Moderators lazarus Posted September 2, 2016 Moderators Posted September 2, 2016 Listening to all the fuss about Hillary's emails I had a vague recollection about Bush and emails. I googled it and wow! From Wikipedia: ......Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[2][3]Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.[5] The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose. White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications."[13] The Republican National Committee claims to have erased the emails, supposedly making them unavailable for Congressional investigators.[1 White House deputy Jennifer Farley told Jack Abramoff not to use the official White House system "because it might actually limit what they can do to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc."[7] Abramoff responded, "Dammit. It was sent to Susan on her RNC pager and was not supposed to go into the WH system."[19] phkrause and CoAspen 2 Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
Moderators Bravus Posted September 2, 2016 Moderators Posted September 2, 2016 GayatfootofCross and lazarus 2 Quote Truth is important
CoAspen Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 I'm sure this can all be explained away! Just because GWB did it, and others....., makes no matter we must pillory HC and send her to jail for it. Oh, the horror of it all! GayatfootofCross 1 Quote
bonnie Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Politicians also have short memories Clinton is running against Donald Trump,not the Bush administration or the mistakes and wrong doings of that presidency Hillary Clinton had quite a bit to say on the Bush e-mail scandal as did others. Obviously she was not ignorant of the ramifications of what she was doing. Nor would it have been necessary for her to lie concerning Colin Powell. rudywoofs (Pam), Rossw and JoeMo 3 Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
GayatfootofCross Posted September 6, 2016 Posted September 6, 2016 On 9/2/2016 at 10:00 AM, CoAspen said: I'm sure this can all be explained away! Just because GWB did it, and others....., makes no matter we must pillory HC and send her to jail for it. Oh, the horror of it all! Quote For all Eternity God waited in anticipation for You to show up to give You a Message - YOUR INCLUDED !!! { a merry dance }?️? " If you tarry 'til you're better You will never come at all " .. "I Will Rise" by the late great saved Glen Campbell If your picture of God is starting to feel too good to be true, you're starting to move in the right direction. "My bounty is as boundless as the sea, My love as deep; the more I give to thee, The more I have, for both are infinite." Romeo and Juliet
Geoarrge Posted September 6, 2016 Posted September 6, 2016 Keep in mind that not all of the current laws governing the government's electronic communications were in place during the Bush Administration, and there's still the matter of the sheer volume of infractions and subsequent destruction of evidence. Quote To be an agent of creation is to serve the Creator.
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted September 6, 2016 Administrators Posted September 6, 2016 "Sheer volume..." Seems to be serious hyperbole, since in context of the thousands of e-mails, the extremely small number of allegedly problematic emails hardly justifies either word. "Destruction of evidence" is a meaningless misstatement with no crime or even a criminal charge for which evidence would be relevant. For example, burning my trash is not the destruction of evidence. If I am charged with a crime and I burn my trash, there still has to be some evidence that what I burned included any evidence of the crime. An annoying evidentiary rule requires some proof before you throw such legal terms around... Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
JoeMo Posted September 7, 2016 Posted September 7, 2016 "I've not been charged with a crime" seems to be a pretty low bar as far as being qualified to be POTUS Quote
bonnie Posted September 7, 2016 Posted September 7, 2016 'Crooked Hillary' nickname isn't going away: Glenn Reynolds Glenn Harlan Reynolds5:52 a.m. EDT September 6, 2016 The new FBI information suggests Clinton is either criminal, criminally incompetent or both. Donald Trump likes to call his opponent, Hillary Clinton, “Crooked Hillary.” There’s even a #CrookedHillary hashtag on Twitter. Meanwhile, Hillary seems to be doing her best to make that nickname stick. The latest example came in a Labor Day Weekend document dump by the FBI. (Federal agencies dump embarrassing material in public on Friday afternoons when they want to ensure it gets as little attention as possible. That goes double for the Friday before a long-weekend holiday.) But the non-redacted parts of the Bureau’s heavily-redacted report were bad enough that they’ll still get some traction. When FBI Director James Comey declined to prosecute the former Secretary of State for mishandling classified information, he said that although she was extremely careless, there was no criminal intent. That was a bit iffy, since the statute governing mishandling of classified information doesn’t require intent. But the new information indicates that Hillary is either criminal, or criminally incompetent. Or maybe both. USA TODAYThe Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!: Glenn Reynolds As John Schindler wrote on Friday: Considering that Hillary has been accused of mishandling classified