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

aquatus1

So, you're not leaning towards her nomination? I sense hesitation in your voice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

So, you're not leaning towards her nomination? I sense hesitation in your voice.

LOL. No, I am tending more towards the "Anyone but" category :tu:

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

From your link..

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

And the policy that she violated is what exactly? There's a lot of policy from FAM about different kinds of information and different ways of handling it. Are you under the allusion that everyone she sent a personal email to has no right of privacy and that she can't delete anything? You're speculating. I can't find any policy changes from 2005 or 2008 that prove an illegal act , maybe you can refer me to it.

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.

So she didn't have to let anyone look at them in the two years prior to that, putting to bed your previous claim that they had to be handed over to the archivist. Only after "it seemed" she had to, alrighty then. You're presuming the emails were improperly deleted.

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

I did read it, didn't depend on you not reading it, and didn't read anything citing a policy violation much less an illegal act. In fact everything I have read on this matter says "she may" or "if she", not the guilt before innocence I'm hearing from you here.

Obviously it was a preference, but do you believe that she was only able to have one email address per phone?

No, I don't believe that at all based on her comments. It was a comment on her preferences, period. It had nothing to do with what she "had to" do.

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.

Laughable and straw. Nobody is saying it's what she had to do, but you.

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.

You haven't even pointed out the policy in question yet. I'm reading articles she may have violated a regulation from 2005, and that the policy changed in 2005 thereby making Colin Powell off the hook. So this isn't just partisan speculation based on whatever, show me the policy.

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

That's what I'm saying. I shouldn't depend on you to read all of the articles I link to.

“We have reviewed Secretary Clinton’s official personnel file and administrative files and do not have any record of her signing the OF-109,” Psaki said. “In addition, after looking into their official personnel files, we did not locate any record of either of her immediate predecessors signing this form.”

Psaki wouldn’t comment on how important the document was at “checkout” of the Department, but she noted that two Secretaries of State before Clinton – Condoleezza Rice and Colin Luther Powell – both did not sign the form either.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-state-department-admits-no-record-hillary-clinton-signing-separation-form/

Now what? Are you going to believe the source when it says that Hillary didn't do it, and disbelieve the source when it says that Rice and Powell didn't either? Or are you going to talk about vacuous policies that you don't cite in your "evidence" against her?

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?

So you're saying that she had no discretion what to do with her personal emails that had nothing to do with official business? Or are you just speculating that her emails must have had something to do with official business because she deleted them? She couldn't be protecting the privacy of people who have that right, no of course not. We have to presume guilt because we're chomping at the partisan bit.

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.

Then they're not doing what they should be doing, and you should join me in condemning their glaring lack of preventing this idiocy again.

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

Policy changes day by day. That's why you need to cite what policy you're talking about when you start using the word when presuming guilt.

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.

If you continue to dial it back and use the word "if" then you and I don't disagree. So great I'll believe what you're presuming after they come up with something illegal. When we have a law here that she broke and charges pressed, and she turns out guilty, burn the witch. Until then, you don't have any information on this either way and all you can do is speculate.

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 do believe in Innocent till proven Guilty. Maybe I've overstated Hillary's situation.

I think you have.

However if you find a mugger standing over a corpse with a gun in his hand, that is pretty damning evidence

In response to me asking you for evidence you just got done saying that there's a lawsuit. So I have no idea what this metaphor is referring to. Other than more presumptuous guilt before innocence.

. 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.

Presuming innocence, if she had something to hide she wouldn't have kept the emails on the server for two years. The unpretty picture is a dizzy mess of partisan accusations and speculation. You can speculate, they can investigate, and if the investigation reveals she broke the law and you want to burn the witch, I'll throw the torch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

We forgot all about the head of the Justice Dept. Eric Holder, remember him?

Here's an article on the Justice Dept. blatantly breaking the law and the will of the people, ignoring federal laws by its own admission.

http://www.drugpolic...le-medical-mari

Why aren't Eric Holder and Barack Obama getting neck-cranked by some committee over this?! Because none of the R idiots in Congress give a ****. And why is that?

Because it's not partisan porridge. --> Eric Holder isn't running for President.

Even worse, R's love lapping up Obama's policies. Of course they'd rather prosecute for not adhering to Obama policies rather than condemning and overpowering the policies because they're utter crap. Even insidious policies, such as putting non-violent and even sick Americans in prison while ignoring the law. Who cares about that, huh Rs? You get your lawyers all lubed up and injected into the State Dept. instead to vacuum up the crumbs about a departmental email policy instead. Bravo. A slight improvement over the Birther conspiracy theory. A colossal ignorance over the illegality of this administration.

Do I have a reason to impose innocence until guilt is proven in this issue? Since based on the record from January 2009 until now, I have zero evidence to believe these neophytes and old guards of the Republican party can pick up a pencil to stop Executive overreach, that's why it isn't difficult to predict that this email nonsense isn't going anywhere but the partisan feed trough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I think it's clear this isn't what she thought she had to do (Diechecker's repeated claim along with the subsequent accusations of "stupid"), it was simply a matter of preference. "An option" for her "convenience." as this WaPo article put it.

I don't think options for greater convenience are the "stupidity" or the crime that Diechecker is looking for. If she didn't have the option to use whatever she wanted to that was the most convenient for her to use...DC's rants about it will start to make some sense. And if she didn't have the option, why didn't El Departmente say anything to her after her comments so she could correct them?

DC, isn't it clear enough by now it's not about what she had to do, it's about what she wanted to do? Who are we to tell her how many devices/emails to use on what devices are the best, smartest or most efficient for her? That's just an opinion, not a charge.

It's eyebrow raising when the criticism against her takes the form of an armchair IT consultant. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

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

Just like all her excuses.

Convenience, preference, whatever. It was her OPTION. If you want to criminalize the option for future Secretaries and whoever for whatever the bloody reason, then I'll believe this silly focus is at least well intended for the country.

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

"Old meat"? If you can't come up with anything better than this email bologna to beat the old meat, you're about as good as electing it President. How about paying the first bit of attention to Hillary Clinton's policies, and going after her for those? Or am I going to have to start suspecting that you age-and-smell critics ignore her policies because you like them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

And the policy that she violated is what exactly? There's a lot of policy from FAM about different kinds of information and different ways of handling it. Are you under the allusion that everyone she sent a personal email to has no right of privacy and that she can't delete anything? You're speculating. I can't find any policy changes from 2005 or 2008 that prove an illegal act , maybe you can refer me to it.

Here is some light reading...

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf

So she didn't have to let anyone look at them in the two years prior to that, putting to bed your previous claim that they had to be handed over to the archivist. Only after "it seemed" she had to, alrighty then. You're presuming the emails were improperly deleted.

I'm not presuming they were improperly deleted. It is a fact that only Hillary and her hand picked assistants printed and handed over those emails, then the rest were deleted. It is a FACT that we don't know what was deleted.

No, Hillary was legally bound to deliver all her documents on leaving office. But, she never signed the document saying she was told this, and so she can claim ignorance. Then when she was going to be required to deliver those documents, she deleted them.

I did read it, didn't depend on you not reading it, and didn't read anything citing a policy violation much less an illegal act. In fact everything I have read on this matter says "she may" or "if she", not the guilt before innocence I'm hearing from you here.

I'm not saying she is guilty, just that the evidence found so far points at guilt, and that more evidence/questions should be asked. That she quickly and completely covered her tracks just magnifies that appearance of guilt.

If everything you've read indicates she is innocent, then you've only been reading far left bias sources. Go read a UK article or PBS article about the subject. Almost everyone agrees she is being dishonest, it is just that uber liberals do not care.

No, I don't believe that at all based on her comments. It was a comment on her preferences, period. It had nothing to do with what she "had to" do.

You can play this angle all you want, but it is like a kid saying that he he doesn't need a bath because in his opinion he isn't dirty. Hillary looks dirty.

Laughable and straw. Nobody is saying it's what she had to do, but you.

So you believe her. Be a man and just say so....

You haven't even pointed out the policy in question yet. I'm reading articles she may have violated a regulation from 2005, and that the policy changed in 2005 thereby making Colin Powell off the hook. So this isn't just partisan speculation based on whatever, show me the policy.

Linked above....

That's what I'm saying. I shouldn't depend on you to read all of the articles I link to.

“We have reviewed Secretary Clinton’s official personnel file and administrative files and do not have any record of her signing the OF-109,” Psaki said. “In addition, after looking into their official personnel files, we did not locate any record of either of her immediate predecessors signing this form.”

Psaki wouldn’t comment on how important the document was at “checkout” of the Department, but she noted that two Secretaries of State before Clinton – Condoleezza Rice and Colin Luther Powell – both did not sign the form either.

http://www.westernjo...eparation-form/

Now what? Are you going to believe the source when it says that Hillary didn't do it, and disbelieve the source when it says that Rice and Powell didn't either? Or are you going to talk about vacuous policies that you don't cite in your "evidence" against her?

It should definitely be made an issue of. Let's go to Rice and Powell and see if they have copies of that form. And then ask if they have any documents they need to return to the government. And then ask if they used secret servers they ran from their home. I'm sure if Rice or Powell had been involved in some kind of international scandal, then this would have come up at the time.

Are you saying that someone committing a crime, or disobeying a regulation, should be forgiven if someone in the past did the same thing? I've asked this before, and you dodged it several times, but I'll ask again? Does a past crime by someone else excuse a current crime by a different person?

So you're saying that she had no discretion what to do with her personal emails that had nothing to do with official business? Or are you just speculating that her emails must have had something to do with official business because she deleted them? She couldn't be protecting the privacy of people who have that right, no of course not. We have to presume guilt because we're chomping at the partisan bit.

Certainly she had discression, but as soon as she did her private email through the same server as her Government email was on, that email became susceptible to scrutiny. This is likely why she was referencing two phones. She should have had two servers, and two email accounts.

I don't use my @intel.com email for private business, because it can be searched by Intel if need be. If I DID chose to use my @intel.com email for private discussions and business, then I would have to understand the presumption that Intel will be monitoring that email. It is naive to believe otherwise.

Then they're not doing what they should be doing, and you should join me in condemning their glaring lack of preventing this idiocy again.

When have I not supported that? I've said several times, "They need to make this into an actual law". I think what you are getting at is that I don't think we need to CHARGE everyone though history that used a private email when in office.

If you continue to dial it back and use the word "if" then you and I don't disagree. So great I'll believe what you're presuming after they come up with something illegal. When we have a law here that she broke and charges pressed, and she turns out guilty, burn the witch. Until then, you don't have any information on this either way and all you can do is speculate.

So you support the lawsuit that is seeking more evidence?

In response to me asking you for evidence you just got done saying that there's a lawsuit. So I have no idea what this metaphor is referring to. Other than more presumptuous guilt before innocence.

That is exactly right. I feel that presumption of guilt isn't excess if the public evidence is overwhelming. I think perhaps you chose not to believe the evidence is overwhelming.

