi, but like with a guy on the street talking to a hooker, when the Police stop and he runs and throws a package into an alley, that is called Probable Cause. Hillary's reaction to the discovery of her basement server is the equivalent of running away from the police and trying to toss evidence into a river.

When hate mongering idiots make "Innocence of Muslims" to further antagonize our bombing victims, when we turn Libya over to Al Qaeda Inc we were negligent not to see it was vulnerable to attack. I think the Charlie Hebdos we're getting have proven that thinking a movie was related to the attack on our embassy was reasonable to think. The movie may not have caused the attack, but it may well have had an effect on the timing of the attack.

Let's not forget the events in Libya that led up to the attack. Obama launched missile attacks on Libya in effectual alliance with terrorists resulting in the death of a nation and the birth of chaos and a new base of operations for Al Qaeda in Benghazi itself. Bonus! But nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. Hillary deleted her emails so, that's more important and relevant to "Benghazi" than President Obama's missile attacks, their aftermath, the current state of affairs in Libya today, his willful snubbing of the War Powers Resolution, the lack of a war declaration as usual, or many notable Republicans slobbering for more of Obama's worst foreign policy ideas.

Did Obama order the missile strikes and then deny doing so, deleting evidence along the way, and instead point to trying to kill a insane elephant as a reason for the missile attack? No, we know what Obama did and we know why he did so. We also know that the youtube movie was just a scapgoat that was easy to grab onto at the time, to deflect the media momentarily. None of that fooled anyone and evidence of what happened is plentiful. What is not established is what Hillary was doing and had done during this timeframe, because her emails were not in the Federal storage like they were supposed to have been. And it was not till years later she admitted to having them still on her private server, which makes a lie of when she signed off that she'd handed over all Sec of State documents when she left office. And then she Deleted EVERYTHING.

No.. No... your attempt to parallel with Obama just doesn't match up. Hillary clearly disobeyed government regs many times.

So "email explanations" are the gristle left on the bones of Benghazi that Republicans can safely chew on without incriminating themselves, so they focus only on the details that are closest to Madame Secretary. "Benghazi" is a coverup masquerading as an investigation. Republicans are too impotent to challenge Obama. Why? Because they'll want to fire missiles willy nilly around the world themselves one day too once they're in the new magic White House.

So, you just believe that the Truth of the matter should never come to light? If Hillary had done what her Sec of State position was supposed to require of her, then all this Benghazi stuff would have been done years ago. But, she had to be secretive and hide stuff, and then, stupidly, be found out....

It is like a good lie. You sprinkle a lot of truth into the lie, so it is believable. So, if she wanted to hide something, she should have handed over 80% or 90% of her email, at the appropriate time, and no one would have had reason to suspect she was hiding anything. But when 100% of your emails are missing, that is just Stupid.

It's like telling a bald face lie, such as that you didn't want to carry two phones around to use two different email addresses. :tu: :tu: :tu:

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I imagine that 99.9999% of Federal employees simply use their Federal email for everything, since they could be fired if they did not. Not everyone has the political pull to ignore the rules like a Bush or a Clinton. Also not every Federal Employee is mandated by law (as far as I know) that their records need to be captured for safekeeping. Such WAS the case with Bush and with H Clinton. At least procedurally, if not legally.

I can log into my personal email at work and send an email on my lunch break. What's the big deal? I know of no rule, so you might imagine true or you might not. I have no idea what the procedures are. Can you link us to these govt rules on records?

I'm sure that could be found out, if anyone cared. I was in the military at a very low level... enlisted... and yet everything I signed is (was) stored for years and years. Most of it probably is still being stored 18 years later. Politicians definitely are not supposed to just destroy records. They hand them over to various archives, who box them up and put them in warehouses.

That's my point, nobody cares. We only care about Hillary now, because she's running for President. There haven't been any lefttard blogs accusing righttards of email shenanigans. Whoever the accusations are about will suddenly become fully accountable.

If it's against the law prosecute her now. If it's not against the law and it's this big of deal, write a law that outlaws it.

That's fine. No one is asking for Hillary's PRIVATE email, just the email that is Federal in nature. That she deleted all her email..... AFTER knowing that she was in trouble, leads directly to suspicion being placed on her. If she'd just let some impartial investigators look through her email, and sift out any that has Subjects that were Federal in nature, she would have had a lot less grief. But she didn't.... did she? She printed out what she wanted to hand over and deleted everything else. And we have only her Good Word that she didn't do anything shady.

