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 -
Baz Dane

Clinton Email Scandal Facts

1,792 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

preacherman76
On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 7:15 PM, Clair said:

I can assure you that keeping to more reliable sources has its advantages. I mean I could have believed the story; I could have racially profiled the people in that photo; and I could have made several derogatory comments about them and the system. I did not. And I didn't do so because first and foremost racial stereotyping is beyond offensive, and second, I know (thanks to The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and other like sources) why Trump's campaign was really in that Nevada courtroom. So thanks for your concern, but my reading list is exactly what it should be.

I just thank God folks like yourself are a dying breed, and people are turning away from these "news" sources in droves. There is a reason most of these publications took out the comment sections in their on-line articles. 90% of people called them out on their BS.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
6 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I just thank God folks like yourself are a dying breed, and people are turning away from these "news" sources in droves. There is a reason most of these publications took out the comment sections in their on-line articles. 90% of people called them out on their BS.  

A dying breed? Really? — Your sources and stats?

People turning away from news sources in droves? — Your sources and stats?

The Washington Post, New York Times and like papers removed their comment sections? I take it you are referring to their opinion, editorial and op ed sections? No they have not removed them, but if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it.

90% of people called them out on their BS? — Your sources?

 

Edited by Clair
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
22 minutes ago, Clair said:

A dying breed? Really? — Your sources and stats?

People turning away from news sources in droves? — Your sources and stats?

The Washington Post, New York Times and like papers removed their comment sections? I take it you are referring to their opinion, editorial and op ed sections? No they have not removed them, but if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it.

90% of people called them out on their BS? — Your sources?

 

MM Clair did you not see what just happened two days ago? You really need a source that tells you main stream media is losing its influence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
1 minute ago, preacherman76 said:

MM Clair did you not see what just happened two days ago? You really need a source that tells you main stream media is losing its influence?

What happened two days ago is not in any way a 'source' for the statements you made above.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

ok.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/04/18/poll-just-6-percent-people-say-trust-media/ A whopping 6% of Americans trust main stream media, and that was before the circus they just tried to pull off.

 

It's funny though, Americans just spit in the face of every main stream news media outlet and went directly against their influence, and you don't consider that a source?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nightgale

Okay Okay you two settle down, and @Clair sorry you feel that way. I don't know if everyone is truly against you. For me I was just stating that after the Wikileaks stuff MSM may not be as trustworthy moving forward. 

Really I shouldn't say MSM, but certain people in MSM such as Wolf Blitzer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 hour ago, Clair said:

 

The Washington Post, New York Times and like papers removed their comment sections? I take it you are referring to their opinion, editorial and op ed sections? No they have not removed them, but if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it.

The reference to comments sections being removed is a national phenomena. Many newspapers and media outlets have removed the ability to comment on articles. That is viewed by many as an attempt to quiet dissenting voices. Remember that every major newspaper and media outlet in America is owned by one of 6 corporations. So they do have the ability to speak in unison and create perception, the comments sections on their sites allowed that perception to be questioned. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 11/5/2016 at 6:14 AM, Silver_Lyre said:

The FBI has 30,000 clinton emails and has only found 110 with any mention of anything remotely classified. Those 110 emails only touch upon classified information at the time. That information is now de-clasifed. 

Wait. Two things here are untrue. Several of those emails had been tampered with and were definitely Classified. And most of them have been heavily redacted, meaning that the info in the email is still classified.

On 11/5/2016 at 6:39 AM, Silver_Lyre said:

PHILADELPHIA – The National Security Agency (NSA) has “all” of Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.

I did read about this also. But this is the word of one guy. I checked and there are multiple articles, but all refer to this one guy. Who hasn't been in NSA for 15 years. He may have laid out the collection agenda, but he probably knows next to nothing about what actually is being collected. Also he didn't outline HOW the email would be collected, but that every single email ever (REALLY?) is in a database at NSA. 

If you read this article, you might figure out why NSA probably doesn't have all of Hillary's email. Possibly only the ones that other email server users responded to.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

The reference to comments sections being removed is a national phenomena. Many newspapers and media outlets have removed the ability to comment on articles. That is viewed by many as an attempt to quiet dissenting voices. Remember that every major newspaper and media outlet in America is owned by one of 6 corporations. So they do have the ability to speak in unison and create perception, the comments sections on their sites allowed that perception to be questioned. 