Presuming innocence, if she had something to hide she wouldn't have kept the emails on the server for two years. The unpretty picture is a dizzy mess of partisan accusations and speculation. You can speculate, they can investigate, and if the investigation reveals she broke the law and you want to burn the witch, I'll throw the torch.

You don't know Hillary Clinton. Her close friends say she is a Hoarder. She kept those emails because she wanted control over them. Doubtless she still have a basement full of printed out documents in one of her residences.

"I don't throw anything away. I'm like two steps short of a hoarder."

http://www.refinery29.com/2015/02/82971/hillary-clinton-speech-overweight-fat-hoarder-joke

We forgot all about the head of the Justice Dept. Eric Holder, remember him?

Here's an article on the Justice Dept. blatantly breaking the law and the will of the people, ignoring federal laws by its own admission.

http://www.drugpolic...le-medical-mari

Why aren't Eric Holder and Barack Obama getting neck-cranked by some committee over this?! Because none of the R idiots in Congress give a ****. And why is that?

Because it's not partisan porridge. --> Eric Holder isn't running for President.

What are you talking about Eric Holder has been attacked by the Republicans since day one. Contempt of Congress ring any bells. The ONLY Attorney General to ever be held in Contempt of Congress. The ONLY Cabinet member to ever be held in Contempt of Congress. He was basically driven from office.

Even worse, R's love lapping up Obama's policies. Of course they'd rather prosecute for not adhering to Obama policies rather than condemning and overpowering the policies because they're utter crap. Even insidious policies, such as putting non-violent and even sick Americans in prison while ignoring the law. Who cares about that, huh Rs? You get your lawyers all lubed up and injected into the State Dept. instead to vacuum up the crumbs about a departmental email policy instead. Bravo. A slight improvement over the Birther conspiracy theory. A colossal ignorance over the illegality of this administration.

Do I have a reason to impose innocence until guilt is proven in this issue? Since based on the record from January 2009 until now, I have zero evidence to believe these neophytes and old guards of the Republican party can pick up a pencil to stop Executive overreach, that's why it isn't difficult to predict that this email nonsense isn't going anywhere but the partisan feed trough.

Well yes, we all know exactly what your opinions are Yamato. We hear (read) them all the time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pumpkinheadOO

Clinton: I'd love to show y'all the emails but, they are stored in the cloud. They belong to the sky now.

Reporter: Hilary, have you been drinking?

Clinton: I've had a few....

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Yamato on ignore makes UM a much better place to visit.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Here is some light reading...

http://www.state.gov...ation/88404.pdf

I'm not presuming they were improperly deleted. It is a fact that only Hillary and her hand picked assistants printed and handed over those emails, then the rest were deleted. It is a FACT that we don't know what was deleted.

No, Hillary was legally bound to deliver all her documents on leaving office. But, she never signed the document saying she was told this, and so she can claim ignorance. Then when she was going to be required to deliver those documents, she deleted them.

I'm not saying she is guilty, just that the evidence found so far points at guilt, and that more evidence/questions should be asked. That she quickly and completely covered her tracks just magnifies that appearance of guilt.

If everything you've read indicates she is innocent, then you've only been reading far left bias sources. Go read a UK article or PBS article about the subject. Almost everyone agrees she is being dishonest, it is just that uber liberals do not care.

You can play this angle all you want, but it is like a kid saying that he he doesn't need a bath because in his opinion he isn't dirty. Hillary looks dirty.

So you believe her. Be a man and just say so....

Linked above....

It should definitely be made an issue of. Let's go to Rice and Powell and see if they have copies of that form. And then ask if they have any documents they need to return to the government. And then ask if they used secret servers they ran from their home. I'm sure if Rice or Powell had been involved in some kind of international scandal, then this would have come up at the time.

Are you saying that someone committing a crime, or disobeying a regulation, should be forgiven if someone in the past did the same thing? I've asked this before, and you dodged it several times, but I'll ask again? Does a past crime by someone else excuse a current crime by a different person?

Certainly she had discression, but as soon as she did her private email through the same server as her Government email was on, that email became susceptible to scrutiny. This is likely why she was referencing two phones. She should have had two servers, and two email accounts.

I don't use my @intel.com email for private business, because it can be searched by Intel if need be. If I DID chose to use my @intel.com email for private discussions and business, then I would have to understand the presumption that Intel will be monitoring that email. It is naive to believe otherwise.

When have I not supported that? I've said several times, "They need to make this into an actual law". I think what you are getting at is that I don't think we need to CHARGE everyone though history that used a private email when in office.

So you support the lawsuit that is seeking more evidence?

That is exactly right. I feel that presumption of guilt isn't excess if the public evidence is overwhelming. I think perhaps you chose not to believe the evidence is overwhelming.

You don't know Hillary Clinton. Her close friends say she is a Hoarder. She kept those emails because she wanted control over them. Doubtless she still have a basement full of printed out documents in one of her residences.

http://www.refinery2...at-hoarder-joke

What are you talking about Eric Holder has been attacked by the Republicans since day one. Contempt of Congress ring any bells. The ONLY Attorney General to ever be held in Contempt of Congress. The ONLY Cabinet member to ever be held in Contempt of Congress. He was basically driven from office.

Well yes, we all know exactly what your opinions are Yamato. We hear (read) them all the time.

Well now that Eric Holder is breaking the law, you R's can safely ignore him.

We know what your opinions are, we read them all the time. A fresh new way of saying nothing.

I don't know how many more times or ways I have to say that I don't have a problem with the investigation.

"They need to make this into an actual law". I think what you are getting at is that I don't think we need to CHARGE everyone though history that used a private email when in office.