Poor reason for suspicion because she's not in trouble. She's likely about to become the most powerful woman who's ever lived because Republicans bring a rifle to a bear hunt and plink at squirrels with it.

It started as Benghazi, but like with a guy on the street talking to a hooker, when the Police stop and he runs and throws a package into an alley, that is called Probable Cause. Hillary's reaction to the discovery of her basement server is the equivalent of running away from the police and trying to toss evidence into a river.

What law do you have probable cause that she broke? Cite the law! You have to suspect her of committing a crime before these imaginative stories are even comparable.

Did Obama order the missile strikes and then deny doing so, deleting evidence along the way, and instead point to trying to kill a insane elephant as a reason for the missile attack? No, we know what Obama did and we know why he did so.

Yeah he just broke the law into pieces and didn't even have to lie about it. I know what he did I don't think the majority of the country knows or cares. But defend his reasons if you like, I'd love to hear it.

None of that fooled anyone and evidence of what happened is plentiful. What is not established is what Hillary was doing and had done during this timeframe, because her emails were not in the Federal storage like they were supposed to have been. And it was not till years later she admitted to having them still on her private server, which makes a lie of when she signed off that she'd handed over all Sec of State documents when she left office. And then she Deleted EVERYTHING.

If she broke a law, prosecute her. If she didn't break a law, and it's this big of a stinking deal, then write a law. Anything else, the remainder is just partisan politics. It's a shitstorm for the plebs, R lawmakers sitting on their thumbs.

We also know that the youtube movie was just a scapgoat that was easy to grab onto at the time, to deflect the media momentarily.

It's just as easy to grab onto right now, if you're keeping up with current events. "Benghazi" is the scapegoat. Why would Republicans put themselves on trial for their own acts and complicity when nonsense about emails keeps them smelling fresh and pure.

No.. No... your attempt to parallel with Obama just doesn't match up. Hillary clearly disobeyed government regs many times.

If she broke the law then prosecute her. If she didn't break the law and its' this big a damned deal, then write a law so it doesn't happen again. Whoops, don't care about preventing it in the future either. Pure. partisan. politics.

So, you just believe that the Truth of the matter should never come to light?

I think if it's important it should be dealt with appropriately.

If Hillary had done what her Sec of State position was supposed to require of her, then all this Benghazi stuff would have been done years ago. But, she had to be secretive and hide stuff, and then, stupidly, be found out....

Where are these requirements? Is this conjecture or do you have a source?

It is like a good lie. You sprinkle a lot of truth into the lie, so it is believable. So, if she wanted to hide something, she should have handed over 80% or 90% of her email, at the appropriate time, and no one would have had reason to suspect she was hiding anything. But when 100% of your emails are missing, that is just Stupid.

You mean if 20% of her emails were missing you wouldn't suspect anything? That's the better lie.

It's like telling a bald face lie, such as that you didn't want to carry two phones around to use two different email addresses. :tu: :tu: :tu:

That's not a lie it's a preference. And who wants to carry two phones around? Looks like partisan weaksauce trying to tell her how to do her job to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I can log into my personal email at work and send an email on my lunch break. What's the big deal? I know of no rule, so you might imagine true or you might not. I have no idea what the procedures are. Can you link us to these govt rules on records?

I found this....

As used in this chapter, “records” includes all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of data in them. Library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes, extra copies of documents preserved only for convenience of reference, and stocks of publications and of processed documents are not included.

and this....

The head of each agency of the United States Government shall submit to the Archivist, under regulations promulgated as provided by section 3302 of this title—

(1) lists of any records in the custody of the agency that have been photographed or microphotographed under the regulations and that, as a consequence, do not appear to have sufficient value to warrant their further preservation by the Government;

(2) lists of other records in the custody of the agency not needed by it in the transaction of its current business and that do not appear to have sufficient administrative, legal, research, or other value to warrant their further preservation by the Government; and

(3) schedules proposing the disposal after the lapse of specified periods of time of records of a specified form or character that either have accumulated in the custody of the agency or may accumulate after the submission of the schedules and apparently will not after the lapse of the period specified have sufficient administrative, legal, research, or other value to warrant their further preservation by the Government.

