|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Aug 6, 2015 18:32:27 GMT
Here is my question, and perhaps it deserves it's own thread-but what do people think are going to be on the lost emails? (And please read that question with all the sincerity it was that it was asked with...no sarcasm at all.)
What kind of secrets are thought to be in them?
|
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Aug 6, 2015 18:50:18 GMT
Let's be honest, that's why she hung on to Bill. He does have that factor despite his flaws. He's as charismatic in person as people claim. Even my husband, who is a pretty harsh critic of their politics, commented on it. I actually disagree with many in that I don't think that she stays for his political acumen - I think she probably does love him for all his flaws. Or perhaps it's the combination..... who knows what really goes on in any marriage. Oh I think they love each other and realize they are a great team that compliment each other well. For as smart as Bill is, I have always thought Hillary was "smarter" but Bill just has a way with people that I agree can't be taught. TBH I always thought she had the acumen and he had the charisma. I'm not too happy about the email issue but I will wait and see how that all shakes out. It isn't something I would take her out of the running over at the moment. For now it just seems that it is something that the GOP are trying to find that beat her with because they are afraid of her as a candidate. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:29:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2015 19:11:06 GMT
Here is my question, and perhaps it deserves it's own thread-but what do people think are going to be on the lost emails? (And please read that question with all the sincerity it was that it was asked with...no sarcasm at all.) What kind of secrets are thought to be in them? I have no idea what's on the emails, but she doesn't get to decide which regulations and laws to follow and ignore the ones she doesn't like. She was asked to provide the emails and printed them out instead of providing a searchable format. Then after being ordered to provide the hard drive, she destroyed it. Those are our documents and she has been ordered to provide them. She said she did and now we find out she didn't. She was asked why she didn't obey the subpoena and she said she didn't get one. Then we immediately find out she lied about that too. If there is nothing to hide, why is she breaking the law to hide it? |
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Aug 6, 2015 19:14:24 GMT
Here is my question, and perhaps it deserves it's own thread-but what do people think are going to be on the lost emails? (And please read that question with all the sincerity it was that it was asked with...no sarcasm at all.) What kind of secrets are thought to be in them? Honestly, I would have to look closer. I decided when I lived in England that I would never trust Fox as a news source again so any time they are hot on something I'm automatically suspicious as to their motives, which means I have to do my own multi source research to form my own conclusions. It seems like Fox leads the GOP these days. Sometimes I also wonder if these things are a storm in a teacup. I have empathy for public figures that all their correspondence (paper or electronic) isn't public correspondence. Unless presented with credible evidence I have to err on the side that this was private and not anyone's business other than those included in the correspondence, whether it be legal/medical/familial or just things that are personal. |
|
|
|
Post by mzza111 on Aug 6, 2015 19:21:59 GMT
This thread was going along pretty well...with people from all sides with all different beliefs having adult discussion. There was no finger pointing and no immature claims against a party or candidate we didn't personally align with.
Congratulations, krazy!
You continue to feel whatever "need" you have to "step in". Relevancy be damned. @gajenny Let me just preface this with there is no absolutely snark intended in this post. Did you completely miss post from Gia LuPeaA? This is where the "adult discussion" took a turn. I really don't understand your hand slappy post to Krazy because it really should have been aimed at Gia LuPeaA if you were sincere about having an "adult discussion".  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:29:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2015 19:23:59 GMT
Here is my question, and perhaps it deserves it's own thread-but what do people think are going to be on the lost emails? (And please read that question with all the sincerity it was that it was asked with...no sarcasm at all.) What kind of secrets are thought to be in them? For me, it's not that there might be secrets in them. It's that she didn't follow the regulations set down by the State Department, of which she was the head. None of this would have been an issue if she had done what was required of her. So she's created a situation where she can be criticized then demonizes those who would dare criticize her. At best, it's simply arrogance on her part that she doesn't have to abide by the rules like everyone else. At worst, she really is seeking to hide information that would make her look bad at this critical time in her career. For all the excuses that it could just be private emails and she doesn't have to share, there's a reason official business is handled on official servers and private business is handled on private servers. Again, had HRC followed regulations, this wouldn't be an issue. |
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 6, 2015 19:41:19 GMT
With Hillary and the Email situation...she wants to be President. The one person given the responsibility to uphold and enforce the law of the land. If she can't do that with transparency when she's not president, how can we expect honesty and integrity if she were president? I voted for Bill. I didn't after the Monica scandal, not because he got a blowie, but because he committed perjury. Regardless of why he was asked, he was asked, under oath, and as President he is required to set the example, not dissect definitions.