information on an almost industrial scale, what shines through is that Clinton is utterly clueless about classification matters, betraying an ignorance that is shocking when encountered in a former top official of our government — and one who wants to be our next commander-in-chief. . . . When asked, “Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined,” the FBI recorded. Hillary could not explain what the (C) — for Confidential — classification marking at the beginning of a paragraph was. She thought it perhaps had something to do with alphabetical order. This tragicomedy continued with the FBI pressing Hillary on specific examples of classified information that wound up in her “Unclassified” emails. She explained her position concisely. As the FBI noted, “Clinton stated that she did not pay attention to the ‘level’ of classified information.” She also lost a laptop and multiple Blackberries and other mobile devices that she used to access classified material. “Clinton had 13 mobile devices that she potentially used to access emails on her private clintonemail.com server based out of herChappaqua, New York home. At least eight of these mobile devices were used while she was secretary of state, but Clinton’s lawyers were unable to find any of them. Clinton aides told FBI investigators the former diplomat went through phones often, and the ‘whereabout’ of her old phones would become unknown once she switched to a new device.” Conveniently enough, the FBI was unable to subject these “lost” devices — some were actually destroyed with a hammer by an aide — to forensic analysis. USA TODAY Clinton needs to reboot with clean slate: Column POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media In addition, there were "mass deletions" of emails just after news reports of her secret private server became public, and after she received a subpoena, and order not to destroy any records, from the House committee investigating the Benghaziaffair. Hillary also claimed a lot of memory problems, leaving blogger Tamara Keel to write: “I have an Ivy League lawyer, wife of a former governor and president, who lived in the White House for eight damned years, then went on to be a senator and Secretary of State telling me she didn't know about classified email and that work-related documents needed to be saved as part of the public record? Look, I don't mind you bullshitting me a little bit, Hillary, but don't you ever lie to me like I'm Montel Williams.” You don’t have to be an Ivy League lawyer to recognize a coverup when you see one. This goes far beyond anything Richard Nixon did after Watergate. If the coverup is this big, what’s being covered up must be pretty bad, bad enough that they’re willing to blow lots of smoke rather than let us see the fire... This is where we are onLabor Day weekend, 2016. Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
bonnie Posted September 7, 2016 Posted September 7, 2016 "When asked about the email chain containing '(C)' portion markings that State determined to currently contain CONFIDENTIAL information," the report relates, "Clinton stated that she did not know what the '(C)' meant at the beginning of paragraphs." Clinton "speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order." How do you become senator and not know what C Meant? Anyone who has handled classified material would know this to be utter nonsense. Paragraph markings appear in all classified material to note the specific classifications within the sections of each page, while the page itself bears a marking of the highest classification information within it. Even without that knowledge, though, Clinton's explanation still makes no sense, because the alphabet doesn't start with C. If she legitimately wanted to employ this imbecilic alphabet defense, the follow-up question is obvious: "How could you think this if there was no (A) and (B)?" Clinton's explanation of her ignorance tests credulity even further. "Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined," agents wrote, "nor could she recall any training or guidance provided by State." Had she gone from a lifetime in the private sector to becoming secretary of state, that explanation might hold up. However, not only did Clinton spend eight years in the White House in somewhat close proximity to sensitive material, she spent an equal amount of time in the U.S. Senate. In fact, Clinton spent six of those years on the Armed Services Committee, which routinely accesses highly classified material as part of the legislative branch's duty to oversee the operations of the executive branch. Did agents ask her to reconcile that experience with her protestations of ignorance on classifications, originations, and markings? The FBI's interview notes show no evidence of that obvious follow-up. In fact, Clinton went even further by claiming that she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified material." On that point, the FBI had clear evidence of deception. In a non-disclosure agreement dated Jan. 22, 2009, Clinton attested to having received a "security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information." That signature explicitly made Clinton "legally bound" to that testimony. Did investigators challenge her statement, or follow up on the potential perjury or obstruction ramifications? Apparently not. MORE PERSPECTIVESRYAN COOPER Republicans are still failing basic governance 101 Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.