Or they don't have to charge anyone at all "through history". The point of the law would be that if someone does what you have such a problem with again, there will be a law there to charge them with breaking. I'm not looking back. I'm forward looking here. This could in theory charge everyone who violates this strange infatuation with how the Secretary of State uses email.

I don't use my @intel.com email for private business, because it can be searched by Intel if need be. If I DID chose to use my @intel.com email for private discussions and business, then I would have to understand the presumption that Intel will be monitoring that email. It is naive to believe otherwise.

You don't have to be naive to use intel emails thinking they can't see what you're emailing, you can just use them anyway without that naivety. But I'm not going to presume that you have something to hide because you're not using @intel emails. That would be too Republicany and way too presumptuous.

Certainly she had discression, but as soon as she did her private email through the same server as her Government email was on, that email became susceptible to scrutiny. This is likely why she was referencing two phones. She should have had two servers, and two email accounts.

I don't think we're in a position to speculate on what's likely. Her discretion vs. departmental scrutiny. If anything this is a learning experience for what to do before we have another pre-election season fit about it for the next Secretary of State.

So you believe her. Be a man and just say so....

If she has an option and rationalized her option, whether I believe her explanation for an option she has or not is the last thing I care about in determining how fit she is to be President. Again, her policies suck. That's where the gravity is. Not on some stretched out partisan speculation over some comment about cellphones.

Are you saying that someone committing a crime, or disobeying a regulation, should be forgiven if someone in the past did the same thing? I've asked this before, and you dodged it several times, but I'll ask again? Does a past crime by someone else excuse a current crime by a different person?

Easiest question ever. Absolutely not. Where did I dodge this several times? Current crimes don't excuse past crimes and past crimes don't excuse current crimes either. But you're assuming crime again. Your whole rhetoric dump here is putting the cart before the horse. You are presuming guilt. Your denials are baffling.

I'm not presuming they were improperly deleted. It is a fact that only Hillary and her hand picked assistants printed and handed over those emails, then the rest were deleted. It is a FACT that we don't know what was deleted.

It is definitely a FACT we don't know what was deleted. So rhetoric about "Secret Benghazi emails" contradict yourself. You're not even listening to yourself. You've done more presuming that something was improperly done than I can count on fingers and toes.

You can play this angle all you want, but it is like a kid saying that he he doesn't need a bath because in his opinion he isn't dirty. Hillary looks dirty.

She looks dirty because she's got lousy policies, not because she said something you don't understand about a cell phone. You excuse her of 99.9% of the reason not to excuse her and focus on a statement about an option about cell phones? Partisan weaksauce.

Republicans aren't going to succeed in having her arrested over this email nonsense. There are far more important things to oppose Hillary Clinton on, I'm sorry to see you're so focused on the least important one of all, how she handles her emails.

It should definitely be made an issue of. Let's go to Rice and Powell and see if they have copies of that form.

I don't know why you're looking for copies of a form they didn't sign. A new conspiracy about photocopiers maybe? But yeah, uh huh those investigators will get right on this I'm sure. But no, we both know that's not going to happen. The partisan spin doctors will completely ignore the fact that both Powell and Rice didn't sign it, and they'll keep on focusing solely on Hillary Clinton not signing it instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

You don't have to be naive to use intel emails thinking they can't see what you're emailing, you can just use them anyway without that naivety. But I'm not going to presume that you have something to hide because you're not using @intel emails. That would be too Republicany and way too presumptuous.

Being naive isn't something people usually know they are.

Presumption is MANY times the root of Wisdom. You however seem to think that presumption is wrong. Being open minded is fine, but being stupid is not.

If she has an option and rationalized her option, whether I believe her explanation for an option she has or not is the last thing I care about in determining how fit she is to be President. Again, her policies suck. That's where the gravity is. Not on some stretched out partisan speculation over some comment about cellphones.

It's a point that you are the only one who is fighting against. Everyone else shrugs their shoulders and tells themselves that it was a lame excuse, and moves on. And it was a lame excuse.

I already posted a source that shows that she WAS using two emails in 2011-2013. Both from her home server. So, then what is it? Did she use both email addresses from the one phone, or did she only use the second email from laptop/desktop computers? We don't know right now, but perhaps Congress will find out.

Easiest question ever. Absolutely not. Where did I dodge this several times? Current crimes don't excuse past crimes and past crimes don't excuse current crimes either. But you're assuming crime again. Your whole rhetoric dump here is putting the cart before the horse. You are presuming guilt. Your denials are baffling.

You've dodge the question by simply not quoting it and answering it previously.

I'm not assuming a crime. I'm giving you a hypothetical situation that happens to use Hillary as an example. If the crimes of the past office holders don't matter, then why even bring it up? Unless you are defending Hillary's actions? If there should be a law, showing a history of such is fine, but showing even one such event should be enough to speculate that there should be a law.

It is definitely a FACT we don't know what was deleted. So rhetoric about "Secret Benghazi emails" contradict yourself. You're not even listening to yourself. You've done more presuming that something was improperly done than I can count on fingers and toes.

When I was saying "Secret Benghazi emails", that was in reference to what another politician DIDN"T DO. If you want to read that Hillary did have secret Benghazi emails, that is on you, not me. I'm not saying such email exists, but that such could have existed, but was deleted. So I think we'll never know.

I think You may be the one Presuming that what you read into my posts is what I meant to post.

She looks dirty because she's got lousy policies, not because she said something you don't understand about a cell phone. You excuse her of 99.9% of the reason not to excuse her and focus on a statement about an option about cell phones? Partisan weaksauce.