That being said...Hillary scares me less than Bernie. Until Benghazi, I thought she was a good SOS. But the thought that we have a viable candidate who is an openly professed socialist, just makes me shake my head about how far we've drifted from what made us a great nation. When a socialist has the potential to be president, we really are not the nation we were intended to become. I think he actually has a much better chance of winning than he's being given credit for, and it scares the hell out of me. I've been telling my Facebook conservative family and friends, that they need to NOT vote for the Republican that most aligns with their personal religious beliefs, but the Republican who can get enough independent votes to be Sanders.
Biden...class clown. Good to have a drink with, but incompetent.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:29:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2015 19:52:19 GMT
This thread was going along pretty well...with people from all sides with all different beliefs having adult discussion. There was no finger pointing and no immature claims against a party or candidate we didn't personally align with.
Congratulations, krazy!
You continue to feel whatever "need" you have to "step in". Relevancy be damned. @gajenny Let me just preface this with there is no absolutely snark intended in this post. Did you completely miss post from Gia LuPeaA? This is where the "adult discussion" took a turn. I really don't understand your hand slappy post to Krazy because it really should have been aimed at Gia LuPeaA if you were sincere about having an "adult discussion". Well technically, you could go further back to what Sarah said...which personally I found insulting but I ignored it. Here's what Sarah said (in regards to the discussion of HRC's issues and scandals...which we were ALL talking about) "Anyone who thinks she is too damaged probably spends too much time with conservative media; from outside that bubble, it's the case of the boy who cried wolf and no one is paying attention to those "scandals" anymore except the true believers."
Edited to add...it's one thing to share an opinion...even if it's different than the others posted. But Sarah's wide swipe of anyone who may not get their news from the source she deems worthy is pretty shitty and does nothing to foster any kind of mature discussion.
I will say again that I think plenty of people are paying attention to Hillary and her "scandals". And as much as Sarah, or HRC want to demonize those damn GOP witch hunters, HRC has done this ALL ON HER OWN. She has no one to blame but herself and her complete disregard for the little people and her arrogance.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,015 
|
Post by Sarah*H on Aug 6, 2015 20:13:03 GMT
This is again a case of poor reading comprehension because nowhere did I saw she has anyone to blame but herself nor did I opine on the merits of the scandal du jour. What I said was that no one outside of conservative media is paying attention anymore and that conservative news outlets have created a case of the boy who cries wolf. I read a lot of political news and follow a lot of political pages and discussion groups and my post is not a wide swipe at anyone but rather a description of what I've observed about who is posting and talking about everything HRC. And those people who post about the email/server scandal also continue to post about old scandals too. This week alone just on my town's political FBx page, I've read about her shutting down the women who accused Bill of sexual assault, the Whitewater files, Benghazi (x7), and just yesterday an accusation that she was fired from the Watergate investigation for unethical behavior. Which just reinforces the perception of the boy who cries wolf and why many people have simply stopped paying attention.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:29:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2015 20:27:40 GMT
This thread was going along pretty well...with people from all sides with all different beliefs having adult discussion. There was no finger pointing and no immature claims against a party or candidate we didn't personally align with.
Congratulations, krazy!
You continue to feel whatever "need" you have to "step in". Relevancy be damned. @gajenny Let me just preface this with there is no absolutely snark intended in this post.
