Hillary won more votes for President

mace1229 · May 2016

inmyNC said:
A lot of New York Times links. NY times has been very bias in favor of a more left point of view. Almost as bad as Fox News is the other way around.

Maybe, but as far as I know she hasn't denied the contributions, even saying they were only hidden because of a filing error or something like that. Only denied that there was a connection. But come on, even if there wasn't a connection, that is just stupid to accept million dollar donations from foreign companies that need your approval as Secretary, and that level of stupidity is just as bad. Companies that are prohibited from donating to you or your campaign, so they donate to your foundation instead.

Gern Blansten · May 2016

BS44325 said:
This pretty much puts the nail in the coffin. State Department Inspector General says Hillary didn't follow guidelines, didn't maintain records and didn't cooperate with investigators. Also evidence that she intentionally set up own server to bypass transparency laws and that her private server faced security attacks on multiple occasions. So in a nut shell she jeopardized national security so that she could avoid transparency.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_EMAILS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-25-10-31-23

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-personal-email-worry-223559

Time to for the gems to get a new candidate.

lol...you're delusional. Faux News is strong in you

Gern Blansten · May 2016

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:
I don't think she'll start WWIII either and she wasn't the only one scolded in that State Dept. report. She's already said she wished she hadn't done it that way.
She broke the law.
Here in the States, we have a police force that investigates, a DA that chooses to prosecute, a trial by your peers, and then a decision. Although we fail at it sometimes, we all know that trial in media isn't the way to go. But thanks for your decision.
The Inspector General stated that she broke the Federal Records Act. The FBI will continue to investigate and decide whether to prosecute. I understand that you're all in for Hillary but am still slightly surprised how willing you are to sweep this transgression under the rug.
I don't think that's what he said. He said the she did not follow departmental processes that were designed to be in accordance with Federal Records Act. There's a big difference and if you work or have ever worked in a regulated environment, then you understand what I'm saying.

For example, say I designed a process at work that is implemented to ensure I never violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). However, one month the process failed to run properly. The good news is, that I didn't report inaccurate information on anyone's credit report. My failure to execute violated the protocol designed to protect, but since there was no inaccurate information reported, I did not violate the act. That's how I interpret it. The IG is not saying that the any classified information was in open space or breached, only that internal protocol was violated. I don't know the records act, but I would guess there has to be damage as that's how all federal statutes are generally written.
There were attempted hacks on her system. She was obligated to report those hacks. She failed to report those hacks.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/25/hillary-clinton-failed-report-several-hacking-atte/

Her actions jeopardized national security.

how's that? Nothing classified was sent/received. The only items that were considered classified were done so months or years after the fact. None of those items related to national security.

Turn off Faux News.

Gern Blansten · May 2016

Dirtie_Frank said:
I am just waiting for people to say well Colin Powell did it and the IG said that the rules were more fluid during Powells time. If everyone recalls email is still new in the grand scheme of things.

The rules were made clear by the time she became the nation’s top diplomat that using a private server for official business was neither allowed nor encouraged because of “significant security risks.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0

Then why wasn't there a process to prevent it? The rules were definitely not clear or that would not have happened.

Honestly...it's as simple as not allowing any unapproved email address to be allowed through any government system

mace1229 · May 2016

Even if nothing top secret was sent, why are staffers refusing to cooperate? Why did she not hand over all her emails when asked? Why did she go through and delete tens of thousands, claiming they had nothing to do with her job? Why did she wipe the server? What kind of investigation would allow the person being investigated to gather and collect their own evidence against them as she did? If there was nothing to hide, why did she hide so much?

Dirtie_Frank · May 2016

mace1229 said:
Even if nothing top secret was sent, why are staffers refusing to cooperate? Why did she not hand over all her emails when asked? Why did she go through and delete tens of thousands, claiming they had nothing to do with her job? Why did she wipe the server? What kind of investigation would allow the person being investigated to gather and collect their own evidence against them as she did? If there was nothing to hide, why did she hide so much?

