Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 3:45:49 GMT
Not to mention good ol' Lois Lerner and the accidental "loss" of all those emails.
And what does this have to do with the topic of discussion? Speaking of Lois Lerner, my guess is folks like you will, if there is some wrong doing that is ever actually proven, will try and shift it from President Obama wanted the IRS to pick on the Tea Party to it was actually Hillary who wanted it done all along.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 3:52:43 GMT
Not to mention good ol' Lois Lerner and the accidental "loss" of all those emails.
And what does this have to do with the topic of discussion? Speaking of Lois Lerner, my guess is folks like you will, if there is some wrong doing that is ever actually proven, will try and shift it from President Obama wanted the IRS to pick on the Tea Party to it was actually Hillary who wanted it done all along. I think that Lois Lerner belongs in this discussion as much as GWB belongs in the discussion, but you didn't mind him getting dragged in, did you?
And it's duly noted that you failed to address anything else I said in my reply...HRC's own words when GWB did it, but she did it herself anyway. I know that you really can't come up with anything on that, so you latch on to the Lois Lerner comment.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 5:39:42 GMT
And what does this have to do with the topic of discussion? Speaking of Lois Lerner, my guess is folks like you will, if there is some wrong doing that is ever actually proven, will try and shift it from President Obama wanted the IRS to pick on the Tea Party to it was actually Hillary who wanted it done all along. I think that Lois Lerner belongs in this discussion as much as GWB belongs in the discussion, but you didn't mind him getting dragged in, did you?
And it's duly noted that you failed to address anything else I said in my reply...HRC's own words when GWB did it, but she did it herself anyway. I know that you really can't come up with anything on that, so you latch on to the Lois Lerner comment.
Well I think that it is a reach on your part. Let me see . Up to 50 staffers, including Karl Rove, used not their own personal email accounts for work emails but email accounts that an argument could be made were used for political fund raising. And some how the RNC had some of these emails that were destroyed after 4 months. It's late and I may be hazy on the details but I think I got a fairly good recap. Man that is all kinds of wrong. And Lois Lerner what did was she accidentally deleted some emails off her work email account. I don't see the connection. Because I believe the subject is one using one's personal email account for work emails. Not accidentally deleting emails off one's work account. So again what does Lois have to do with this discussion since we are talking about folks using their personal accounts or other email accounts in the case of "W"'s staffers for work emails? As to Hillary and her emails. I wish she hadn't done it but she did and she has turned copies of all work related emails to the State Department. And to be honest they were probably safer on her sever than they would have been on the the State Department's server with all that hacking of government systems going on. Anyway I'm not going to buy into this manufactured outrage over Hillary using her personal email for work because those emails are the property of the people the U.S.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 14:09:22 GMT
Teflon Trump
Another poll has come out and Trump has increased his lead. The GOP has a problem. ? And even more telling is the head of Fox News has caved and promised Trump they will treat him nicely. Which to me Fox is throwing Megyn under the bus. You know after this I betcha Jon Stewart is sitting on his NJ farm thinking he may have left the Daily Show too soon.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 14:12:11 GMT
I think that Lois Lerner belongs in this discussion as much as GWB belongs in the discussion, but you didn't mind him getting dragged in, did you?
And it's duly noted that you failed to address anything else I said in my reply...HRC's own words when GWB did it, but she did it herself anyway. I know that you really can't come up with anything on that, so you latch on to the Lois Lerner comment.
Well I think that it is a reach on your part. Let me see . Up to 50 staffers, including Karl Rove, used not their own personal email accounts for work emails but email accounts that an argument could be made were used for political fund raising. And some how the RNC had some of these emails that were destroyed after 4 months. It's late and I may be hazy on the details but I think I got a fairly good recap. Man that is all kinds of wrong. And Lois Lerner what did was she accidentally deleted some emails off her work email account. I don't see the connection. Because I believe the subject is one using one's personal email account for work emails. Not accidentally deleting emails off one's work account. So again what does Lois have to do with this discussion since we are talking about folks using their personal accounts or other email accounts in the case of "W"'s staffers for work emails? As to Hillary and her emails. I wish she hadn't done it but she did and she has turned copies of all work related emails to the State Department. And to be honest they were probably safer on her sever than they would have been on the the State Department's server with all that hacking of government systems going on. Anyway I'm not going to buy into this manufactured outrage over Hillary using her personal email for work because those emails are the property of the people the U.S. No one should be diverting emails from where they're supposed to be, but do you not see the difference between White House "staff" and a Cabinet position?