Did you completely miss post from Gia LuPeaA? This is where the "adult discussion" took a turn. I really don't understand your hand slappy post to Krazy because it really should have been aimed at Gia LuPeaA if you were sincere about having an "adult discussion". Did you completely miss the post by SarahH that I was responding to? I don't know how you could've, it's right there in my post that you quoted. If you want to point fingers at who "turned the adult discussion" to something else, you only have to look at SarahH's post (which came before mine) that insulted everyone who have a different news source than she does and who don't agree with her assessment of the importance -or rather non-importance of Hillary's demonstration of her inability to follow the laws and regulations she is sworn to uphold. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:29:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2015 20:27:43 GMT
This is again a case of poor reading comprehension because nowhere did I saw she has anyone to blame but herself nor did I opine on the merits of the scandal du jour. What I said was that no one outside of conservative media is paying attention anymore and that conservative news outlets have created a case of the boy who cries wolf. I read a lot of political news and follow a lot of political pages and discussion groups and my post is not a wide swipe at anyone but rather a description of what I've observed about who is posting and talking about everything HRC. And those people who post about the email/server scandal also continue to post about old scandals too. This week alone just on my town's political FBx page, I've read about her shutting down the women who accused Bill of sexual assault, the Whitewater files, Benghazi (x7), and just yesterday an accusation that she was fired from the Watergate investigation for unethical behavior. Which just reinforces the perception of the boy who cries wolf and why many people have simply stopped paying attention. And that's EXACTLY what I quoted that you said. Again...here are the words you said "Anyone who thinks she is too damaged probably spends too much time with conservative media; from outside that bubble, it's the case of the boy who cried wolf and no one is paying attention to those "scandals" anymore except the true believers." Reading comprehension IS a good thing. I think your words, that I quoted above, the same words that Gia responded do nothing but dismiss anyone who doesn't get their news from your worthy sources. HRC's poll numbers indicate to me that there are PLENTY of people paying attention to all of her scandals. I'm pretty sure I quoted something earlier in this thread that indicated Independents were having quite the issue with her as well...so this is far from some Right Wing Conspiracy or the boy who cried wolf.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:29:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2015 20:30:09 GMT
And with that, any reasonable and adult discussion on this thread is done. We're back to insults, accusations, finger pointing. We are not capable of discussing with those who see things differently
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,015
|
Post by Sarah*H on Aug 6, 2015 20:47:52 GMT
It has nothing to do with DISMISSING any news sources, just commenting on WHICH NEWS SOURCES continue to make an issue of these "scandals." I just searched the my hometown newspaper (Pittsburgh Post Gazette) and the last time they reported on anything to do with Hillary's emails was July 25th. At the bottom of the 2nd page of search results on HRC, Politico has a story about the classified aspect of the investigation indicating again that the investigation doesn't target HRC. I have no idea why you are taking it personally or saying it's insulting to comment about which types of news organizations are reporting this as a scandal.
ETA: I just did a similar search on CNN and got the same story about the classified aspect yesterday and then nothing else at least back to July 30th at which point I stopped looking.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:29:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2015 20:58:12 GMT
It has nothing to do with DISMISSING any news sources, just commenting on WHICH NEWS SOURCES continue to make an issue of these "scandals." I just searched the my hometown newspaper (Pittsburgh Post Gazette) and the last time they reported on anything to do with Hillary's emails was July 25th. At the bottom of the 2nd page of search results on HRC, Politico has a story about the classified aspect of the investigation indicating again that the investigation doesn't target HRC. I have no idea why you are taking it personally or saying it's insulting to comment about which types of news organizations are reporting this as a scandal. Because you meant it to be insulting. The words you chose are insulting and you know it. I'm tired of being insulted for being on the wrong side of an opinion when someone here needs to drive home their point. I'm sure I'm not the only one. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Aug 6, 2015 21:31:08 GMT
This is again a case of poor reading comprehension because nowhere did I saw she has anyone to blame but herself nor did I opine on the merits of the scandal du jour. What I said was that no one outside of conservative media is paying attention anymore and that conservative news outlets have created a case of the boy who cries wolf. I read a lot of political news and follow a lot of political pages and discussion groups and my post is not a wide swipe at anyone but rather a description of what I've observed about who is posting and talking about everything HRC. And those people who post about the email/server scandal also continue to post about old scandals too. This week alone just on my town's political FBx page, I've read about her shutting down the women who accused Bill of sexual assault, the Whitewater files, Benghazi (x7), and just yesterday an accusation that she was fired from the Watergate investigation for unethical behavior. Which just reinforces the perception of the boy who cries wolf and why many people have simply stopped paying attention. And that's EXACTLY what I quoted that you said. Again...here are the words you said "Anyone who thinks she is too damaged probably spends too much time with conservative media; from outside that bubble, it's the case of the boy who cried wolf and no one is paying attention to those "scandals" anymore except the true believers." Reading comprehension IS a good thing. I think your words, that I quoted above, the same words that Gia responded do nothing but dismiss anyone who doesn't get their news from your worthy sources. HRC's poll numbers indicate to me that there are PLENTY of people paying attention to all of her scandals. I'm pretty sure I quoted something earlier in this thread that indicated Independents were having quite the issue with her as well...so this is far from some Right Wing Conspiracy or the boy who cried wolf.