It is all a charade

. I mean the FBI investigation is a fraud too didn't you know.

mrussel1 · May 2016

mace1229 said:
Even if nothing top secret was sent, why are staffers refusing to cooperate? Why did she not hand over all her emails when asked? Why did she go through and delete tens of thousands, claiming they had nothing to do with her job? Why did she wipe the server? What kind of investigation would allow the person being investigated to gather and collect their own evidence against them as she did? If there was nothing to hide, why did she hide so much?

Let me tell you about staffers and why they would refuse to cooperate if not subpoenaed. A gentleman that works for me today was on Al Gore's military staff. Basically he carried the 'football' for Gore, if you know what I mean. Well this gentleman also worked two cubes over from Monica. He was privy to ALL of it. He was subpoenaed by Ken Starr and had to pay 50k+ of his own money for legal counsel during the multiple times he was deposed. There was no legal fund or anything to support him.

The point is, a staffer is not going to cooperate unless required to do so. You wouldn't either because everything you say could put you on the hook or in legal jeopardy. Therefore you need counsel. Counsel is expensive. Why would you voluntarily put yourself in that type of financial and legal risk?

rssesq · May 2016

dirty hillary

mace1229 · May 2016

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:
Even if nothing top secret was sent, why are staffers refusing to cooperate? Why did she not hand over all her emails when asked? Why did she go through and delete tens of thousands, claiming they had nothing to do with her job? Why did she wipe the server? What kind of investigation would allow the person being investigated to gather and collect their own evidence against them as she did? If there was nothing to hide, why did she hide so much?
Let me tell you about staffers and why they would refuse to cooperate if not subpoenaed. A gentleman that works for me today was on Al Gore's military staff. Basically he carried the 'football' for Gore, if you know what I mean. Well this gentleman also worked two cubes over from Monica. He was privy to ALL of it. He was subpoenaed by Ken Starr and had to pay 50k+ of his own money for legal counsel during the multiple times he was deposed. There was no legal fund or anything to support him.

The point is, a staffer is not going to cooperate unless required to do so. You wouldn't either because everything you say could put you on the hook or in legal jeopardy. Therefore you need counsel. Counsel is expensive. Why would you voluntarily put yourself in that type of financial and legal risk?

I think I'd pay 50k just to not be privy to everything that happened with Monica 2 cubes over.

mrussel1 · May 2016

mace1229 said:

inmyNC said:
A lot of New York Times links. NY times has been very bias in favor of a more left point of view. Almost as bad as Fox News is the other way around.
Maybe, but as far as I know she hasn't denied the contributions, even saying they were only hidden because of a filing error or something like that. Only denied that there was a connection. But come on, even if there wasn't a connection, that is just stupid to accept million dollar donations from foreign companies that need your approval as Secretary, and that level of stupidity is just as bad. Companies that are prohibited from donating to you or your campaign, so they donate to your foundation instead.

Let me tell you about staffers and why they would refuse to cooperate if not subpoenaed. A gentleman that works for me today was on Al Gore's military staff. Basically he carried the 'football' for Gore, if you know what I mean. Well this gentleman also worked two cubes over from Monica. He was privy to ALL of it. He was subpoenaed by Ken Starr and had to pay 50k+ of his own money for legal counsel during the multiple times he was deposed. There was no legal fund or anything to support him.

The point is, a staffer is not going to cooperate unless required to do so. You wouldn't either because everything you say could put you on the hook or in legal jeopardy. Therefore you need counsel. Counsel is expensive. Why would you voluntarily put yourself in that type of financial and legal risk?

I think I'd pay 50k just to not be privy to everything that happened with Monica 2 cubes over.

He told me that Monica was very pretty when that all started. He said she a 'stress eater'.

Gern Blansten · May 2016

mace1229 said:
Even if nothing top secret was sent, why are staffers refusing to cooperate? Why did she not hand over all her emails when asked? Why did she go through and delete tens of thousands, claiming they had nothing to do with her job? Why did she wipe the server? What kind of investigation would allow the person being investigated to gather and collect their own evidence against them as she did? If there was nothing to hide, why did she hide so much?