And you actually believe that Lois Lerner did ANYTHING "accidentally"? Really? That's a good one.
The point in bringing up HRC's email scandal was that no one (on either side or even frankly at any level of government) can be certain that all of any evidence regarding Benghazi has been investigated. So I continue to question how someone can say it's a witch hunt or fabricated when all the evidence hasn't even been presented yet. So that really has nothing to do with any outrage about what GWB did in 2007 or what Lois Lerner did in 2013.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 17:19:47 GMT
No one should be diverting emails from where they're supposed to be, but do you not see the difference between White House "staff" and a Cabinet position?
And you actually believe that Lois Lerner did ANYTHING "accidentally"? Really? That's a good one.
The point in bringing up HRC's email scandal was that no one (on either side or even frankly at any level of government) can be certain that all of any evidence regarding Benghazi has been investigated. So I continue to question how someone can say it's a witch hunt or fabricated when all the evidence hasn't even been presented yet. So that really has nothing to do with any outrage about what GWB did in 2007 or what Lois Lerner did in 2013.
I believe you were one of the ones who made a big deal of making it known on this board that you wanted to know the facts before passing judgement or making up your mind on a subject. What I'm seeing is someone who is saying one thing but doing the opposite. Your comments about Lois Lerner are proof of that. Where are your facts/proof that she deliberately deleted her emails? The key figures associated with Benghazi were questioned by the Senate. Including Hillary Clinton. The committee wrote a report with their findings. They found things were done wrong and new procedures were put in place to make sure what happened this wouldn't happen again. The report hit all the talking points. But yet for Republicans in the House and folks like you it's not enough. Why is that? What are you hoping to find? Did you even read the report or are you basing the information you believe to be true solely on the House Republicans talking points who have their own agenda? Hillary Clinton has said she has turned all of her work related emails to the State Department. You have no reason to believe this is not true. The fact she permnently deleted all the emails off her server after she gave work related emails to the State Department shows she understands that for some no matter how much information you give someone it's never enough. And if she had turned over her server it would have included personal emails that you know someone would take great delight in "leaking" them. Nothing Hillary Clinton has done would suggest she didn't truthfully answer the questions she was asked about Benghazi during the Senate hearings or that she didn't turn over all her work related emails to the State Department. To suggest otherwise is the definition of a witch hunt by those who are willing to pass judgement without knowing all the facts or who those will never be satisfied no matter how much information they are provided. And again I'm not buying into to this manufactured outrage over Hillary's emails. Yes I wish she hadn't done it but she did. I do understand the difference between staffers and The Secretary of State. But a "staffers" emails could included just as sensitive information as the Secretary of State's email. Especially Karl Rove and whether or not he had a roll in the firing of US Attorneys for political reasons instead of cause.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 18:13:07 GMT
No one should be diverting emails from where they're supposed to be, but do you not see the difference between White House "staff" and a Cabinet position?
And you actually believe that Lois Lerner did ANYTHING "accidentally"? Really? That's a good one.
The point in bringing up HRC's email scandal was that no one (on either side or even frankly at any level of government) can be certain that all of any evidence regarding Benghazi has been investigated. So I continue to question how someone can say it's a witch hunt or fabricated when all the evidence hasn't even been presented yet. So that really has nothing to do with any outrage about what GWB did in 2007 or what Lois Lerner did in 2013.
I believe you were one of the ones who made a big deal of making it known on this board that you wanted to know the facts before passing judgement or making up your mind on a subject. What I'm seeing is someone who is saying one thing but doing the opposite. Your comments about Lois Lerner are proof of that. Where are your facts/proof that she deliberately deleted her emails? The key figures associated with Benghazi were questioned by the Senate. Including Hillary Clinton. The committee wrote a report with their findings. They found things were done wrong and new procedures were put in place to make sure what happened this wouldn't happen again. Procedures were already in place. She even fired someone who violated the same procedures she did. She makes it obvious that she feels the procedures, regulations and laws don't apply to her. She broke the law and lied about it. We're still waiting on evidence to be submitted, because she is reluctant to comply. People on both sides want to finally get all of the information. We (the American people - not just Republicans, but all of the American people) don't have it yet and when we do - then it will be enough. The report you keep speaking of is not complete without all of the evidence. Hell, the investigation is still ongoing because Hillary won't provide all of the evidence - or is dragging ass doing it. She said she did and then it turned out her trusted friend and adviser provided more -that she said didn't exist. She herself, gave us all reason to not believe her. That fact that she did it after she was ordered to turn it over, again shows she feels the laws don't apply to her. Not someone I want running the country, we've had enough of that already. You don't defy court order and break laws to protect emails about Chelsea's wedding planning. Her friend who turned over emails she said didn't exist does more than suggest that, it makes it fact.
This is just rhetoric to avoid accepting the facts that have already played out with Hillary. You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 20:26:49 GMT
@gialupeaa I decided to go back and read about the emails again to see if I misunderstood what's up. Talk about confusion. Holy cow! Confusion as to who's on first but no proof that anyone is lying.
An example. Who decides if an email is "classified"? The person who writes the email or a third party at the State Department? But from what I read there is a third party or parties at the State Department who do just that. I read a couple of stories and it seems the confusion comes from what is considered "classified". And some emails that weren't thought to be classified were then deemed to be classified. No lies just confusion and a perfect example of why I wished she had not used her own server. Because there are some who will take this confusion and try and turn it into something sinister WITHOUT KNOWING ALL THE FACTS.
Again you have no proof she lied about Benghazi or withheld any information from the Senate Intelligence Committee. If you do please present it.
"Procedures were already in place. She even fired someone who violated the same procedures she did. She makes it obvious that she feels the procedures. Regulations, and laws don't apply to her"
Are you talking about Scott Gration as the person she fired because of what you said above? If it is you may want to read a report put out by The Office of Inspections called Inspection of Embassy Nairobi, Kenya. Of special interest is a section called "Key Judgements". After reading the list I would have fired his ass as well. Was it someone other than this guy she fired? He was the only one I could find.
You ended your post saying what I said was just rhetoric to avoid accepting the facts, But the fact is the same can be said about you. You threw out Hillary fired someone who violated the same procedures she did. You make it sound like it was the ONLY reason he was let go. That is not true. So how can I or anyone believe anything that you say is a fact is really nothing more than rhetoric?
It could very well be the emails will end up biting her in the ass and if they do she has no one to blame but herself. Then it's Go Bernie! I can see it now. Bernie vrs Trump. U.S. elects a self proclaimed Socialist as President!!!
I also read the email system at The State Department was terrible when she first started to work there. That is inexcusable for a country that has the cutting edge technology this country has.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 20:55:49 GMT
I didn't say she lied about Benghazi, I said she lied about the emails. But, she did in fact lie about Benghazi when she tried to put forth the video story and it has since come to light, that she knew differently when she said that. I didn't make it sound like that was the only reason he got fired. Not at all. That's your leap. Just because there were other reasons in addition to that reason, doesn't erase the fact that it was a reason and therefore Hillary was aware that it was wrong. Which was the entire point of mentioning it. So you can go back to believing what I say because it wasn't rhetoric.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 0:04:03 GMT
I didn't say she lied about Benghazi, I said she lied about the emails. But, she did in fact lie about Benghazi when she tried to put forth the video story and it has since come to light, that she knew differently when she said that. I didn't make it sound like that was the only reason he got fired. Not at all. That's your leap. Just because there were other reasons in addition to that reason, doesn't erase the fact that it was a reason and therefore Hillary was aware that it was wrong. Which was the entire point of mentioning it. So you can go back to believing what I say because it wasn't rhetoric. CIA View
" She even fired someone who violated the same procedures she did". I'm not sure how you can say your comments didn't imply the only reason for Scott Gration's canning was because he used his personal email account for work emails. There was nothing in your comments to suggest there were other reasons for his dismissal. But I have to say you missed your point. But love your spin. So now Hillary lied about that video in Benghazi. Actually she didn't If you had read the Senate Report you would have read about the roll that pesky little video played in the attacks. As as to lying about the emails and breaking the law. In spite of Republicans jumping up and down screaming that she broke the law she actually didn't . The NPR did their version of a Fact Check of that very subject. You might want to check it out. But since you won't I have attached an article by Michael Morell a CIA insider who was in Jordan the night of the attacks. He was in communication with the CIA agents at the Annex ,the CIA facility, during the attacks. He does talk about the video and the roll it played in these attacks. The fact is there was plenty of blame to go around. And nothing that would make it all one person's fault. What the report showed me was that maybe we, as a country, need to rethink our roll in the Middle East. Not one President has been successful in their dealings in the Middle East. Not one. Our embassies have been attacked in the Middle East as far back as I can remember and sometimes, sadly, there were deaths. But yet we keep meddling. It would seem to me we should start listening to the message the Middle East is trying to tell us. I guess we could keep going back and forth but I'm done as I see no point in doing it.
|
|
|
Post by myboysnme on Aug 12, 2015 0:41:19 GMT
The Donald is making it interesting. I think one of the many reasons he is ahead of everyone is that the country actually is enjoying watching an alpha male who can't be bought. Between Obama who is so skinny and not exactly macho in his mom jeans and John Kerry with his effete mannerisms and man servant who lays out his jammies and slippers every night...it's fun to actually watch a guy with a take no prisoners attitude as he thumbs his nose at political correctness. I take it from this statement that you have very definite ideas about what makes someone a real man, and the more in your face and boorish the better.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 0:43:27 GMT
I didn't say she lied about Benghazi, I said she lied about the emails. But, she did in fact lie about Benghazi when she tried to put forth the video story and it has since come to light, that she knew differently when she said that. I didn't make it sound like that was the only reason he got fired. Not at all. That's your leap. Just because there were other reasons in addition to that reason, doesn't erase the fact that it was a reason and therefore Hillary was aware that it was wrong. Which was the entire point of mentioning it. So you can go back to believing what I say because it wasn't rhetoric. CIA View
" She even fired someone who violated the same procedures she did". I'm not sure how you can say your comments didn't imply the only reason for Scott Gration's canning was because he used his personal email account for work emails. There was nothing in your comments to suggest there were other reasons for his dismissal. But I have to say you missed your point. But love your spin. There was no reason to mention the other reasons he was fired, they're irrelevant to the discussion about what she did. Any argument to the contrary is just a straw man argument and not worth the effort you're putting into it. There has just been breaking news that some of the emails the FBI just found on her server are classified TOP SECRET. That's the second highest classification and no mistaking the secrecy behind it. TOP SECRET is not open to interpretation as you suggested earlier. Might want to stop the mad google effort to prove her innocent based on old articles and incomplete reports and go watch the news. Exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 1:37:39 GMT
CIA View
" She even fired someone who violated the same procedures she did". I'm not sure how you can say your comments didn't imply the only reason for Scott Gration's canning was because he used his personal email account for work emails. There was nothing in your comments to suggest there were other reasons for his dismissal. But I have to say you missed your point. But love your spin. There was no reason to mention the other reasons he was fired, they're irrelevant to the discussion about what she did. Any argument to the contrary is just a straw man argument and not worth the effort you're putting into it. I only came back to this thread to post a new poll that shows Trump's numbers in the polls are down but made the mistake of reading your latest round of spinning. Actually it's not relevant to the discussion. It would be relevant if that was the main reason for his dismissal or if you wanted to assign %s for the reasons he was let go and this reason had a high % assigned to it. But if you look at the laundry list of things that were wrong at the embassy that as Ambassador he was responsible for this is pretty far down on the list. It's only an issue because you are trying to make it one and there is no logic to it. Or look it another way. Would he had still been let go even if he had followed email protocols. My guess is yes when you look at the laundry list. Which makes it irrelevant. And I deed read about the Top Secret emails. Like I said the emails may end up biting her in the ass then it's Go Bernie! But until there are actual facts this is nothing but speculation. Of course you going to insist all the facts are out. Nothing I can do about how you view things except to say I disagree with you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 2:10:51 GMT
There was no reason to mention the other reasons he was fired, they're irrelevant to the discussion about what she did. Any argument to the contrary is just a straw man argument and not worth the effort you're putting into it. I only came back to this thread to post a new poll that shows Trump's numbers in the polls are down but made the mistake of reading your latest round of spinning. Actually it's not relevant to the discussion. It would be relevant if that was the main reason for his dismissal or if you wanted to assign %s for the reasons he was let go and this reason had a high % assigned to it. But if you look at the laundry list of things that were wrong at the embassy that as Ambassador he was responsible for this is pretty far down on the list. It's only an issue because you are trying to make it one and there is no logic to it. Or look it another way. Would he had still been let go even if he had followed email protocols. My guess is yes when you look at the laundry list. Which makes it irrelevant. It is relevant because it shows she knew it was wrong and did it anyway. If you still can't understand that's the entire point being made, I don't know what else to say. I don't know what thread YOU are reading, but I've done nothing but say all the facts are not out. That's all I and others have been saying in response to your claim that the investigations are done, it's all in the reports and the Republicans are just on a witch hunt now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 16:35:55 GMT
Fox Poll after debate
Trump is increasing his lead. Ben Carson and Ted Cruz moved to second and third. Bush, Walker, & Rubio down. This is getting interesting especially as Trump starts rolling out actual positions/solutions to today's issues.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 17, 2015 17:46:16 GMT
I think that Lois Lerner belongs in this discussion as much as GWB belongs in the discussion, but you didn't mind him getting dragged in, did you?
And it's duly noted that you failed to address anything else I said in my reply...HRC's own words when GWB did it, but she did it herself anyway. I know that you really can't come up with anything on that, so you latch on to the Lois Lerner comment.
Well I think that it is a reach on your part. Let me see . Up to 50 staffers, including Karl Rove, used not their own personal email accounts for work emails but email accounts that an argument could be made were used for political fund raising. And some how the RNC had some of these emails that were destroyed after 4 months. It's late and I may be hazy on the details but I think I got a fairly good recap. Man that is all kinds of wrong. And Lois Lerner what did was she accidentally deleted some emails off her work email account. I don't see the connection. Because I believe the subject is one using one's personal email account for work emails. Not accidentally deleting emails off one's work account. So again what does Lois have to do with this discussion since we are talking about folks using their personal accounts or other email accounts in the case of "W"'s staffers for work emails? As to Hillary and her emails. I wish she hadn't done it but she did and she has turned copies of all work related emails to the State Department. And to be honest they were probably safer on her sever than they would have been on the the State Department's server with all that hacking of government systems going on. Anyway I'm not going to buy into this manufactured outrage over Hillary using her personal email for work because those emails are the property of the people the U.S. I don't have all the details on the Bush debacle, so I can't comment, but it was what 10 years ago now? What happened then has nothing to do with what is happening now.
Lois Lerner...she didn't accidentally delete them. They were rendered unrecoverable. There is a cover up there.
