Jump to content



Photo

Hillary Clinton EMail Scandal


  • Please log in to reply
160 replies to this topic

#21 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 06 March 2015 - 06:19 AM

Snowman, let's change the perception here.
If Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld used another email service provider other than government secured emails (which just also happen to be subject to transparency & FOIA requests) would you be willing to give them the benefit of doubt? I highly doubt it.

 

you really don't need to bring these 2 up...  they did enough real damage, regardless of any email trail they may or may not have left...

 

the NYT story that first talked about the HRC emails... left out some key information, from the get-go. but of course, had they included that key information, this wouldn't have been a story worthy to ponder, and most likely wouldn't have been printed.  the daily beast lays it all out...

 

http://www.thedailyb...ot-so-fast.html


  • Donna likes this

#22 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 06 March 2015 - 08:05 AM

It's all just more of the same from people that would like to rule us, however feel they are above rules/laws...

 

People have Clinton fatigue... even if they don't realize it right now, they will once she actually comes out of hiding... 

 

At this point I truly hope she runs... her real chance was in 2008 but she couldn't find a way to win over an inexperienced junior senator from Illinois... I think at the end of the day, we'll see that her window of opportunity has passed her by... 

 

This whole email thing was something that a smart pol would have realized could be an issue... as I've always said, she's simply not as smart or as skilled a politician as Bill Clinton and it shows... 



#23 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 06 March 2015 - 08:12 AM

Peggy Noonan / WSJ has this great article today that sums this whole deal up very nicely... 

 

The scandal this week is that we have belatedly found out, more than two years after she left the office of secretary of state, that throughout Mrs. Clinton’s four-year tenure she did not conduct official business through the State Department email system. She had her own private email addresses and her own private Internet domain, on her own private server at one of her own private homes, in Chappaqua, N.Y. Which means she had, and has, complete control of the emails. If a journalist filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking to see emails of the secretary of state, the State Department had nothing to show. If Congress asked to see them, State could say there was nothing to see. (Two months ago, on the request of State, Mrs. Clinton turned over a reported 55,000 pages of her emails. She and her private aides apparently got to pick which ones.)
 
Is it too much to imagine that Mrs. Clinton wanted to conceal the record of her communications as America’s top diplomat because she might have been doing a great deal of interesting work in those emails, not only with respect to immediate and unfolding international events but with respect to those who would like to make a positive impression on the American secretary of state by making contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which not only funds many noble causes but is the seat of operations of Clinton Inc. and its numerous offices, operatives, hangers-on and campaign-in-waiting?
 


#24 usmcdd

usmcdd

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 06 March 2015 - 04:29 PM

 

Peggy Noonan / WSJ has this great article today that sums this whole deal up very nicely... 

 

The scandal this week is that we have belatedly found out, more than two years after she left the office of secretary of state, that throughout Mrs. Clinton’s four-year tenure she did not conduct official business through the State Department email system. She had her own private email addresses and her own private Internet domain, on her own private server at one of her own private homes, in Chappaqua, N.Y. Which means she had, and has, complete control of the emails. If a journalist filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking to see emails of the secretary of state, the State Department had nothing to show. If Congress asked to see them, State could say there was nothing to see. (Two months ago, on the request of State, Mrs. Clinton turned over a reported 55,000 pages of her emails. She and her private aides apparently got to pick which ones.)
 
Is it too much to imagine that Mrs. Clinton wanted to conceal the record of her communications as America’s top diplomat because she might have been doing a great deal of interesting work in those emails, not only with respect to immediate and unfolding international events but with respect to those who would like to make a positive impression on the American secretary of state by making contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which not only funds many noble causes but is the seat of operations of Clinton Inc. and its numerous offices, operatives, hangers-on and campaign-in-waiting?
 

 

 

Seems like things got a little out of hand for someone cooperating with the feds.


Edited by usmcdd, 06 March 2015 - 04:44 PM.


#25 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 06 March 2015 - 09:24 PM

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=29424270



#26 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 06 March 2015 - 10:26 PM

This is the offending Hillary Clinton email address...

 

hdr22@clintonemail.com

 

Interesting how it's structured isn't it?  :yes:



#27 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 07 March 2015 - 09:12 AM

Benghazi scandal... pffffttttt....going nowhere fast...

 

The Times story suggests Secretary Clinton broke federal rules in relation to her email. But the Times' main source for this allegation says Clinton violated no laws.

Yes, Clinton used a private email account to communicate while she was secretary of state. But so did secretaries of state before her. According to the State Department spokesman Marie Harf, John Kerry is the first secretary of state ever to rely primarily on official State Department email.

http://www.cnn.com/2...-clinton-email/

 

 

 

(CNN)How do Republicans try to breathe new life into an old scandal? We've seen it time and time again. Here's how it works:

Step One: Republicans, with nothing in their arsenal to use against Hillary Clinton, selectively leak to reporters a "scandalous" tidbit -- often one that has been previously reported.

Step Two: The new media bites.

Step Three: The media hyperventilates and suffocates the airwaves with repetition of the same story.

Step Four: Upon further examination, the story falls apart.

 

 

 

yep. yep. yep. and yep.


  • Donna and Persona Non Grata like this

#28 grayarea

grayarea

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 835 posts

Posted 07 March 2015 - 10:13 AM

I agree with Pesty...no laws or policies broken...done by others in higher positions than hers...campaign rhetoric and wasted tax dollars by looking into it. :yawn:


  • snowman and Donna like this

#29 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 07 March 2015 - 10:46 AM

The word on the street is... that this was an inside hit job...  :thumbsup:



#30 JHS1982

JHS1982

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Posted 07 March 2015 - 05:45 PM

I couldn't access your link, something about security codes, I dunno.