So basically anything that comes into a Congressional office is a record, and those need to be turned over to the Archivist to be determined if they need to be retained or destroyed. Mr Representative, or Mr Senator, or Mrs Sec of State, shouldn't destroy their own records. I suppose they might be able to keep copies, as long as the Archivist gets copies also.

That's my point, nobody cares. We only care about Hillary now, because she's running for President. There haven't been any lefttard blogs accusing righttards of email shenanigans. Whoever the accusations are about will suddenly become fully accountable.

If it's against the law prosecute her now. If it's not against the law and it's this big of deal, write a law that outlaws it.

That's because THEIR constituency gets riled up by different subjects... like Racism, so they paint people like Romney and Perry as racists and publish opinion pieces about how they once didn't let allow someone to walk all over them, so their a racist.

Does anyone other then Hollywood elite even read/write left-**** blogs?

Well.... In order to prosecute you need evidence, and if a politician destroys the evidence then prosecuting them, even if you suspect they are dirty, is kind of hard to do.

Destroying Federal documents is against the law, which is why those documents are supposed to be created by way of the Federal email/network system. Hillary went around that and so it is unknown if she did delete any Federal documents, but the method and situation surrounding the wiping of her server is very suspicious. If this was a case against a corporation, rather then a multi-millionaire politician, we'd already have had the server chopped up and know what really happened.

Poor reason for suspicion because she's not in trouble. She's likely about to become the most powerful woman who's ever lived because Republicans bring a rifle to a bear hunt and plink at squirrels with it.

:rolleyes::sleepy:

What law do you have probable cause that she broke? Cite the law! You have to suspect her of committing a crime before these imaginative stories are even comparable.

Destruction of public records. Duh!

Yeah he just broke the law into pieces and didn't even have to lie about it. I know what he did I don't think the majority of the country knows or cares. But defend his reasons if you like, I'd love to hear it.

Huh? So you admit that Bush broke the law, but Hillary's golden? When they practiced the very same tactics?

Defend him? What..... did you miss the post where I said both should be kept from politics since they can't be trusted? If there is evidence then either/both should be charged with destroying/hiding public documents.

If she broke a law, prosecute her. If she didn't break a law, and it's this big of a stinking deal, then write a law. Anything else, the remainder is just partisan politics. It's a shitstorm for the plebs, R lawmakers sitting on their thumbs.

Collecting any evidence is what the inquiries/lawsuits are for. Do you think she's just going to hand over evidence that she destroyed public records?

There is already a law, and the investigation is into if she broke the law, and she very possibly destroyed the evidence.

Where are these requirements? Is this conjecture or do you have a source?

Don't you read the news? Right here...

Every person who works inside the State Department must sign an official Separation Statement, which is a document requiring an inventory be taken of personal documents departing officials plan to take with them. These documents must be submitted to and approved by Department records officials. According to the State Department Records Management Handbook, officials who fail to turn over documents can face, "fines, imprisonment or both for the willful and unlawful removal or destruction of records as stated in the U.S. Criminal Code." Clinton has argued that she has turned over all the proper documents to the State Department, but just did it two years after leaving her position.

"State Department regulations also say that departing officials have to make sure that all of their official records are in the files of the Department of State upon departure. That couldn't be any clearer," Former DOJ Attorney Shannen Coffin said last night on The Kelly File.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/03/17/state-department-no-record-of-hillary-clinton-signing-form-about-turning-over-documents/

Right there... Either Hillary didn't sign the form, which is a possible Felony, or she didn't turn over emails, which is a possible Felony. Either way the server needed to be searched by a neutral 3rd party to verify, and she destroyed everything instead.

You mean if 20% of her emails were missing you wouldn't suspect anything? That's the better lie.

It is!!! If she had been smart, she'd have not been caught. Logically that leads to her either being Stupid, or her believing that all of us are Stupid. Which is it?

That's not a lie it's a preference. And who wants to carry two phones around? Looks like partisan weaksauce trying to tell her how to do her job to me.

It is a lie, she previous to being Sec of State used a phone with two emails, so she is just lying... She thinks everyone is so stupid they'll just believe even retarded lies.

Or, do you honestly believe that she thought in 2013 that she needed two phones to use two email accounts?

You do know that there are pictures published and reports from aids from her staff that she currently uses a tablet and carries two phones??