Do you mean comments sections as in the general public commenting? Who reads those anyway. Papers like the NYT and Washington Post always run editorials and opinion, but they provide more than one viewpoint. As for control of the media, the big players number five not six, and I am more than aware of the criticisms aimed towards them. Still, opinions are one thing, facts are another and the most reliable news sources are infinitely more credible than most of the rags out there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

ok.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/04/18/poll-just-6-percent-people-say-trust-media/ A whopping 6% of Americans trust main stream media, and that was before the circus they just tried to pull off.

It's funny though, Americans just spit in the face of every main stream news media outlet and went directly against their influence, and you don't consider that a source?

And we all know how reliable polls are, don't we. I've seen those numbers fluctuate all over the place depending on the poll or survey. There's no way of getting a truly accurate or representative figure, and to say 90% of all people called them out on their BS is totally pushing it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
10 minutes ago, Clair said:

Do you mean comments sections as in the general public commenting? Who reads those anyway. Papers like the NYT and Washington Post always run editorials and opinion, but they provide more than one viewpoint. As for control of the media, the big players number five not six, and I am more than aware of the criticisms aimed towards them. Still, opinions are one thing, facts are another and the most reliable news sources are infinitely more credible than most of the rags out there.

Yes I meant the comments sections for general public commenting. A ton of people not only read but participate in the conversation on those. 

If you believe your information must come from a major news network to be true and accurate you are going to quickly be left behind by society. Its societal evolution in the information age. We can share information freely amongst ourselves with no need for it to be filtered through the kingmakers. Now that does mean we have to work a little harder to sift through the BS because when everyone has a voice there is sure to be alot of  that, but surely a little extra work is worth having free flowing information. 

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
1 hour ago, Clair said:

And we all know how reliable polls are, don't we. I've seen those numbers fluctuate all over the place depending on the poll or survey. There's no way of getting a truly accurate or representative figure, and to say 90% of all people called them out on their BS is totally pushing it.

Sure there is, Trump is the freakin president of the United States. What else do you possibly need to know about main stream media's influence? People are dropping them like a hot stone.

Heck just looking at how alternative media is exploding, where Hillary Clinton felt she had to call out Alex Jones by name says all there is to say on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

The media bias and polls led Hillary to defeat.   She had too many supporters who thought they had it in the bag and didn't bother to vote.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Wait. Two things here are untrue. Several of those emails had been tampered with and were definitely Classified. And most of them have been heavily redacted, meaning that the info in the email is still classified.

I did read about this also. But this is the word of one guy. I checked and there are multiple articles, but all refer to this one guy. Who hasn't been in NSA for 15 years. He may have laid out the collection agenda, but he probably knows next to nothing about what actually is being collected. Also he didn't outline HOW the email would be collected, but that every single email ever (REALLY?) is in a database at NSA. 

If you read this article, you might figure out why NSA probably doesn't have all of Hillary's email. Possibly only the ones that other email server users responded to.

Nothing i have posted is untrue and i take offence at that. During this discussion i have extensively read relevant articles pertaining to the email "scandal" and one thing must be absolutely made clear. Nothing and i mean nothing illegal IMO has occurred with those emails. The issue has been politicised to great advantage by Trump and still more nefariously by FBI director, Comey. As for the NSA, i maintain that they are the custodians of all information in the U.S. and any legitimate investigation should have started there. Not with Comey or Trump. Its a simple process to join any set of dots and emailgate was a non starter from day one by virtue of the way it was investigated. It will be interesting to see where this investigation goes from here and whether Trump purses it any further. The accusations levelled at Clinton are treasonous and deserve a lengthily jail time if true. I doubt we'll hear anything from Comey. He served his purpose and dodged a bullet when Trump got elected otherwise his **** would have been grass.

On a side note... i feel a warped sense of satisfaction that the old adage still holds true... you live by the sword and you die by the sword. Clinton got what she deserved. But don't fool yourself into a sense of self righteousness. What happened with emailgate has weakened your country more than strengthened it. 

Edited by Silver_Lyre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
3 minutes ago, Myles said:

The media bias and polls led Hillary to defeat.   She had too many supporters who thought they had it in the bag and didn't bother to vote.