I could be wrong, but to me it sounded like Sarah was talking about reading only those sites that agree with you, versus reading or listening to a wide variety of sites. That's not an insult as much as an observation. I read and listen to sites that I don't agree with, because it gives me a wider perspective. Surely that's a good thing. |
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Aug 6, 2015 21:45:16 GMT
It has nothing to do with DISMISSING any news sources, just commenting on WHICH NEWS SOURCES continue to make an issue of these "scandals." I just searched the my hometown newspaper (Pittsburgh Post Gazette) and the last time they reported on anything to do with Hillary's emails was July 25th. At the bottom of the 2nd page of search results on HRC, Politico has a story about the classified aspect of the investigation indicating again that the investigation doesn't target HRC. I have no idea why you are taking it personally or saying it's insulting to comment about which types of news organizations are reporting this as a scandal. ETA: I just did a similar search on CNN and got the same story about the classified aspect yesterday and then nothing else at least back to July 30th at which point I stopped looking. I listen to MSNBC in the morning. They have been all over the HRC problems with email. This week's news cycle started with - is Joe Biden going to run not just on MSNBC but CNN too. And they talked about the emails. Also, the NY Times ran a story about the email scandal, I think it was last week or maybe the week before. HRC campaign pushed back and the NYT changed the headline & content of the article. Then Maureen Dowd writes an editorial encouraging CEO of Starbucks Howard Schultz to run against Clinton. I do feel there is a inference by many here that conservatives only get their news from Fox and other conservative on- line sources and it is insulting. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:29:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2015 21:58:14 GMT
And that's EXACTLY what I quoted that you said. Again...here are the words you said "Anyone who thinks she is too damaged probably spends too much time with conservative media; from outside that bubble, it's the case of the boy who cried wolf and no one is paying attention to those "scandals" anymore except the true believers." Reading comprehension IS a good thing. I think your words, that I quoted above, the same words that Gia responded do nothing but dismiss anyone who doesn't get their news from your worthy sources. HRC's poll numbers indicate to me that there are PLENTY of people paying attention to all of her scandals. I'm pretty sure I quoted something earlier in this thread that indicated Independents were having quite the issue with her as well...so this is far from some Right Wing Conspiracy or the boy who cried wolf.