She admits to a blackberry and an iphone in this video. Not so inconvenient now??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBloj82wKRM

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

That was a great post. Every bit of it was old news though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I found this....

and this....

So basically anything that comes into a Congressional office is a record, and those need to be turned over to the Archivist to be determined if they need to be retained or destroyed. Mr Representative, or Mr Senator, or Mrs Sec of State, shouldn't destroy their own records. I suppose they might be able to keep copies, as long as the Archivist gets copies also.

That's because THEIR constituency gets riled up by different subjects... like Racism, so they paint people like Romney and Perry as racists and publish opinion pieces about how they once didn't let allow someone to walk all over them, so their a racist.

Does anyone other then Hollywood elite even read/write left-**** blogs?

Well.... In order to prosecute you need evidence, and if a politician destroys the evidence then prosecuting them, even if you suspect they are dirty, is kind of hard to do.

Destroying Federal documents is against the law, which is why those documents are supposed to be created by way of the Federal email/network system. Hillary went around that and so it is unknown if she did delete any Federal documents, but the method and situation surrounding the wiping of her server is very suspicious. If this was a case against a corporation, rather then a multi-millionaire politician, we'd already have had the server chopped up and know what really happened.

:rolleyes::sleepy:

Destruction of public records. Duh!

Huh? So you admit that Bush broke the law, but Hillary's golden? When they practiced the very same tactics?

Defend him? What..... did you miss the post where I said both should be kept from politics since they can't be trusted? If there is evidence then either/both should be charged with destroying/hiding public documents.

Collecting any evidence is what the inquiries/lawsuits are for. Do you think she's just going to hand over evidence that she destroyed public records?

There is already a law, and the investigation is into if she broke the law, and she very possibly destroyed the evidence.

Don't you read the news? Right here...

http://newyork.cbslo...over-documents/

Right there... Either Hillary didn't sign the form, which is a possible Felony, or she didn't turn over emails, which is a possible Felony. Either way the server needed to be searched by a neutral 3rd party to verify, and she destroyed everything instead.

It is!!! If she had been smart, she'd have not been caught. Logically that leads to her either being Stupid, or her believing that all of us are Stupid. Which is it?

It is a lie, she previous to being Sec of State used a phone with two emails, so she is just lying... She thinks everyone is so stupid they'll just believe even retarded lies.

Or, do you honestly believe that she thought in 2013 that she needed two phones to use two email accounts?

You do know that there are pictures published and reports from aids from her staff that she currently uses a tablet and carries two phones??

She admits to a blackberry and an iphone in this video. Not so inconvenient now??

https://www.youtube....h?v=WBloj82wKRM

You just said it was what she wanted to use, not what she needed to use for two email accounts. There is no law telling her what she "needed" to use, and so she used what she wanted. I don't know why the conspiracy is so necessary. There was no law prohibiting her from using personal emails, and the nature of things that are personal is that they're not public. If this is such a significant problem then the remedy for it would be a law that prevents future Secretaries et al. from using personal email.

All there's left to do beyond that is to go after Hillary Clinton and press some charges already that aren't just political rhetoric that does nothing to prevent it from happening again. Don't get too excited about sitting on the pot and doing nothing about 44 U.S. Code § 3303 - Lists and schedules of records to be submitted to the Archivist by head of each Government agency. If this is so cut and dry like you keeping going on about, then the House committee she sent 300 emails to about the Benghazi attacks are incompetent. Republicans and jugglenuts who talk a lot of smack and sit and do nothing don't impress me. You should be expressing disapproval with them, like me.

I think this is potentially a big deal and something to prevent in the future, not to play partisan politics with, but not because she's deleting personal emails and "destroying public records duh", but that she was exclusively using personal email in the first place.

Huh? So you admit that Bush broke the law, but Hillary's golden? When they practiced the very same tactics?

Defend him? What..... did you miss the post where I said both should be kept from politics since they can't be trusted? If there is evidence then either/both should be charged with destroying/hiding public documents.

I'm talking about defending "him", President Barack Obama. You "know what he did and you know why he did it." (Libya). So tell me, why'd he do it? Reason for him to me, go for it.

Don't you read the news? Right here.

"May have" isn't the narrative you're spreading here. So the news isn't your source, that's my source. I'm saying if she may have done something wrong, do something about it already. If this really meant that much to you, you would be more critical of the do-nothings than I am.

