Hillary Clinton Uses Personal Email for State Business

#501
#501
So, Hillary's State Department sent out cables to embassies forbidding the use of personal email, and on her watch an envoy in Kenya was fired, in part, for utilizing a non-government email server. And yet "I don't want to carry two devices" is a good enough excuse for the Secretary of State to do exactly what her Department was forbade?

I notice that LG isn't even attempting to spin this one. He's just "lulz Fox News"ing because there is no way to justify this behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#502
#502
MG1968 said:
you do know that it's not just FNC that is covering this. Hillary is getting plenty of criticism from the left over this.

Rhetorical question, of course you know that, you just lack the intellectual honesty to admit that democrats are beginning to turn on a Clinton.
Click to expand...


1) Yes, which demonstrates that the "mainstream" media is much more balanced than you would like to believe.

2) Fox is basically 24/7 about this and bashing Obama on Iran. That's it. they have nothing else to say.

3) Dems aren't "turning on" her. That's a huge overstatement, designed to get some dramatic effect, that this does not deserve.

This has run out of steam. And the GOP story on it keeps changing. First it was illegal. Then it wasn't. Then maybe it was. Then, it was violation of own agency rules. But then they turned out not to apply. Then it was maybe she sent unsecured classified material on gmail. That claim fell apart. Then it was that she did it to hide things, that fell apart.

And on and on.

If you don't find something REAL out of this, and very soon, its going to fade by next week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#504
#504
volinbham said:
Here's the real question. Does anyone believe HC when she says the reason she had her own server and email was to avoid carrying two devices?
Click to expand...

Of course not. But until someone shows this was a law she broke and/or state secrets made it out the door it will just get glossed over. Again, this is all in the public perception domain. Nothing about the Clintons is ethical. People know that. Until you have Hillary standing over a dead body while holding a smoking gun this is just another something expected from Hillary. Her responses on the other hand have the means of doing far more damage. This one was not stellar. Having it in the afternoon it will be hard to really drive this into doubting minds. So until some time passes I am not quite sold on this being as bad as it really looked.
 
#505
#505
lawgator1 said:
1) Yes, which demonstrates that the "mainstream" media is much more balanced than you would like to believe.

2) Fox is basically 24/7 about this and bashing Obama on Iran. That's it. they have nothing else to say.

3) Dems aren't "turning on" her. That's a huge overstatement, designed to get some dramatic effect, that this does not deserve.

This has run out of steam. And the GOP story on it keeps changing. First it was illegal. Then it wasn't. Then maybe it was. Then, it was violation of own agency rules. But then they turned out not to apply. Then it was maybe she sent unsecured classified material on gmail. That claim fell apart. Then it was that she did it to hide things, that fell apart.

And on and on.

If you don't find something REAL out of this, and very soon, its going to fade by next week.
Click to expand...

baghdad%2Bbob%2Bfor%2Bobama.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#506
#506
lawgator1 said:
1) Yes, which demonstrates that the "mainstream" media is much more balanced than you would like to believe.

2) Fox is basically 24/7 about this and bashing Obama on Iran. That's it. they have nothing else to say.

3) Dems aren't "turning on" her. That's a huge overstatement, designed to get some dramatic effect, that this does not deserve.

This has run out of steam. And the GOP story on it keeps changing. First it was illegal. Then it wasn't. Then maybe it was. Then, it was violation of own agency rules. But then they turned out not to apply. Then it was maybe she sent unsecured classified material on gmail. That claim fell apart. Then it was that she did it to hide things, that fell apart.

And on and on.

If you don't find something REAL out of this, and very soon, its going to fade by next week.
Click to expand...

Me? I think Hillary is a shrill, self-serving *****. Nothing will ever change that opinion of her. I don't need for this issue to have legs (or cankles) to know that she's a bad actor.

I'd have thought you'd be happy, counselor. Hillary falling from grace would pave the way for Elizabeth Warren to take her fake ancestry parade onto the national stage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#507
#507
CSpindizzy said:
Of course not. But until someone shows this was a law she broke and/or state secrets made it out the door it will just get glossed over. Again, this is all in the public perception domain. Nothing about the Clintons is ethical. People know that. Until you have Hillary standing over a dead body while holding a smoking gun this is just another something expected from Hillary. Her responses on the other hand have the means of doing far more damage. This one was not stellar. Having it in the afternoon it will be hard to really drive this into doubting minds. So until some time passes I am not quite sold on this being as bad as it really looked.
Click to expand...

I agree in general. I'm not making predictions about her political chances. I'm commenting on her veracity and likelihood of bad behavior.

I do think it's interesting that she acknowledged what until now was only speculation:

1. She deleted emails
2. Server was indeed on their property.

May not make a difference in the end but both these items make the situation worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#510
#510
3 reasons why Hillary Clinton ‘convenience’ argument on her email controversy probably won’t work - The Washington Post

1. Other Administration officials at the Cabinet-level who served at the same time as Clinton -- Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, for one -- had single devices with both a personal email account and a work email account. Did Clinton require some different setup because of security or hacking concerns? Wouldn't such protocol for having work and personal emails on a single device be Administration-wide? If there is (and was) some grey area in terms of what Clinton could have in terms of email on a single device, she may lose in the court of public opinion because virtually every person -- myself included -- has more than one email account on their device. Now, not all of us are the nation's top diplomat. But, still.
Click to expand...