That's BS Yam. I'm only going on about the email because it is in the news and YOU are keeping the denial going. If there are other better points to examine that should eliminate Hillary from running for office, then list them, and I'll go after those too.

Plus the TOPIC of this thread is the email scandal, not "A List Of Reasons To Oppose Hillary Clinton For President", so please forgive me for focusing on the email scandal.

Republicans aren't going to succeed in having her arrested over this email nonsense. There are far more important things to oppose Hillary Clinton on, I'm sorry to see you're so focused on the least important one of all, how she handles her emails.

Not succeed? There are different levels of "success" sir.

Least important? So what? If someone kills a stranger and steals their car and takes $100 out of the bank with their card, do you just ignore the $100 in favor of the murder charge? No, you charge them with all the crimes they commit.

I don't know why you're looking for copies of a form they didn't sign. A new conspiracy about photocopiers maybe? But yeah, uh huh those investigators will get right on this I'm sure. But no, we both know that's not going to happen. The partisan spin doctors will completely ignore the fact that both Powell and Rice didn't sign it, and they'll keep on focusing solely on Hillary Clinton not signing it instead.

Unless you go and look, you're not going to find anything. The State Department spent, what, a weekend... Looking for those forms and didn't find them, therefore they don't exist?? Nope. Finding anything with the government can take months. Perhaps those forms will show up?

So, what do you actually hope to achieve by bringing Rice and Powell into the discussion? Point out that it is not fair to Clinton? So, if it is not fair then we should let her off? If you do not think we should let her off, then why even bring it up, unless you're just being argumentative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Being naive isn't something people usually know they are.

Presumption is MANY times the root of Wisdom. You however seem to think that presumption is wrong. Being open minded is fine, but being stupid is not.

Presuming guilt until innocence is proven is being stupid, and it violates the spirit of the law.

It's a point that you are the only one who is fighting against. Everyone else shrugs their shoulders and tells themselves that it was a lame excuse, and moves on. And it was a lame excuse.

"It was a great excuse." Just saying it doesn't make it. I would have told the partisan rat house that "It's none of your damn business." and left it at that. Because guess what? It is none of your business.

I already posted a source that shows that she WAS using two emails in 2011-2013. Both from her home server. So, then what is it? Did she use both email addresses from the one phone, or did she only use the second email from laptop/desktop computers?

I couldn't care less. Such a stupid thing to focus on.

We don't know right now, but perhaps Congress will find out.

Don't hold your breath.

You've dodge the question by simply not quoting it and answering it previously.

Show me where I did that. This is getting old. You get your answer to your little question and you can't accept it apparently.

I'm not assuming a crime. I'm giving you a hypothetical situation that happens to use Hillary as an example

Your hypothetical examples have presumed guilt repeated. Your denials are baffling and blind.

. If the crimes of the past office holders don't matter, then why even bring it up? Unless you are defending Hillary's actions? If there should be a law, showing a history of such is fine, but showing even one such event should be enough to speculate that there should be a law.

Because they aren't "crimes". Because we should not be presuming guilt. I'm bringing up your "crimes" because other people did them too. So it's not a crime, obviously. But if it should be, for whatever nutter butter reason, then make a law and make it so. But these lawmakers aren't doing any such thing. If you were even right, they'd be incompetent.

When I was saying "Secret Benghazi emails", that was in reference to what another politician DIDN"T DO.

What "other politician" is that? What are you talking about and how is that relevant?

If you want to read that Hillary did have secret Benghazi emails, that is on you, not me. I'm not saying such email exists, but that such could have existed, but was deleted. So I think we'll never know.

Then this is reserved for the partisan feed trough like I said.

I think You may be the one Presuming that what you read into my posts is what I meant to post.

Oh your posts have smacked of guilt page after page, that isn't hard to see or cite.

That's BS Yam. I'm only going on about the email because it is in the news and YOU are keeping the denial going. If there are other better points to examine that should eliminate Hillary from running for office, then list them, and I'll go after those too.

You're the one so motivated to go after her, why don't you do that? Why don't you ever start a thread about Hillary Clinton's policies, huh? Why don't the people liking your presumptuous email statements ever do that? I have a guess. It's because there's little there for a good partisan R to disagree with.

Plus the TOPIC of this thread is the email scandal, not "A List Of Reasons To Oppose Hillary Clinton For President", so please forgive me for focusing on the email scandal.

Then why don't you find something else to oppose Hillary about than this nonsense?

Not succeed? There are different levels of "success" sir.

Least important? So what? If someone kills a stranger and steals their car and takes $100 out of the bank with their card, do you just ignore the $100 in favor of the murder charge? No, you charge them with all the crimes they commit.

You charge them with all the crimes they commit....there you go again. This partisan nonsense never ends. Presumptuous, vapid, inconsistent, nonsense.

Unless you go and look, you're not going to find anything. The State Department spent, what, a weekend... Looking for those forms and didn't find them, therefore they don't exist?? Nope. Finding anything with the government can take months. Perhaps those forms will show up?

They're not going to go back and look at Rice and Powell, they're only going to look at Clinton because there is no consistency in these presumptuous and narrow minded accusations, there is only partisanship.

So, what do you actually hope to achieve by bringing Rice and Powell into the discussion? Point out that it is not fair to Clinton? So, if it is not fair then we should let her off? If you do not think we should let her off, then why even bring it up, unless you're just being argumentative?