The people certainly had their say. The corrupt establishment must be chitting themselves.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
2 hours ago, Clair said:

And we all know how reliable polls are, don't we. I've seen those numbers fluctuate all over the place depending on the poll or survey. There's no way of getting a truly accurate or representative figure, and to say 90% of all people called them out on their BS is totally pushing it.

...i think its the age of the underdog. People that voted brexit and Trump prolly didn't want others to know and therefore the polls got it wrong. We are just so indoctrinated by the media and our "betters" to do the right thing that we're embarrassed to admit what we really think. Polls are private and anonymous. Who knows?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
10 hours ago, Silver_Lyre said:

Nothing i have posted is untrue and i take offence at that. During this discussion i have extensively read relevant articles pertaining to the email "scandal" and one thing must be absolutely made clear. Nothing and i mean nothing illegal IMO has occurred with those emails.

So none of the Clinton Emails were redacted? You said "That information is now de-clasifed.".

What about the story where she told a staffer to remove the heading off an otherwise Classified document, make it into PDF and send it to her? That email should have been in the 30,000, but has not been reported to be there.

What of the emails that had the internal (C) marking, for Classified that she thought (supposedly) was just a alphabetic section system.

Comey didn't say there was no crime, he said that there was not enough evidence to supply intent. Many "lesser" functionaries have been fired, and imprisoned, for less over the last 8 years.

Quote

The issue has been politicised to great advantage by Trump and still more nefariously by FBI director, Comey.

Oh, come on.... The Democrats couldn't pat Comey on the back enough back in July. He was their Golden Boy for a couple months, and then all of a sudden he's a villain?

Of course Trump used it. It is horribly stupid thing she did. That's why she made a half ass apology, and why the stolen emails of her staff show they all thought she was being moronic.

Quote

As for the NSA, i maintain that they are the custodians of all information in the U.S. and any legitimate investigation should have started there.

That is a complete Conspiracy Theory level opinion. Like Bush set up the WTC to be exploded to start the Afghanistan war. 

How many emails are sent every day? You believe that all of that goes into a server farm at NSA? Really? They'd need to buy thousands of hard drives every hour to make that happen. 

Quote

Its a simple process to join any set of dots and emailgate was a non starter from day one by virtue of the way it was investigated.

So you are convinced that hiding her email from the world was an acceptable idea? Not to mention her use of a non-secure server that was protected by the equivalent of tissue paper? That fact alone, that she was hiding it, should been scandal enough to get her tossed out of the race.

Quote

It will be interesting to see where this investigation goes from here and whether Trump purses it any further. The accusations levelled at Clinton are treasonous and deserve a lengthily jail time if true. I doubt we'll hear anything from Comey. He served his purpose and dodged a bullet when Trump got elected otherwise his **** would have been grass.

Going off people here on UM, and in the conservative media, who actually know what the hell they are talking about regarding Federal documents, I'd say that her odds of some kind of jail time are about 50/50. I think just ownership of Federal Records without permission is a crime in and of itself, and she doesn't even deny doing that.

Quote

On a side note... i feel a warped sense of satisfaction that the old adage still holds true... you live by the sword and you die by the sword. Clinton got what she deserved. But don't fool yourself into a sense of self righteousness. What happened with emailgate has weakened your country more than strengthened it. 

Weakened it? I'd say that preventing people from hiding government documents is fantastic. That the Federal Government has since instigated much stricter controls on how email is used, due in part to this case, is fantastic. Now we can hold our government to account, and there will be less shadow deals going on by email.

Now if we can just prevent people meeting at airports alone on government planes when those people are both involved in a high level investigation... then we'll be even more likely to prevent corruption.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So none of the Clinton Emails were redacted? You said "That information is now de-clasifed.".

What about the story where she told a staffer to remove the heading off an otherwise Classified document, make it into PDF and send it to her? That email should have been in the 30,000, but has not been reported to be there.

What of the emails that had the internal (C) marking, for Classified that she thought (supposedly) was just a alphabetic section system.

Comey didn't say there was no crime, he said that there was not enough evidence to supply intent. Many "lesser" functionaries have been fired, and imprisoned, for less over the last 8 years.

Oh, come on.... The Democrats couldn't pat Comey on the back enough back in July. He was their Golden Boy for a couple months, and then all of a sudden he's a villain?