Next
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#511
#511
volinbham said:
3 reasons why Hillary Clinton ‘convenience’ argument on her email controversy probably won’t work - The Washington Post



Next
Click to expand...

All these varying versions do is muddy the waters. Clintons love muddied waters. Seems there was no set policy that was enforced by law. Seems everyone did their own thing and even within their departments policy was enforced case by case.

At the end of the day we have a Clinton doing something they probably should not have done (shocking), playing dumb, and still nothing proving illegal actions. Add to that the usual suspects tripping over themselves to make this out to be a scandal. Must be an election coming soon. Drop about 10 Republicans to the mix and these types of stories will be all we will hear about for the next year and a half.
 
#514
#514
lawgator1 said:
Wut?
Click to expand...

LG, serious question here.

If you were a prosecutor and you felt the defendant was hiding something, would you subpoena all computers, hard drives, cell phone records, etc?

If you answer no, then you would suck as a lawyer.
 
#515
#515
AirVol said:
LG, serious question here.

If you were a prosecutor and you felt the defendant was hiding something, would you subpoena all computers, hard drives, cell phone records, etc?

If you answer no, then you would suck as a lawyer.
Click to expand...

You know it would all depend on political party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#517
#517
AirVol said:
LG, serious question here.

If you were a prosecutor and you felt the defendant was hiding something, would you subpoena all computers, hard drives, cell phone records, etc?

If you answer no, then you would suck as a lawyer.
Click to expand...


You've been watching too much old Law & Order.

First of all, as a prosecutor, I can't subpoena something from the Defendant -- that's a Fifth Amendment problem.

Second, there is no criminal prosecution pending.

Third, even there were, and even if in the hands of a third party, there would BE LIMITS placed on what I could try to obtain.

I mentioned that earlier. I have no problem with the GOP fashioning a reasonable request for a search for work-related emails. Clinton claims she and her staff searched for and produced all those that met the terms of such earlier requests. If the GOPers want to seek a forensic examination, based upon a a reasonable request, I have no problem with that.

But we all know that, if given that opportunity, the GOP request will be absurdly unreasonable, the point of which is for her to naturally and correctly object, whereupon they can go "A ha! You must be hiding something."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#518
#518
lawgator1 said:
You've been watching too much old Law & Order.

First of all, as a prosecutor, I can't subpoena something from the Defendant -- that's a Fifth Amendment problem.

Second, there is no criminal prosecution pending.

Third, even there were, and even if in the hands of a third party, there would BE LIMITS placed on what I could try to obtain.

I mentioned that earlier. I have no problem with the GOP fashioning a reasonable request for a search for work-related emails. Clinton claims she and her staff searched for and produced all those that met the terms of such earlier requests. If the GOPers want to seek a forensic examination, based upon a a reasonable request, I have no problem with that.

But we all know that, if given that opportunity, the GOP request will be absurdly unreasonable, the point of which is for her to naturally and correctly object, whereupon they can go "A ha! You must be hiding something."
Click to expand...

If she wasn't she would volunteer and not use such BS excuses as "convenience".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#519
#519
MG1968 said:
Me? I think Hillary is a shrill, self-serving *****. Nothing will ever change that opinion of her. I don't need for this issue to have legs (or cankles) to know that she's a bad actor.

I'd have thought you'd be happy, counselor. Hillary falling from grace would pave the way for Elizabeth Warren to take her fake ancestry parade onto the national stage.
Click to expand...

+1 for cankles reference. Well done.
 
#520
#520
hog88 said:
If she wasn't she would volunteer and not use such BS excuses as "convenience".
Click to expand...


I think the one device thing might have some merit to it from the beginning of her tenure, especially going back to Senate days. Back then, having a device devoted to emails or calls or other production of documents or links, was the norm back then. And likely it did not occur to her or anyone to make a switch somewhere along the way. It just would not have seemed necessary.

There is a reasonable explanation, but the GOP does not want to hear that because, frankly, it makes perfect sense and its boring. That's why I say let some third party examine the server work work-related emails. And prior to that, I would require a showing that there was substantial reason to do that, as opposed to just hoping there's some random thing on there you can use in the campiagn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#521
#521
bamawriter said:
And yet "I don't want to carry two devices" is a good enough excuse for the Secretary of State to do exactly what her Department was forbade?
Click to expand...

Bill should teach her how to manage 2 devices. I guarantee that horn dog has a Hillary phone and a side chicks phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#524
#524
lawgator1 said:
I think the one device thing might have some merit to it from the beginning of her tenure, especially going back to Senate days. Back then, having a device devoted to emails or calls or other production of documents or links, was the norm back then. And likely it did not occur to her or anyone to make a switch somewhere along the way. It just would not have seemed necessary.

There is a reasonable explanation, but the GOP does not want to hear that because, frankly, it makes perfect sense and its boring. That's why I say let some third party examine the server work work-related emails. And prior to that, I would require a showing that there was substantial reason to do that, as opposed to just hoping there's some random thing on there you can use in the campiagn.
Click to expand...

She was SOS for Christ's sake, she could have had her personal email on her device and avoided this whole mess. Hell even if she couldn't have, she always could had her assistant carry one device if 2 were to burdensome.

If she has nothing to hide and truly wants to be POTUS she would volunteer, she would at least get out in front of this by asking for a third party examination. That way she could dictate terms. But no, when asked she blew the question off, she had done all that is required.

Well a POTUS that just does the bare minimum that is required of them isn't good enough!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top