HRC is not a witch, a be-yotch, or a cheat. She is strong, smart and resourceful. I understand that she may not be YOUR cup of tea, but . . .


But she has "cankles!!!" 😜😳

Rod Daily
  • Serve likes this

#31 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,465 posts

Posted 07 March 2015 - 06:00 PM

Now, Rod, those are fightin' words!  Why are you pickin' on me?  I thought you liked me!  LOL!


  • JHS1982 likes this

#32 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 08 March 2015 - 06:25 AM

The New York Times public editor, Margaret Sullivan on the HRC story:
 

 

However, it was not without fault...The story should have been much clearer about precisely what regulations might have been violated, and when they took effect. The references are too vague..."

 

 

and this:

 

As The Times continues to cover Mrs. Clinton into 2016, it will be dealing with dozens of dust-ups like this one. It’s going to be a long campaign, and Clinton coverage inevitably will be microscopically examined and fraught with conflicting reaction.

Attacks on the reporting will come no matter what. But The Times can do itself — and its readers — a lot of good by making sure that every story is airtight: solidly sourced, written with particular clarity and impartiality, and edited with a prosecutorial eye.

 

 

yes. the New York Times can do these things... that's all I ask of them.



#33 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 09 March 2015 - 12:47 PM

There is only one reason that Clinton did this... that's so she could control what emails ever saw the light of day. So far... she has done that very well. 

 

This lady is not fit to be POTUS... I hope enough people come realize this fact...  :thumbsup:


  • GrumpyGranny, kelley, Serve and 1 other like this

#34 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 09 March 2015 - 08:39 PM

Since my "quote" button doesn't work....... Quasar said in post #22,  "...her real chance was in 2008 but she couldn't find a way to win over an inexperienced junior senator from Illinois.  I think at the end of the day we will see that her window of opportunity has passed her by."

 

I think you hit the nail on the head.   Sometimes I wonder if the Democratic party had to make a hard choice in 2008 between the first woman president and the first black president ---- which did the country need the most at that time?    They chose to have the first black president and a "deal" was brokered to allow Obama to win and agree to let Hillary be his secretary of state.   She did not want to be vice president because that's a "do-nothing" job.  Secretary of State is far more powerful and influential -- she would only step aside if she could be SOS.  That's my thought for what it's worth anyway. 

 

 I was a strong Hillary supporter in 2008, but I have to agree with Quasar --- I think her window of opportunity has unfortunately passed.

 

(now I can't get the "bold" button to turn off!!) sorry


Edited by IntegrityMatters, 09 March 2015 - 08:40 PM.

  • Quasar likes this

#35 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,465 posts

Posted 10 March 2015 - 06:40 AM

I sincerely doubt that any "deal was brokered to allow Obama to win."  Obama was lauded as a great orator, and the prevailing commentary regarding Hillary Clinton was more interested in pantsuits, "cankles," a hitch in her voice and that she was too strident (read, a smart, strong woman.)   When she campaigned for hubs back in 1992, much attention was given to headbands, having a career and not being a stay-at-home mom and not baking cookies. 

 

When do we ever focus this kind of commentary on men seeking office?  Why is it wrong for a woman to be smart and strong?   Why do we continue to hold women to a different set of criteria? 



#36 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,123 posts

Posted 10 March 2015 - 07:42 AM

It's not her ugly outfits, and I'd be a hypocrite for criticizing cankles. I dislike all lying corporatist warhawks.

And the reason for a secret server and nongovernment email account is to not have all your emails subject to review. 'Cause she's shady.

Edited by kelley, 10 March 2015 - 07:43 AM.

  • Beading Lady, CityBoy and grammy like this

#37 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 10 March 2015 - 07:58 AM

LOL... she ain't shady.  She's our next President. Woot!!!

 

fact is... the State Department has asked all former Secretaries of State to send them their emails, since they all used private email accounts... John Kerry being the first to not do so...

 

HRC is the only one who has sent hers to State Dept... Colin Powell didn't even cache his so by his own admission he has none to send.

 

This is just another false scandal that we've all become accustomed to. The sad and sorry GOP is sad and sorry... once again.


Edited by snowman, 10 March 2015 - 08:04 AM.

  • Donna likes this

#38 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,465 posts

Posted 10 March 2015 - 08:05 AM

So, she wears "ugly outfits," has cankles and is shady!  Wish you had answered any of the three questions posted.

 

Who is your non-shady candidate!  Good luck with that!  (And, for the love of humanity, please don't say "Rand Paul!")



#39 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,123 posts

Posted 10 March 2015 - 08:58 AM

Because one sucks doesn't mean I have a better one in mind. This last one has me convinced anyone who seeks the office is unfit to occupy it. I too thought I saw something different. I was wrong.

But I especially have no use for Hillary, and it certainly isn't because she is a female with unattractive ankles.

#40 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,123 posts

Posted 10 March 2015 - 09:04 AM

I've had work accounts that were supposed to be used for all that was business related. I've purposely communicated with coworkers and clients via other methods. It was to be secretive.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it transparent. Unless she handed over passwords to the accounts, there is no way to know if all emails are being handed over.

You have to be a bit blinded by admiration or something not to see the obvious. She was trying to keep her emails out of the public domain. She did keep them out of the public domain. On a server on her private property.


And BTW, this "false scandal" bs has went on a bit long. How about looking up the definition of "scandal" before continuing to throw that around? No one would be talking about a false one.

Edited by kelley, 10 March 2015 - 09:06 AM.

  • IntegrityMatters and CityBoy like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users