I could be wrong, but to me it sounded like Sarah was talking about reading only those sites that agree with you, versus reading or listening to a wide variety of sites. That's not an insult as much as an observation. I read and listen to sites that I don't agree with, because it gives me a wider perspective. Surely that's a good thing. I get my news from numerous sources including Fox, HuffPo, Politico and NBC Nightly news. I also routinely read stories from local outlets (from across the nation)
I teach my kids that EVERY news source has a bias. It's up to you (us) to recognize that bias and then determine if you need to look elsewhere for more information prior to forming an opinion. I'd like to think Sarah wasn't assuming or that you aren't assuming I only get my news from Fox news because that's just not true.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:29:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2015 22:00:46 GMT
It has nothing to do with DISMISSING any news sources, just commenting on WHICH NEWS SOURCES continue to make an issue of these "scandals." I just searched the my hometown newspaper (Pittsburgh Post Gazette) and the last time they reported on anything to do with Hillary's emails was July 25th. At the bottom of the 2nd page of search results on HRC, Politico has a story about the classified aspect of the investigation indicating again that the investigation doesn't target HRC. I have no idea why you are taking it personally or saying it's insulting to comment about which types of news organizations are reporting this as a scandal. ETA: I just did a similar search on CNN and got the same story about the classified aspect yesterday and then nothing else at least back to July 30th at which point I stopped looking. I listen to MSNBC in the morning. They have been all over the HRC problems with email. This week's news cycle started with - is Joe Biden going to run not just on MSNBC but CNN too. And they talked about the emails. Also, the NY Times ran a story about the email scandal, I think it was last week or maybe the week before. HRC campaign pushed back and the NYT changed the headline & content of the article. Then Maureen Dowd writes an editorial encouraging CEO of Starbucks Howard Schultz to run against Clinton. I do feel there is a inference by many here that conservatives only get their news from Fox and other conservative on- line sources and it is insulting. I'm really glad I'm not the only one that has seen this "all over". Maybe people that are claiming that it's only conservatives talking about it or referring to it as a GOP witch hunt would be wise to expand THEIR source of news.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,015
|
Post by Sarah*H on Aug 6, 2015 22:09:14 GMT
I'm well aware of the original NYT story. I read it the morning it was posted. It's also the article they had to rewrite multiple times because they got it completely wrong. Finally their editor had to write an apologetic op-ed about just how wrong they got it and why. None of which happened because the "HRC campaign pushed back" but happened because the story was wrong. All of which kind of goes to prove my point because if you're still under the impression that the NYT story was accurate and indicative of a scandal and only rewritten because of pressure from HRC, that is not the case. A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies
|
|
|
|
Post by lovetodigi on Aug 6, 2015 22:18:27 GMT
I am still holding out hope that Elizabeth Warren will run. Sanders would be my second choice.
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Aug 6, 2015 22:51:40 GMT
I'm well aware of the original NYT story. I read it the morning it was posted. It's also the article they had to rewrite multiple times because they got it completely wrong. Finally their editor had to write an apologetic op-ed about just how wrong they got it and why. None of which happened because the "HRC campaign pushed back" but happened because the story was wrong. All of which kind of goes to prove my point because if you're still under the impression that the NYT story was accurate and indicative of a scandal and only rewritten because of pressure from HRC, that is not the case. A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies
Also last week, the FBI contacted Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, with questions about the security of a thumb drive in his possession that contains copies of work e-mails Clinton sent during her time as secretary of state.
The FBI’s interest in Clinton’s e-mail system comes after the intelligence community’s inspector general referred the issue to the Justice Department in July. Intelligence officials expressed concern that some sensitive information was not in the government’s possession and could be “compromised.” The referral did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, and the two officials said Tuesday that the FBI is not targeting her. Kendall confirmed the contact, saying: “The government is seeking assurance about the storage of those materials. We are actively cooperating.” A lawyer for the Denver company, Platte River Networks, declined to comment, as did multiple Justice Department officials. The inquiries are bringing to light new information about Clinton’s use of the system and the lengths to which she went to install a private channel of communication outside government control — a setup that has emerged as a major issue in her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house. The inquiries by the FBI follow concerns from government officials that potentially hundreds of e-mails that passed through Clinton’s private server contained classified or sensitive information. At this point, the probe is preliminary and is focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Aug 6, 2015 23:21:42 GMT
I could be wrong, but to me it sounded like Sarah was talking about reading only those sites that agree with you, versus reading or listening to a wide variety of sites. That's not an insult as much as an observation. I read and listen to sites that I don't agree with, because it gives me a wider perspective. Surely that's a good thing. I get my news from numerous sources including Fox, HuffPo, Politico and NBC Nightly news. I also routinely read stories from local outlets (from across the nation)
I teach my kids that EVERY news source has a bias. It's up to you (us) to recognize that bias and then determine if you need to look elsewhere for more information prior to forming an opinion. I'd like to think Sarah wasn't assuming or that you aren't assuming I only get my news from Fox news because that's just not true.