Probably half of what you are asking is Faux News smoke and mirrors.

It was a personal email so I'm guessing there were personal emails that she didn't want plastered all over the internet. How criminal.

Servers get wiped all the time. I have about 3 that are just sitting on a shelf because I'm not going to dispose of them with data on the hard drives.

mrussel1 · May 2016

Maybe, but as far as I know she hasn't denied the contributions, even saying they were only hidden because of a filing error or something like that. Only denied that there was a connection. But come on, even if there wasn't a connection, that is just stupid to accept million dollar donations from foreign companies that need your approval as Secretary, and that level of stupidity is just as bad. Companies that are prohibited from donating to you or your campaign, so they donate to your foundation instead.

This was discussed at length much earlier in this thread. But I'll summarize in two points:

1. She had no connection to the Foundation during her time as Sec'y
2. Most important...Do you think for one second that the sale of Uranium is approved by one cabinet officer? This would go through the DHLS, State and the Joint Chiefs, at a very minimum. Which means Obama would be involved.

I find it interesting that people believe that she not only ran State without any checks and balances or bureaucratic oversight, but she somehow co-opted the other cabinet officers and the Potus.

Gern Blansten · May 2016

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

inmyNC said:
A lot of New York Times links. NY times has been very bias in favor of a more left point of view. Almost as bad as Fox News is the other way around.
Maybe, but as far as I know she hasn't denied the contributions, even saying they were only hidden because of a filing error or something like that. Only denied that there was a connection. But come on, even if there wasn't a connection, that is just stupid to accept million dollar donations from foreign companies that need your approval as Secretary, and that level of stupidity is just as bad. Companies that are prohibited from donating to you or your campaign, so they donate to your foundation instead.

Let me tell you about staffers and why they would refuse to cooperate if not subpoenaed. A gentleman that works for me today was on Al Gore's military staff. Basically he carried the 'football' for Gore, if you know what I mean. Well this gentleman also worked two cubes over from Monica. He was privy to ALL of it. He was subpoenaed by Ken Starr and had to pay 50k+ of his own money for legal counsel during the multiple times he was deposed. There was no legal fund or anything to support him.

The point is, a staffer is not going to cooperate unless required to do so. You wouldn't either because everything you say could put you on the hook or in legal jeopardy. Therefore you need counsel. Counsel is expensive. Why would you voluntarily put yourself in that type of financial and legal risk?

I think I'd pay 50k just to not be privy to everything that happened with Monica 2 cubes over.

He told me that Monica was very pretty when that all started. He said she a 'stress eater'.

exactly....keeping your mouth shut always looks bad but it is the first thing an attorney will tell you

mace1229 · May 2016

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:
Even if nothing top secret was sent, why are staffers refusing to cooperate? Why did she not hand over all her emails when asked? Why did she go through and delete tens of thousands, claiming they had nothing to do with her job? Why did she wipe the server? What kind of investigation would allow the person being investigated to gather and collect their own evidence against them as she did? If there was nothing to hide, why did she hide so much?
Probably half of what you are asking is Faux News smoke and mirrors.

It was a personal email so I'm guessing there were personal emails that she didn't want plastered all over the internet. How criminal.

Servers get wiped all the time. I have about 3 that are just sitting on a shelf because I'm not going to dispose of them with data on the hard drives.

I do watch a little Fox News. But I also watch several other networks like NBC and CBS, almost anything but CNN because they annoy me, and I remember a lot of networks covering this when it was developing.

There was no need to plaster personal emails all over the internet. She could have easily signed an agreement to not to publicly disclose any unofficial communication and given access to her account to the officials doing the investigation. She should have. She was a government employee who chose not to use the government email servers and when asked, delayed in supplying the emails and deleted thousands more. If my employer asked for a record of my emails that was suppose to be on their server and I instead deleted them, I'd be fired today (actually on leave for about 2 weeks, then fired). She took months to comply, and chose which emails were relevant and which ones were not. It doesn't seem unreasonable to not allow the person being investigated to decide which evidence is relevant. That would be the worst system ever.

