American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems
Discussion
More new information come to light as a result of the Email "security review".
"In a court filing this week, the State Department admitted it had found Benghazi-related documents among the 14,900 Clinton emails and attachments uncovered by the FBI that Mrs. Clinton deleted and withheld from the State Department."
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-rele...
Whoops.
The above picture shows the documents HRC turned over in the Benghazi investigation.
The pile on the right is from Feb'11 - Dec'11 and contains 795 documents.
The pile on the left is from Early'12 until the day of the attack (Sep'12). This pile contains... 67 documents.
But she definitely did not destroy or withhold evidence. Except for the new revelations above. Which was just an oversight. Probably.
"In a court filing this week, the State Department admitted it had found Benghazi-related documents among the 14,900 Clinton emails and attachments uncovered by the FBI that Mrs. Clinton deleted and withheld from the State Department."
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-rele...
Whoops.
The above picture shows the documents HRC turned over in the Benghazi investigation.
The pile on the right is from Feb'11 - Dec'11 and contains 795 documents.
The pile on the left is from Early'12 until the day of the attack (Sep'12). This pile contains... 67 documents.
But she definitely did not destroy or withhold evidence. Except for the new revelations above. Which was just an oversight. Probably.
Another interesting article from the same source. Hilldog has to answer questions about her email server under oath.
I eagerly await her 25 variations of "I do not recall"
JW said:
Judicial Watch today announced it submitted questions to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning her email practices. Clinton’s answers, under oath, are due on September 29. On August 19, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch further discovery on the Clinton email matter and ordered Clinton to answer the questions “by no later than thirty days thereafter….” Under federal court rules, Judicial Watch is limited to twenty-five questions.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-submits-email-questions-hillary-clinton-written-answers-oath-due-september-29/I eagerly await her 25 variations of "I do not recall"
smn159 said:
I sometimes access my corporate email account with my own Macbook.
What sort of prison sentence should I expect?
Poor analogy.What sort of prison sentence should I expect?
An apt analogy would be:
"I have somehow managed to avoid using corporate email for years, instead I have hosted my own insecure private server which all corporate correspondence goes through. I was instructed to turn over all corporate email during this period, which I failed to do. Evidence was found that confidential corporate information was compromised as a result of my actions. It was also discovered that I was sharing confidential corporate information with people who did not have permission to view it, or did not work for the corporation at all.
Why am I still allowed to work for this corporation?"
Edited by amusingduck on Wednesday 31st August 13:28
amusingduck said:
Poor analogy.
An apt analogy would be:
"I have somehow managed to avoid using corporate email for years, instead I have hosted my own insecure private server which all corporate correspondence goes through. I was instructed to turn over all corporate email during this period, which I failed to do. Evidence was found that confidential corporate information was compromised as a result of my actions. It was also discovered that I was sharing confidential corporate information with people who did not have permission to view it, or did not work for the corporation at all.
Why am I still allowed to work for this corporation?"
Assuming that this is what happened, what are you suggesting that her motive was for this?An apt analogy would be:
"I have somehow managed to avoid using corporate email for years, instead I have hosted my own insecure private server which all corporate correspondence goes through. I was instructed to turn over all corporate email during this period, which I failed to do. Evidence was found that confidential corporate information was compromised as a result of my actions. It was also discovered that I was sharing confidential corporate information with people who did not have permission to view it, or did not work for the corporation at all.
Why am I still allowed to work for this corporation?"
Edited by amusingduck on Wednesday 31st August 13:28
smn159 said:
amusingduck said:
Poor analogy.
An apt analogy would be:
"I have somehow managed to avoid using corporate email for years, instead I have hosted my own insecure private server which all corporate correspondence goes through. I was instructed to turn over all corporate email during this period, which I failed to do. Evidence was found that confidential corporate information was compromised as a result of my actions. It was also discovered that I was sharing confidential corporate information with people who did not have permission to view it, or did not work for the corporation at all.
Why am I still allowed to work for this corporation?"
Assuming that this is what happened, what are you suggesting that her motive was for this?An apt analogy would be:
"I have somehow managed to avoid using corporate email for years, instead I have hosted my own insecure private server which all corporate correspondence goes through. I was instructed to turn over all corporate email during this period, which I failed to do. Evidence was found that confidential corporate information was compromised as a result of my actions. It was also discovered that I was sharing confidential corporate information with people who did not have permission to view it, or did not work for the corporation at all.
Why am I still allowed to work for this corporation?"
Edited by amusingduck on Wednesday 31st August 13:28
Countdown said:
Admittedly she's not great. However she was still far better than some of the loonier GOP candidates.
Exactly why I voted Nader the last time I actually voted. And why I love watching people justify "holding their nose" and voting for the lesser of two evils again, while expecting a new result. The twist this time is that the Dem candidate is truly dangerous. scherzkeks said:
Countdown said:
Admittedly she's not great. However she was still far better than some of the loonier GOP candidates.
Exactly why I voted Nader the last time I actually voted. And why I love watching people justify "holding their nose" and voting for the lesser of two evils again, while expecting a new result. The twist this time is that the "Dem candidate is truly dangerous". smn159 said:
Assuming that this is what happened, what are you suggesting that her motive was for this?
This is demonstrably what happened. I'm happy to provide sources for each point I made, if you wish.The basic motive is secrecy, that much is obvious. I don't think it's a leap of the imagination to believe that someone who goes to such incredible lengths to prevent transparency and accountability is trying to hide things that they don't want public.
The information that has already been made public is serious enough. What information has been destroyed, never to be recoverable?
rscott said:
Have you seen the only approved 'smartphone' for government use at the time - http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016...
Are you suggesting she went to such extensive lengths just because she didn't like the phone they were offering? Regardless, do you think it's acceptable for anyone to flout the laws and regulations put in place, for national security, because they feel they can do whatever they like?amusingduck said:
The basic motive is secrecy, that much is obvious. I don't think it's a leap of the imagination to believe that someone who goes to such incredible lengths to prevent transparency and accountability is trying to hide things that they don't want public.
The information that has already been made public is serious enough. What information has been destroyed, never to be recoverable?
So you don't know her motive and have assigned one of your own, then extrapolated that into an imagined criminal intent.The information that has already been made public is serious enough. What information has been destroyed, never to be recoverable?
riiiight.
smn159 said:
So you don't know her motive and have assigned one of your own, then extrapolated that into an imagined criminal intent.
riiiight.
Oh, you're one of those.riiiight.
Facts don't matter, rules don't matter, laws don't matter. Intentions do, and hers were pure.
There was no malicious intent, she's just hideously, hideously incompetent.
It's one argument I guess.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-3722502...
DonaldTrump said:
This is a movement
It's one hell of a rectal movement.Sylvaforever said:
There appears to be a dark veil being drawn over Clinton's illness (es).
What illnesses? Our Primeminister had diabetes I believe, she still seems to be managing to perform her job well enough.In and amongst the summer recess I admit
Being infirm or ill isn't necessarily a sign of weakness. Didn't Roosevelt rely on a wheelchair and aides to assist him at times due to being stricken with polio in the 1920s? A great President none the less, I am sure all will agree.
FN2TypeR said:
Being infirm or ill isn't necessarily a sign of weakness. Didn't Roosevelt rely on a wheelchair and aides to assist him at times due to being stricken with polio in the 1920s? A great President none the less, I am sure all will agree.
He did indeed - though they were very, very careful to keep all of that out of the public eye during his presidency. It was never covered up per se (as in denied), but they certainly tried very hard not to highlight it. But you're quite right, a perfectly able leader. One of the best - absolutely laid the foundations for the prosperity the USA enjoys today.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff