Hillary Clinton Uses Personal Email for State Business

#226
#226
lawgator1 said:
No, because they were sent via agency emails. And there is no particular issue to question, its just a broad and vague criticism.

But of course that will not stop the unwarranted speculation.
Click to expand...

Again I will ax you though. Do you really believe that that woman is worthy of running this country? If only one of these scandals is true, does she still qualify in your mind? Why?
 
#229
#229
SpaceCoastVol said:
Again I will ax you though. Do you really believe that that woman is worthy of running this country? If only one of these scandals is true, does she still qualify in your mind? Why?
Click to expand...

Not at all defending LG. But, there isn't a single person in politics that I would ever fully trust to run this country.
 
#230
#230
lawgator1 said:
No, because they were sent via agency emails. And there is no particular issue to question, its just a broad and vague criticism.

But of course that will not stop the unwarranted speculation.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that every email discussing government business she sent or received was to/from another State Dept employee, or government employee for that matter?

What about emails to/from foreign entities, ambassadors and such?
 
#232
#232
TNsnyper20 said:
Not at all defending LG. But, there isn't a single person in politics that I would ever fully trust to run this country.
Click to expand...

I can't say that I disagree all that much, but this woman always seems to have a ****storm brewing around her, and the liberals all seem to think every bit of it is made up and a character assassination. Do they really believe that the right hates this woman so much that they have a factory to make all of this up? Really? Talk about paranoia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#234
#234
hog88 said:
Do you honestly believe that every email discussing government business she sent or received was to/from another State Dept employee, or government employee for that matter?

What about emails to/from foreign entities, ambassadors and such?
Click to expand...


I don't know, but I think you'd need to establish some sort of objectively reasonable concern before I'd really be too worried about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#238
#238
Vol8188 said:
Idk which candidate you're talking about, but because one candidate sucks.....

That doesn't mean we should vote for corporate welfare.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about Hillary. I guess you missed it, but she received donations from many ME countries. In addition she received donations while working at the State Dept and didn't inform anyone prior to receiving the large donations
 
#239
#239
lawgator1 said:
No, because they were sent via agency emails. And there is no particular issue to question, its just a broad and vague criticism.

But of course that will not stop the unwarranted speculation.
Click to expand...

We simply do not know if she had email correspondence in her position as SoS without copying someone with a .gov account.

Because she held all the emails we simply have to take her word that all correspondence in her role as SoS has been turned over to State.
 
#240
#240
VolsNSkinsFan said:
I'm talking about Hillary. I guess you missed it, but she received donations from many ME countries. In addition she received donations while working at the State Dept and didn't inform anyone prior to receiving the large donations
Click to expand...

I did miss that. But just because Hilary sucks, doesn't mean we should vote for the corporate welfare that bush represents.
 
#241
#241
lawgator1 said:
I don't know, but I think you'd need to establish some sort of objectively reasonable concern before I'd really be too worried about it.
Click to expand...

I don't think we need to establish anything, since she took it upon herself to go outside the system it's up to her. It's up to her to be transparent and turn over everything including the servers for inspection.
 
#242
#242
SpaceCoastVol said:
I can't say that I disagree all that much, but this woman always seems to have a ****storm brewing around her, and the liberals all seem to think every bit of it is made up and a character assassination. Do they really believe that the right hates this woman so much that they have a factory to make all of this up? Really? Talk about paranoia.
Click to expand...

I can't really disagree with you on that. The fact that both sides have their heads shoved so far up there own asses that they completely forget about why they are in office in the first place pisses me off more than any of these finger pointing campaigns we have going on. :banghead2:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#244
#244
volinbham said:
We simply do not know if she had email correspondence in her position as SoS without copying someone with a .gov account.

Because she held all the emails we simply have to take her word that all correspondence in her role as SoS has been turned over to State.
Click to expand...


Like I say, as a general criticism of her for the mechanism she used, its certainly a fair criticism.

The insinuation that she did it because was up to no good is just completely made up. Those who hate her already willingly assume she was up to no good. No one else really cares.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#250
#250
lawgator1 said:
No, because they were sent via agency emails.
Click to expand...

Do you know how many times this was posted in the IRS thread and you excused their "loss"? What is it that's different about the IRS's system as opposed to State's? You seem to think the former is systemically deficient when compared to the other.

Plus, we have no idea how many of her emails were sent "via agency emails". Her particular emails weren't, but any that she sent to a .gov address would have hit the agency's retention system. But that's assuming that she never sent a single email from that domain to something other than a .gov address.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top