Gern Blansten · May 2016

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:
Even if nothing top secret was sent, why are staffers refusing to cooperate? Why did she not hand over all her emails when asked? Why did she go through and delete tens of thousands, claiming they had nothing to do with her job? Why did she wipe the server? What kind of investigation would allow the person being investigated to gather and collect their own evidence against them as she did? If there was nothing to hide, why did she hide so much?
Probably half of what you are asking is Faux News smoke and mirrors.

It was a personal email so I'm guessing there were personal emails that she didn't want plastered all over the internet. How criminal.

Servers get wiped all the time. I have about 3 that are just sitting on a shelf because I'm not going to dispose of them with data on the hard drives.
I do watch a little Fox News. But I also watch several other networks like NBC and CBS, almost anything but CNN because they annoy me, and I remember a lot of networks covering this when it was developing.

There was no need to plaster personal emails all over the internet. She could have easily signed an agreement to not to publicly disclose any unofficial communication and given access to her account to the officials doing the investigation. She should have. She was a government employee who chose not to use the government email servers and when asked, delayed in supplying the emails and deleted thousands more. If my employer asked for a record of my emails that was suppose to be on their server and I instead deleted them, I'd be fired today (actually on leave for about 2 weeks, then fired). She took months to comply, and chose which emails were relevant and which ones were not. It doesn't seem unreasonable to not allow the person being investigated to decide which evidence is relevant. That would be the worst system ever.

There is always another party to an email. I believe it has been mentioned that any email she received or sent that was required to be cataloged most likely got picked up on the other end.

mace1229 · May 2016

they've stated that before as a defense, but still doesn't make much sense. If you want to investigate someone for their emails, you search their emails. You don't search accounts of every person she possibly could have sent an email to or received one from which would be thousands and thousands of accounts, each with thousands and thousands of emails looking for an email one person sent.

If you had a company credit card and your employer thought you were using it for personal gain they would not go to every possible website or retail store to see if their card had been used. They would search their credit card records for inappropriate use. It doesn't make sense to do it any other way.

To say "if everyone else kept their emails then why do I need to for my records" is illogical. With that logic you wouldn't need to use toilet seat covers in a public restroom either.

rgambs · May 2016

Free said:
Let's just keep making excuses for Clinton and keep ignoring everything that's going on...

It doesn't look good that she's refusing another agreed to debate w/ Sanders in CA, and that Sanders and Trump will debate. What is she afraid of? Hmmm

She's playing to win, I don't like it much either, but that's how it goes.

Jason P · May 2016

The potential Bernie / Trump debate right before the convention has to be driving her crazy.

This is the person who was a shoe-in six months ago ...

inmyNC · May 2016

Jason P said:
The potential Bernie / Trump debate right before the convention has to be driving her crazy.

This is the person who was a shoe-in six months ago ...

So close she could taste it, how fleeting her dreams must be.

mrussel1 · May 2016

inmyNC said:

Jason P said:
The potential Bernie / Trump debate right before the convention has to be driving her crazy.

This is the person who was a shoe-in six months ago ...
So close she could taste it, how fleeting her dreams must be.

I don't see Trump doing it. The one advantage is to damage Hillary, but it would be risky for Trump too. I mean, what's his strategy? Does he eviscerate Bernie, thereby helping Hillary who is the presumptive nominee? Or does he go soft and risk the talking point that "he can't even beat Bernie in a debate". There's really no upside.

This could be a long term mistake for Bernie, or the chance to be. If he goes around the DNC and debates the GOP, that will be seen as subverting the party and more importantly the person who has the most pledged delegates and raw votes. Any hope of influence he would have in the Senate would be cooked. It's not going to sway the super delegates and if Hillary really has a DOJ issue, the SD's may vote for Biden. Why would they vote for Bernie over Biden?

My gut: Not going to happen.

Hillary won more votes for President

Comments

Categories