The point is, that if there's something wrong with it, if Rice and Powell have damaged this country somehow, that case is yet to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Turns out Hillary did release some emails, 55,000 to be exact but the battle axe sent them as hard copies which will require thousand of man-hours to go through and may cost the taxpayers millions of dollars to sort out. She did this for one reason only, to further delay any discoveries of her malfeasance by eliminating computer searches using keywords like Benghazi. If she was a republican this would be breaking news but since she is a democrat the MSM is quiet. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-10/e-mail-fiasco-will-cost-hillary-and-taxpayers

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Turns out Hillary did release some emails, 55,000 to be exact but the battle axe sent them as hard copies which will require thousand of man-hours to go through and may cost the taxpayers millions of dollars to sort out.

This is old news you sound like you just found out about. There's 55,000 printed pages of emails. Print would obviously be the most secure medium to store them in. It'd take 55 people a week to sort it all out at 1000 pages per person, so 1000 man-weeks or 40,000 man-hours. At $20/hr that's $800,000.

We don't even know what we're looking for either. Just anything with the slightest hint of whatever that makes Hillary Clinton look bad. Digging for boogers, that's all this monkey race is.

but since she is a democrat the MSM is quiet.

Utter partisan nonsense. Because she's a Democrat the MSM won't leave her alone. Fox News Channel is infatuated with her. MSNBC has a love affair. And as a result they don't pay the least bit of attention to other parties/platforms/politics/policies or potential candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Presuming guilt until innocence is proven is being stupid, and it violates the spirit of the law.

I agree with the presumption of innocence. But, like I said before, if someone is caught red handed, that presumption is over. It is basically only a case of punishment at that point. Which is why, in a trial, the accused is asked to make a plea. If they know for a fact that they are guilty, they can plead guilty, and move straight to punishment. Usually with some kind of bargain attached.

Now, I'm not saying that Hillary was caught red handed. I'm saying that she exhibits some of the signs of someone who is trying to conceal evidence.

"It was a great excuse." Just saying it doesn't make it. I would have told the partisan rat house that "It's none of your damn business." and left it at that. Because guess what? It is none of your business.

Except that actually it is the Federal Governments business. What she did with her phone and what was discussed on those emails is directly related to the government's business.

I think perhaps you are having a hard time with that fact.

I couldn't care less. Such a stupid thing to focus on.

Ah, so you say there is no proof of this, no proof of that. And then when someone posts proof that contradicts your current stance, you just don't care.... I see how you only want to "Win" the discussion, not actually figure out any of the mystery behind this scandal.

Your hypothetical examples have presumed guilt repeated. Your denials are baffling and blind.

I'm sorry that you don't understand how hypothetical discussion go. It must make your life really hard on a daily basis.

Because they aren't "crimes". Because we should not be presuming guilt. I'm bringing up your "crimes" because other people did them too. So it's not a crime, obviously. But if it should be, for whatever nutter butter reason, then make a law and make it so. But these lawmakers aren't doing any such thing. If you were even right, they'd be incompetent.

But, I have posted several times where much of what was done COULD be considered a crime. And the destruction of government documents IS definitely a crime. You simply refuse to recognize where the law was broken. You also then are pointing back into the past to try to somehow excuse and decriminalize what happened. You say make a law, but there are laws already that require government documents to not be collected, stored and destroyed in the fashion that Hillary is accused of.

Now it is a matter of collecting evidence.

What "other politician" is that? What are you talking about and how is that relevant?

I believe I was asking if Rice or Powell had performed those actions, so that they might be in the same situation as Hillary. But you took my question of did Rice or Powell do X, Y or Z, and turned it around as a presumption against Hillary. That is probably logical, but it is not strictly true.

Oh your posts have smacked of guilt page after page, that isn't hard to see or cite.

True, because even the Weak publicly acknowledged evidence points directly at guilt. You can assume that the Boston Bomber kid is innocent all you like, but the evidence, including a video of him in a gunfight, clearly shows he was guilty. When the evidence points directly at guilt, then assuming innocence is naive and ignorant. Do you think the Boston Bomber kid was allowed bail on 10,000 dollars? OH! NO? Why not? He's innocent till proven guilty right? Because the preponderance of evidence suggested he was guilty and so he was held over for trial.

Let me repeat what I said earlier. Assume innocence, but don't be stupid.

You're the one so motivated to go after her, why don't you do that? Why don't you ever start a thread about Hillary Clinton's policies, huh? Why don't the people liking your presumptuous email statements ever do that? I have a guess. It's because there's little there for a good partisan R to disagree with.

I'm having too much fun with this thread. Anyway, I think she's going to repeat 2008 and go hard into next spring and then someone else will step up and pull the rug out from under her. She's said she's going to run differently this time, but she's the same person doing the same thing, just in a different forced framework.

Then why don't you find something else to oppose Hillary about than this nonsense?

Why should I when this is so entertaining and the news isn't done with it yet.

You charge them with all the crimes they commit....there you go again. This partisan nonsense never ends. Presumptuous, vapid, inconsistent, nonsense.

I don't see how saying you should charge someone with all the crimes they commit, rather then just the worst one is partisan, or nonsense, or presumptuous. If there is evidence of a crime/charge, then charge what the evidence will support, or wait to gather more evidence.

They're not going to go back and look at Rice and Powell, they're only going to look at Clinton because there is no consistency in these presumptuous and narrow minded accusations, there is only partisanship.

I might also have to do with Rice being in office like 10 years ago and Powell 8 years ago. And Hillary 2 years ago. AND neither Rice or Powell is running for President of the US. Context matters.

The point is, that if there's something wrong with it, if Rice and Powell have damaged this country somehow, that case is yet to be made.