Right there... Either Hillary didn't sign the form, which is a possible Felony, or she didn't turn over emails, which is a possible Felony. Either way the server needed to be searched by a neutral 3rd party to verify, and she destroyed everything instead.

Then Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice both committed possible felonies according to your own link. But if you tone it down to "possible felony" from here on out, I think now you're down to a more reasonable altitude. I'm not going to deny the possibility of wrongdoing, but I'm also not going to accept these premature ejaconvictions which haven't been legally reckoned with yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I'm sorry to have to call it like I smell it, but this stale story stinks of yet another tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theory for the Birther crowd to propagate with the guilty-until-proven-innocent accusations on display throughout these email threads. A selective attention span over deleting emails, limited in scope to Hillary Clinton and partisan squabbling, having nothing to do with solving a potential problem or serving this country by preventing it from happening again.

“I wanted to use just one device for both personal and work emails instead of two” doesn't make Hillary Clinton illegal and Colin Powell legal.

Colin Powell on his now non-existent personal emails he also chose to use while serving as Secretary of State:

“I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files."

http://www.politico....ent-115870.html

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I'm sorry to have to call it like I smell it, but this stale story stinks of yet another tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theory for the Birther crowd to propagate with the guilty-until-proven-innocent accusations on display throughout these email threads. A selective attention span over deleting emails, limited in scope to Hillary Clinton and partisan squabbling, having nothing to do with solving a potential problem or serving this country by preventing it from happening again.

“I wanted to use just one device for both personal and work emails instead of two” doesn't make Hillary Clinton illegal and Colin Powell legal.

Colin Powell on his now non-existent personal emails he also chose to use while serving as Secretary of State:

“I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files."

http://www.politico....ent-115870.html

From your link...

The State Department’s policy on personal email accounts dates back to 2005, the year Powell left the administration.

In other words. The policy changed, and Hillary decided to ignore that policy.

Also Mr Powell likely deleted those emails as they came in. Hillary sat on her emails for 2 years and then bulk deleted them when it seemed she'd have to let someone look through them.

You should read the entire article before you post it. Or, perhaps you were just depending on us not reading it??

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

You just said it was what she wanted to use, not what she needed to use for two email accounts. There is no law telling her what she "needed" to use, and so she used what she wanted.

Semantics. She said that she didn't want to use two emails, because she didn't want to use two phones. That's pretty clear that she either thinks we are stupid, or someone let her go in front of cameras and be stupid. Either one is not doing her any favors.

I don't know why the conspiracy is so necessary.

The only conspiracy is why she didn't sign her documents form when she left office. And why she saved her email for two years and then deleted it on the eve of when it was likely to be subpoenaed. Did she just have nothing to do that day and so decided to delete her server?

There was no law prohibiting her from using personal emails, and the nature of things that are personal is that they're not public. If this is such a significant problem then the remedy for it would be a law that prevents future Secretaries et al. from using personal email.

I think this is potentially a big deal and something to prevent in the future, not to play partisan politics with, but not because she's deleting personal emails and "destroying public records duh", but that she was exclusively using personal email in the first place.

Any change is going to look partisan. There isn't any way to get around being accused of partisanship in a case like this. I agree there should be a law.

I'm talking about defending "him", President Barack Obama. You "know what he did and you know why he did it." (Libya). So tell me, why'd he do it? Reason for him to me, go for it.

I'm not following? What does President Obama have to do with Hillary's email? Do you really believe that President Obama's destroying email also? If so, then provide some proof and I'll side with those who say it is illegal and shouldn't be happening.

I'm saying if she may have done something wrong, do something about it already.

Gathering evidence IS doing something. Destruction of public records is what they are looking into.

I'm not going to deny the possibility of wrongdoing, but I'm also not going to accept these premature ejaconvictions which haven't been legally reckoned with yet.

Then why are you so against anyone gathering evidence? If this was some other felony that happened to someone else, that server would have been taken on day one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Semantics. She said that she didn't want to use two emails, because she didn't want to use two phones. That's pretty clear that she either thinks we are stupid, or someone let her go in front of cameras and be stupid. Either one is not doing her any favors.

It is semantics and irrelevant to her legality, but is that even really what she said?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-phones-secretary-state-now/story?id=29535505

It doesn't sound like what you said earlier that she didn't know she could use two emails on one phone, it was a matter of preference.