Speaking only for myself, that is not aimed at anyone in particular. I have observed that many people tend to read sources that agree with their mindset. I also have to be careful of doing that; it's a natural tendency, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Aug 6, 2015 23:23:16 GMT
I'm voting for Sanders. Back when Bill Clinton was running for office the first time, my mother and I went to see him at a stop on his bus tour through Florida. Tipper spoke first, then Hillary, then Al, and lastly Bill. After Hillary's speech, I told my mom that I wished she was running so I could vote for her. So, it's not that I don't like Hillary, but now that many moons have gone by...Bernie is the kind of politician I want representing me. And there's a small part of me that doesn't want another Clinton (or heaven forbid, another Bush, LOL) in the White House. I wish that everyone who likes Bernie but doesn't think he's "electable" would vote for him anyway. Then he just might be electable.  The same wish I have for a viable 3rd party candidate. It seems so many are fed up with the 2-party system...but no one wants to take a chance. I can and I will if I like them, I'm in one of those states that always goes the other way and my vote doesn't matter any way <sigh> |
|
|
|
Post by meridon on Aug 7, 2015 0:09:22 GMT
I've heard that people on both sides of the aisle describe HRC as quite charming in person. I'm really surprised that she comes across in speeches so badly. I agree with whomever said she sounds so patronizing. You'd think Bill could coach her to present better on the stump. I don't think it's a matter of coaching. There are some people who are just really, really good at connecting with people - and there is an even smaller group of people who are good at connecting with people through a speech - and an even smaller group of people who can connect with people through a speech through television. I've met both Clintons (all three actually) and Hillary is extremely personable in a small group, and she gives a pretty good speech in person. She just doesn't have the ability to transcend across tv and connect with people in that really personal way. I really don't think it's teachable. I felt that way about Al Gore...he came across to me as condescending and not very personable. I always wondered if he was more folksy in person... speaking of, I saw something today that observers are saying that Hilary's Southern accent is back! Wonder if this is calculated to help her connect to the middle class or just something that has happened naturally? Or even if it's happened at all since I haven't heard her speak other than a sound byte in a while. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:29:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2015 18:36:59 GMT
Link to full Washington Post Story The FBI has begun looking into the security of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail setup, contacting in the past week a Denver-based technology firm that helped manage the unusual system, according to two government officials.
Also last week, the FBI contacted Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, with questions about the security of a thumb drive in his possession that contains copies of work e-mails Clinton sent during her time as secretary of state.
The FBI’s interest in Clinton’s e-mail system comes after the intelligence community’s inspector general referred the issue to the Justice Department in July. Intelligence officials expressed concern that some sensitive information was not in the government’s possession and could be “compromised.” The referral did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, and the two officials said Tuesday that the FBI is not targeting her. Kendall confirmed the contact, saying: “The government is seeking assurance about the storage of those materials. We are actively cooperating.” A lawyer for the Denver company, Platte River Networks, declined to comment, as did multiple Justice Department officials. The inquiries are bringing to light new information about Clinton’s use of the system and the lengths to which she went to install a private channel of communication outside government control — a setup that has emerged as a major issue in her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house. The inquiries by the FBI follow concerns from government officials that potentially hundreds of e-mails that passed through Clinton’s private server contained classified or sensitive information. At this point, the probe is preliminary and is focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material. Interesting. Didn't know the FBI and government officials were part of that conservative media bubble -you know, the only ones left who care about it - besides those stupid "true believers" of course. |
|
|
|
Post by tamaraann on Aug 7, 2015 21:35:07 GMT
I'm "Feeling the Bern", and very much hope that I can vote for Sanders in the next election.
|
|