Of course Trump used it. It is horribly stupid thing she did. That's why she made a half ass apology, and why the stolen emails of her staff show they all thought she was being moronic.

That is a complete Conspiracy Theory level opinion. Like Bush set up the WTC to be exploded to start the Afghanistan war. 

How many emails are sent every day? You believe that all of that goes into a server farm at NSA? Really? They'd need to buy thousands of hard drives every hour to make that happen. 

So you are convinced that hiding her email from the world was an acceptable idea? Not to mention her use of a non-secure server that was protected by the equivalent of tissue paper? That fact alone, that she was hiding it, should been scandal enough to get her tossed out of the race.

Going off people here on UM, and in the conservative media, who actually know what the hell they are talking about regarding Federal documents, I'd say that her odds of some kind of jail time are about 50/50. I think just ownership of Federal Records without permission is a crime in and of itself, and she doesn't even deny doing that.

Weakened it? I'd say that preventing people from hiding government documents is fantastic. That the Federal Government has since instigated much stricter controls on how email is used, due in part to this case, is fantastic. Now we can hold our government to account, and there will be less shadow deals going on by email.

Now if we can just prevent people meeting at airports alone on government planes when those people are both involved in a high level investigation... then we'll be even more likely to prevent corruption.

Nothing that Clinton done was illegal. If it was she would have been charged. Have you seen anything classified in her emails? Anything earth shattering? Nothing! Just innuendo. Any proof of a foreign government obtaining any classified material? Nope!

So Comey couldn't find anything illegal. Couldn't prove Clinton was a Manchurian candidate. Couldn't find all the emails. Didn't bother to contact the NSA or CIA for help. The NSA and CIA didn't even investigate Clintons emails even though they are tasked to secure, monitor and defend the flow of information to the country's high officials. When Hillary Clinton asked for secure communications like those of the president she was told that they would not provide her with it and recommended a commercial model. Clinton had an order of security clearance befitting her position. She was and is above reproach. A career long loyal servant of the state. Not an opportunistic criminal. 

 BUT Comey decided to hold a 2 year investigation regardless without any results or motive. Stopped and then restarted it 1 week before elections only to stop it again but not before poisoning the electorate. This is not a conspiracy. These are facts.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
48 minutes ago, Silver_Lyre said:

Nothing that Clinton done was illegal. If it was she would have been charged. Have you seen anything classified in her emails? Anything earth shattering? Nothing! Just innuendo. Any proof of a foreign government obtaining any classified material? Nope!

So Comey couldn't find anything illegal. Couldn't prove Clinton was a Manchurian candidate. Couldn't find all the emails. Didn't bother to contact the NSA or CIA for help. The NSA and CIA didn't even investigate Clintons emails even though they are tasked to secure, monitor and defend the flow of information to the country's high officials. When Hillary Clinton asked for secure communications like those of the president she was told that they would not provide her with it and recommended a commercial model. Clinton had an order of security clearance befitting her position. She was and is above reproach. A career long loyal servant of the state. Not an opportunistic criminal. 

 BUT Comey decided to hold a 2 year investigation regardless without any results or motive. Stopped and then restarted it 1 week before elections only to stop it again but not before poisoning the electorate. This is not a conspiracy. These are facts.    

Well, it is hard to say, since much of those 110+ emails were heavily redacted. Do you have the unredacted ones so I can tell how Earth Shattering they were? No? Then how can you say they weren't important?

Have you read what the NSA actually said back to Clinton? They denied her because NSA determined that the specific model she wanted was not government interface friendly, was not supported by the State Department, and was unduly expensive. Obama got an exception because he was... I don't know... the President? Even then, I would think the President used a Dot Gov account. NSA offered other secure options, but Hillary said "NO! Must be blackberry, or nothing (huff).". OK that's not really a direct quote, but it is close to what happened. They counter offered and she refused that they would not concede to HER.

Poisoned the Electorate? Really? What is your basis on that? That the (we know were wrong) polls went from Hillary being up by 4% to up by 2% for a couple days??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zenith
3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Well, it is hard to say, since much of those 110+ emails were heavily redacted. Do you have the unredacted ones so I can tell how Earth Shattering they were? No? Then how can you say they weren't important?