The only conspiracy is why she didn't sign her documents form when she left office.

Neither did Rice or Powell. The conspiracy is nonsense.

And why she saved her email for two years and then deleted it on the eve of when it was likely to be subpoenaed. Did she just have nothing to do that day and so decided to delete her server?

I can't even trust your information to get to the question supposing your information. What date was this and where did you read that?

Any change is going to look partisan. There isn't any way to get around being accused of partisanship in a case like this. I agree there should be a law.

Finally! Then make a law and pass it, or this Republican majority doesn't care or is useless when it does care.

I'm not following? What does President Obama have to do with Hillary's email? Do you really believe that President Obama's destroying email also? If so, then provide some proof and I'll side with those who say it is illegal and shouldn't be happening.

With what happened in Benghazi. The West welcomed Gaddafi back in 2009-2010. They went to meet with him and offer him aid. Bush concluded Libya was no longer a threat. Three senators met with Gaddafi's son and offered him aid. A few years later these senators were back in Libya offering the rebels aid. Maybe we should question the judgment of people who obviously don't know what they're doing. But for you apparently the Benghazi story doesn't begin until the embassy was attacked on September 11th. Since you've repeatedly assured me that the motivation wasn't a movie, explain to me what it was. Hmm I wonder if the date is a clue.

Gathering evidence IS doing something. Destruction of public records is what they are looking into.

So they've gathered evidence since this news is over two months old, what evidence haven't they collected yet?

Then why are you so against anyone gathering evidence? If this was some other felony that happened to someone else, that server would have been taken on day one.

I don't know what I've said to make you think I'm against gathering evidence. Guilty until proven innocent should be your motto. A "felony that happened". You're presuming this felony again that you're ignoring other Secretaries doing. Colin Powell's wasn't investigated on day anything. Like there wasn't anything worth investigating that he did with his emails while he was in office. Even when it's known that the George W. Bush administration was handling matters of national security on personal/campaign email servers. That's reason to suspect their personal emails. But the partisanship is the opposite if what you keep saying it is when Democrats couldn't have cared less about Colin's emails. It's easier to make up another nutto conspiracy out of an embassy attack when it's more than obvious by now we're being attacked for the same reasons we're already being attacked.

So back to this investigation. Where's those computers/servers at in the State Dept today? Still sitting on John Kerry's desk? Still downstairs in the State Dept basement? Or have they been subpoenaed for evidence gathering? You seem to be happy with the investigation so far, so show me the evidence that you're so satisfied with? You're ready to rule emotionally, that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

It is semantics and irrelevant to her legality, but is that even really what she said?

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=29535505

It doesn't sound like what you said earlier that she didn't know she could use two emails on one phone, it was a matter of preference.

"When I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal e-mail account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal e-mails instead of two," Clinton explained.

Washington Post.

Harte

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

It is semantics and irrelevant to her legality, but is that even really what she said?

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=29535505

It doesn't sound like what you said earlier that she didn't know she could use two emails on one phone, it was a matter of preference.

Obviously it was a preference, but do you believe that she was only able to have one email address per phone? That clearly was not true, even in 2008. She had MANY technical people working for her... setting up a server at least took someone with technical savy. And they would have told her she didn't need two phones. The very idea is laughable.

Neither did Rice or Powell. The conspiracy is nonsense.

I thought I pointed out that the Policy changed in 2008, so Rice and Powell both wouldn't have had that rule when they were in office.

OR: Are you saying that Rice and Powell never signed the release form either? If so, do you have proof of that??

I can't even trust your information to get to the question supposing your information. What date was this and where did you read that?

Did you not watch the whole thing on TV/Youtube? She printed out the emails she wanted to give over, and then when it looked like the Congress was going to ask to see more, she deleted it all. Seriously??? You didn't see this happen?

Finally! Then make a law and pass it, or this Republican majority doesn't care or is useless when it does care.

I agree, they should pass a law, since just making a Policy apparently isn't strong enough for self righteous, self important, secretive, idiots like Hillary Clinton.