That's fine, I'll let some partisan of the far left to dig up those facts and push for Prosecution. I'm only interested in keeping a (very, very bad) liar out of the White House.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Her popularity sinks as the depths of her deceptions sinks in. This isn't going away. Ever.

Now the National Archives are asking-- where are the records.

Maybe someone should ask at the NSA-- they've been keeping everyone's emails for years. Yes-- hers too.

Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States.

Maybe she could run for President of FIFA-- I hear there is an opening and corruption is what they do best. She's uniquely qualified and rumor has it that Bill has an inside track-- through their Foundation, of course. Doing the Lord's work they are.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

She's so awful she makes people momentarily forget how horrible Obama is.

Then in an instant it all comes flooding back... her past. His present.

Our future.

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama.... just say no. No more. No more Bush. No more Clinton. No more Obama. Ever.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/02/hrc-emails-federal-officials-voiced-growing-alarm-over-clintons-compliance-with/

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I agree with the presumption of innocence. But, like I said before, if someone is caught red handed, that presumption is over. It is basically only a case of punishment at that point. Which is why, in a trial, the accused is asked to make a plea. If they know for a fact that they are guilty, they can plead guilty, and move straight to punishment. Usually with some kind of bargain attached.

Now, I'm not saying that Hillary was caught red handed. I'm saying that she exhibits some of the signs of someone who is trying to conceal evidence.

Except that actually it is the Federal Governments business. What she did with her phone and what was discussed on those emails is directly related to the government's business.

I think perhaps you are having a hard time with that fact.

Ah, so you say there is no proof of this, no proof of that. And then when someone posts proof that contradicts your current stance, you just don't care.... I see how you only want to "Win" the discussion, not actually figure out any of the mystery behind this scandal.

I'm sorry that you don't understand how hypothetical discussion go. It must make your life really hard on a daily basis.

But, I have posted several times where much of what was done COULD be considered a crime. And the destruction of government documents IS definitely a crime. You simply refuse to recognize where the law was broken. You also then are pointing back into the past to try to somehow excuse and decriminalize what happened. You say make a law, but there are laws already that require government documents to not be collected, stored and destroyed in the fashion that Hillary is accused of.

Now it is a matter of collecting evidence.

I believe I was asking if Rice or Powell had performed those actions, so that they might be in the same situation as Hillary. But you took my question of did Rice or Powell do X, Y or Z, and turned it around as a presumption against Hillary. That is probably logical, but it is not strictly true.

True, because even the Weak publicly acknowledged evidence points directly at guilt. You can assume that the Boston Bomber kid is innocent all you like, but the evidence, including a video of him in a gunfight, clearly shows he was guilty. When the evidence points directly at guilt, then assuming innocence is naive and ignorant. Do you think the Boston Bomber kid was allowed bail on 10,000 dollars? OH! NO? Why not? He's innocent till proven guilty right? Because the preponderance of evidence suggested he was guilty and so he was held over for trial.

Let me repeat what I said earlier. Assume innocence, but don't be stupid.

I'm having too much fun with this thread. Anyway, I think she's going to repeat 2008 and go hard into next spring and then someone else will step up and pull the rug out from under her. She's said she's going to run differently this time, but she's the same person doing the same thing, just in a different forced framework.

Why should I when this is so entertaining and the news isn't done with it yet.

I don't see how saying you should charge someone with all the crimes they commit, rather then just the worst one is partisan, or nonsense, or presumptuous. If there is evidence of a crime/charge, then charge what the evidence will support, or wait to gather more evidence.

I might also have to do with Rice being in office like 10 years ago and Powell 8 years ago. And Hillary 2 years ago. AND neither Rice or Powell is running for President of the US. Context matters.

That's fine, I'll let some partisan of the far left to dig up those facts and push for Prosecution. I'm only interested in keeping a (very, very bad) liar out of the White House.

It's a big partisan p***ing contest over nothing, in case I wasn't clear.

It's obvious by now you're going to keep implying a crime was committed in every response without ever stating what crime was committed. Until you figure out what in sam hell you're talking about as far as this "crime" goes, this partisan nonsense, this next stab at a conspiracy theory, is done.

You assume innocence. That would be a change for you. I have no idea what "proof" you're talking about that you think changes anything I've said. But when the cow jumps over the moon and there are convictions for this BS about Hillary Clinton, then you can come tell me about your proof. Until then, I'm not buying your big oversell. You have no proof. You're having fun rubbing words together over something far more boring than it is incriminating or exceptional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Yamato on ignore makes UM a much better place to visit.

Better place to dump partisan diatribes every time you visit and not have to answer critical questions about them.

I ignore you too most of the time for the record. I don't need to hobble myself with features that require an extra left click of the mouse to pull it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

It's a big partisan p***ing contest over nothing, in case I wasn't clear.

It's obvious by now you're going to keep implying a crime was committed in every response without ever stating what crime was committed. Until you figure out what in sam hell you're talking about as far as this "crime" goes, this partisan nonsense, this next stab at a conspiracy theory, is done.

You assume innocence. That would be a change for you. I have no idea what "proof" you're talking about that you think changes anything I've said. But when the cow jumps over the moon and there are convictions for this BS about Hillary Clinton, then you can come tell me about your proof. Until then, I'm not buying your big oversell. You have no proof. You're having fun rubbing words together over something far more boring than it is incriminating or exceptional.

Humm.... I thought I was clear... The crimes would be... obstructing justice, destroying government documents, perjury, and probably a lot more, if the evidence hasn't all been destroyed. There isn't much proof, that is true. That is why Hillary is being sued to hand over her server, or anything else she may have that could be evidence.

I tend to agree that perhaps her emails were netted by the NSA.