Whatever they contained, the FBI would know. And still they did not charge her. She was investigated but never indicted. In other words, there's no evidence of a crime. And still everyone goes on about it like it was the most catastrophic thing ever done. smh

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
19 minutes ago, Zenith said:

Whatever they contained, the FBI would know. And still they did not charge her. She was investigated but never indicted. In other words, there's no evidence of a crime. And still everyone goes on about it like it was the most catastrophic thing ever done. smh

Partly because there is the appearance of collusion. Emails from Podesta, and the meeting between Bill and the AG alone on a plane, all hint that there was not just Facts, but Politics, going on at the highest levels. 

It wasn't necessarily catastrophic, but it was a recent example of the kind of person Hillary Clinton REALLY is. Not the smiling grandma face she puts on, but the really Hillary whom people have written books about. A vast majority came to believe she was untrustworthy, and they would be correct. The REALLY Hillary is not trustworthy. And her attempts to try to disprove that for the last year and a half failed to a large degree.

True, she was not indicted, but no one said there wasn't evidence, just that there was no shown intent to do wrong. The FBI could have indicted, but it possibly would have fallen apart, because all the best witnesses had already been given immunity, or taken the 5th. In such a case, the law waits on further evidence. 

EDIT: So, I never said you lied, but that your statements were not the truth. However the fact is that the redacted documents prove that some of Hillary's emails are not unclassified.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

I think the meeting on the plane and the couple IT guys who pleaded the 5th are what makes most people think there was some covering up going on. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
4 hours ago, Zenith said:

Whatever they contained, the FBI would know. And still they did not charge her. She was investigated but never indicted. In other words, there's no evidence of a crime. And still everyone goes on about it like it was the most catastrophic thing ever done. smh

This isn't over yet.

Just watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Well, it is hard to say, since much of those 110+ emails were heavily redacted. Do you have the unredacted ones so I can tell how Earth Shattering they were? No? Then how can you say they weren't important?

No i don't and neither does Comey. That's my point.

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Have you read what the NSA actually said back to Clinton? They denied her because NSA determined that the specific model she wanted was not government interface friendly, was not supported by the State Department, and was unduly expensive. Obama got an exception because he was... I don't know... the President? 

My understanding was that they denied Clinton the presidential blackberry cause they didn't think she needed it. They recommended a commercial model instead. They knew what she used it for and deemed it unnecessary. If they thought her emails were worthy of protection and reclassification then they would have done it. No?  The point Im trying to make is that the NSA were not some distant entity outta the loop like you have implied. They were aware of the situation and i bet other agencies were also monitoring your elected officials. 

 

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Even then, I would think the President used a Dot Gov account. NSA offered other secure options, but Hillary said "NO! Must be blackberry, or nothing (huff).". OK that's not really a direct quote, but it is close to what happened. They counter offered and she refused that they would not concede to HER.

Correct. Clinton did go her seperate way and got the model she wanted. The choice was between two commercial models and she choose the one she wanted. Big deal. The NSA didn't make a fuss over it. Didn't investigate her OR recommended an investigation or impeachment. Communications were not blocked. So with next to no proof of any security breach. NSA and CIA monitoring of all Clinton correspondence... director Comey decided to be 'holier than the pope' and launch his "own" inquisition into a possible security breach. 

 

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Poisoned the Electorate? Really? What is your basis on that? That the (we know were wrong) polls went from Hillary being up by 4% to up by 2% for a couple days??

 My basis, like i have previously stated is that an investigation that runs for two years (beginning with presidential campaigning) with NO result and then stopped only to be reopened 10 days before an election with NO result again can only be construed as trying to influence the election process. Clinton was ahead before Comey reopened his investigation. Any way its ancient history. Like i said before i feel no real sympathy for Clinton and quite frankly I'll wait to see how Trump acts and whether he's moderated his opinions and promises from the populous platform he used to win. From what I've seen to date, I'm heartened. Trump deserves a chance and unlike 90% of non Americans who have demonised and ridiculed the man i will reserve the right to pass judgement after he's finished his first 100 days and see how many promises he's kept.     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
3 hours ago, -ZZ- said:

This isn't over yet.

Just watch.

LOL... Comey will be on hands and knees, praying that the entire episode disappears. History will not be kind to him and neither will the neo-cons and democrats.  

Edited by Silver_Lyre
  • 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.