With what happened in Benghazi. The West welcomed Gaddafi back in 2009-2010. They went to meet with him and offer him aid. Bush concluded Libya was no longer a threat. Three senators met with Gaddafi's son and offered him aid. A few years later these senators were back in Libya offering the rebels aid. Maybe we should question the judgment of people who obviously don't know what they're doing. But for you apparently the Benghazi story doesn't begin until the embassy was attacked on September 11th. Since you've repeatedly assured me that the motivation wasn't a movie, explain to me what it was. Hmm I wonder if the date is a clue.

That's off topic, and not relevant to this discussion. Foreign policy changes day by day.

So they've gathered evidence since this news is over two months old, what evidence haven't they collected yet?

Uh... Since there is an active lawsuit to get the server, and to dig up any other relevant email, and to see if any public documents were destroyed... knowingly, or unknowingly.

I still think that investigators could input all those 30,000 documents and then using the Subject line, they can see if any emails are missing. This would indicate a public document being deleted and not recorded.

I don't know what I've said to make you think I'm against gathering evidence. Guilty until proven innocent should be your motto. A "felony that happened". You're presuming this felony again that you're ignoring other Secretaries doing. Colin Powell's wasn't investigated on day anything. Like there wasn't anything worth investigating that he did with his emails while he was in office. Even when it's known that the George W. Bush administration was handling matters of national security on personal/campaign email servers. That's reason to suspect their personal emails. But the partisanship is the opposite if what you keep saying it is when Democrats couldn't have cared less about Colin's emails. It's easier to make up another nutto conspiracy out of an embassy attack when it's more than obvious by now we're being attacked for the same reasons we're already being attacked.

I do believe in Innocent till proven Guilty. Maybe I've overstated Hillary's situation. However if you find a mugger standing over a corpse with a gun in his hand, that is pretty damning evidence. And the facts are that Hillary didn't sign the form, that she knew that the Congress wanted emails from her, that she had all those emails on her server for two years, and that she deleted all those emails, even the personal ones, when it looked like someone else might get to look at them. Those are the facts and they don't paint a very pretty picture.

So back to this investigation. Where's those computers/servers at in the State Dept today? Still sitting on John Kerry's desk? Still downstairs in the State Dept basement? Or have they been subpoenaed for evidence gathering? You seem to be happy with the investigation so far, so show me the evidence that you're so satisfied with? You're ready to rule emotionally, that's about it.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

She didn't say it was a matter of preference. She said it was a matter of "convenience."

Just like all her excuses.

Hillary Clinton is old meat. At some point you just have to accept it. If it smells bad, it IS bad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Just saw this also....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/18/newly-released-documents-indicate-key-hillary-clinton-claim-on-emails-was-not-true/

Emails published by the New York Times Monday indicate that Hillary Clinton used more than one private email address during her time as secretary of state, contradicting previous claims from the Democratic presidential contender’s office.

Multiple emails show Clinton used account “hrod17@clintonemail.com” while serving in the Obama administration as secretary of state.

Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, had previously told Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) that that particular address had not “existed during Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.”

Another statement from Clinton’s office said she only used one address during her time as secretary of state.

“Secretary Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of her first weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had previously used),” it said. “In March 2013, Gawker published the email address she used while Secretary, and so she had to change the address on her account.”

Clinton served as secretary of state from Jan. 2009 to Feb. 2013. The emails she sent with the “hrod17@clintonemail.com” were sent in 2011 and 2012, according to the documents released by the Times.

A representative for Clinton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from TheBlaze.

So what she PROBABLY meant was that she was only using email off her personal server?

Who wants to bet that she deleted all these emails also?? :innocent:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I don't think Hillary tells the truth about anything any longer and I mean that literally. I think she is mentally disturbed from years of abuse by Bill and has a bizarrely inflated opinion of how intelligent and speciakl she is when in fact she couldn't even pass the DC bar exam (817 took teh exam and 551 passed it). She has failed at every task she has tried except for destroying women who complaine dthat they had been sexually harassed or assaulted by her husband Bill. Her Bimbo Eruption Squad destroyed many women's lives and threatend many others with destruction (see George Stephanoplolis' book) but it is OK because the feminists like Bill (message sent that feminists protect only certain kinds of women).

A truly horrible woman and the worst of what the baby boomers had to offer. Hopefully she loses and disappears from all our lives and takes the rest of that terrible generation of Americans with her. After decades in the public eye in very powerful positions it is fun to ask a Hillary zelaot to list her accomplishments. After a wild eyed look their response is usually that she deserves it (for some reason)..

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

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.