If it is boring, then why is it still in the news? Why have Hillary's "trustworthyness" ratings and many other ratings, dropped drastically in the last 2 to 3 months? It is because she's a liar and a elitist.

June 2, 2015

According to a CNN/ORC poll, 50 percent view Clinton unfavorably — up from 44 percent in March (before she announced her presidential bid) and the highest level since 2001, when it was 53 percent. The only other time a majority of Americans viewed Clinton unfavorably was in 1996, when she was first lady.

The survey found 46 percent view Clinton favorably, down from 53 percent in March and 61 percent in May 2013.

Meanwhile, 57 percent of Americans say she is not honest and trustworthy (up from 49 percent in March), 47 percent feel she cares about people like them (down from 53 percent in July 2014) and 50 percent feel she does not inspire confidence (up from 42 percent in March 2014).

https://www.yahoo.co...0530067591.html

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Humm.... I thought I was clear... The crimes would be... obstructing justice, destroying government documents, perjury, and probably a lot more, if the evidence hasn't all been destroyed. There isn't much proof, that is true. That is why Hillary is being sued to hand over her server, or anything else she may have that could be evidence.

I tend to agree that perhaps her emails were netted by the NSA.

If it is boring, then why is it still in the news? Why have Hillary's "trustworthyness" ratings and many other ratings, dropped drastically in the last 2 to 3 months? It is because she's a liar and a elitist.

https://www.yahoo.co...0530067591.html

It's creative license that you even think any of those crimes were committed. You don't have any evidence of "government documents" to even get to "destroyed". You can't even get to "justice" let alone "obstructing" it. Perjury? Where did that come from? She testified under oath what lie exactly? There isn't any proof, that's what's true. There's imagination-land. Double standards. And nonsense.

Is there reason for suspicion? Partisan suspicion, of course. But real suspicion? If there were emails on that server that were somehow criminal in nature or catastrophic to her career ambitions if someone read, she wouldn't have left them on the server for two years, she would have deleted them two years ago. Logic. But she deleted them at the last minute. Why? Because they were personal emails and they're none of our damn business. There are privacy rights in this country and Hillary Clinton is no exception.

It's still in the news because the partisan wind machine is in full blow.

It is because she's a liar and a elitist.

Neither is a crime. Both are prerequisite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Typical nonsense.

When you don't have a credible explanation, you challenge the credible evidence.

Clinton is an expert in evasion, skills perfected over decades of cover-ups. This is just one more example following a long series of deceitful practices steeped in self-promotion and self-enrichment. It's been used so many times it's become boring.

She (and her defenders) mockingly feign indignation and say--- "There is no evidence" of any crime.

We have the equivalent of a dead body, with a bullet hole in the forehead. A suspect caught on scene with gunpowder reside on her hand and a posse of accomplices passing the gun from hand to hand behind the backs of a pool reporters (supporters) happy to look the other way. The gun itself gets dumped in a river and then the reporters are summoned to report that "there is no evidence."

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

The worst things about her are sitting right there in plain sight. The people who try hardest to act like they don't like her ignore that, and look for coverups and talk about email servers or her husband's affairs instead.

She didn't have marines in the embassy. Maybe that's the corpse with the bullet hole? Nevermind that we were even in the embassy in the first place! Never mind that we were establishing diplomatic relations with the new rulers of Libya! Anyone screen who that is yet? If we're going to play these blood games, and we do love to excuse them as being so important, let's pay more attention to who it is we're helping in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

I particularly resent the fact that she and her boss, and several other minions, clearly stated that the Embassy attack was the result of a youtube video that whipped a local "protest" into a frenzy of murderous rage.

Every person in the administration that uttered that claim knew beforehand that they were lying and deliberately tried to mislead the American people.

This lie was calculated to minimize the political damage the terrorist attack might have caused on the re-election campaign of the sitting president. It was lapped up by the media, to the extent that even the moderator of a debate saw fit to "correct" Mitt Romney in his statement of fact - that they tried to hide the known fact that it was a terrorism and terrorism alone. Moderator interference in favor of a candidate's lie threw the entire debate process into the bin of absurdity.

I didn't personally care for Romney, as is usual for me in any presidential campaign (though I do like John McCain,) but that was beyond the pale.

Ironclad evidence of Hillary lying through her teeth on that subject is one of the many reasons people focus on her email server.

Harte

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I particularly resent the fact that she and her boss, and several other minions, clearly stated that the Embassy attack was the result of a youtube video that whipped a local "protest" into a frenzy of murderous rage.

Every person in the administration that uttered that claim knew beforehand that they were lying and deliberately tried to mislead the American people.

This lie was calculated to minimize the political damage the terrorist attack might have caused on the re-election campaign of the sitting president. It was lapped up by the media, to the extent that even the moderator of a debate saw fit to "correct" Mitt Romney in his statement of fact - that they tried to hide the known fact that it was a terrorism and terrorism alone. Moderator interference in favor of a candidate's lie threw the entire debate process into the bin of absurdity.

I didn't personally care for Romney, as is usual for me in any presidential campaign (though I do like John McCain,) but that was beyond the pale.

Ironclad evidence of Hillary lying through her teeth on that subject is one of the many reasons people focus on her email server.

Harte

The one common link in all of this corruption is the mainstream media that has pretty much become an adjunct propaganda arm of the democrat party and the far left. They aren't even shy about their malfeasance any longer and it makes a mockery of the first amendment. Candy Crowley's abuse of her moderator position in the debate you mentioned was a great illustration of this alliance. Why the GOP allows it is beyond me and is why I left the party long ago.

  • Like 2

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.