And way to justify Hillary by saying they were safer because of the hacking...She is a liar and a hypocrite. How can you defend her for doing what she did, especially in light of her own words on what those actions meant. She also didn't hand over the emails. She printed out the ones that she wanted them to have, then destroyed the server so they could not search it electronically to uncover anything else. That is a cover up.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 17, 2015 17:54:43 GMT
There is no way in hell I would ever vote for Hillary. I would not vote for a person just based on party affiliation as I believe you recently said you would do in a different thread (if that wasnt you I apologize). There are a lot of Republicans here expressing disgust for him because they aren't blind, you wont find many Dems who hate Hillary because they look the other way or wont even bother to read an article if it paints her in a bad light. You are correct that I have said I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee. I wouldn't if it were Donald Trump, though ... not that the I would have to worry about the Democrats ever nominating the current incarnation of Donald Trump! As for the rest of it ... I think Hillary is a politician. None of them are perfect. But she's intelligent, well-educated, experienced, hardworking, thoughtful, pragmatic, believes mostly the same way I do, and I will happily and proudly vote for her. You can continue to insist that your hatred of her has nothing to do with her political affiliation. ETA If you claim it's about something like Benghazi, of which there isn't a shred of evidence to support any of the Republican accusations, I'm going to circle back to politics. Every Republican president has presided over some awful attack or incident worse than Benghazi and there is never a peep from the Republicans about it. Hillary cannot be trusted. Regardless of her political stance. There was a time I thought she was an amazing SOS. But even the people who are voting for her don't trust her, in large margins. That's a sad state of affairs.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 18:14:42 GMT
Well I think that it is a reach on your part. Let me see . Up to 50 staffers, including Karl Rove, used not their own personal email accounts for work emails but email accounts that an argument could be made were used for political fund raising. And some how the RNC had some of these emails that were destroyed after 4 months. It's late and I may be hazy on the details but I think I got a fairly good recap. Man that is all kinds of wrong. And Lois Lerner what did was she accidentally deleted some emails off her work email account. I don't see the connection. Because I believe the subject is one using one's personal email account for work emails. Not accidentally deleting emails off one's work account. So again what does Lois have to do with this discussion since we are talking about folks using their personal accounts or other email accounts in the case of "W"'s staffers for work emails? As to Hillary and her emails. I wish she hadn't done it but she did and she has turned copies of all work related emails to the State Department. And to be honest they were probably safer on her sever than they would have been on the the State Department's server with all that hacking of government systems going on. Anyway I'm not going to buy into this manufactured outrage over Hillary using her personal email for work because those emails are the property of the people the U.S. I don't have all the details on the Bush debacle, so I can't comment, but it was what 10 years ago now? What happened then has nothing to do with what is happening now.
Lois Lerner...she didn't accidentally delete them. They were rendered unrecoverable. There is a cover up there.
And way to justify Hillary by saying they were safer because of the hacking...She is a liar and a hypocrite. How can you defend her for doing what she did, especially in light of her own words on what those actions meant. She also didn't hand over the emails. She printed out the ones that she wanted them to have, then destroyed the server so they could not search it electronically to uncover anything else. That is a cover up. Where is your proof? It's all speculation on your part. As to what happened in the past yes it does matter. Because what is being done today is someone is being held to a different standard. It was ok then but not now. By the way I'm not justifying Hillary using her own server to avoid hacking the emails. I wish she hadn't done it and I don't know her thinking on why she did it. However the fact is her emails were probably safer on her server. Only fool would think that there isn't a bullseye on all our government servers by powers that would like to hurt this country. Even Kerry said he believes foreign powers are probably reading his emails. Give me absolute proof there are cover ups.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 18:25:55 GMT
Government servers are NOT secure...just look what happened early this year. The Office of Personal Management had TWO separate cyber attacks that resulted in thousand and thousands of federal retirees, current employees and contractors personnel data being hacked. Cyber Attacks
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 17, 2015 18:56:40 GMT
I don't have all the details on the Bush debacle, so I can't comment, but it was what 10 years ago now? What happened then has nothing to do with what is happening now.
Lois Lerner...she didn't accidentally delete them. They were rendered unrecoverable. There is a cover up there.
And way to justify Hillary by saying they were safer because of the hacking...She is a liar and a hypocrite. How can you defend her for doing what she did, especially in light of her own words on what those actions meant. She also didn't hand over the emails. She printed out the ones that she wanted them to have, then destroyed the server so they could not search it electronically to uncover anything else. That is a cover up. Where is your proof? It's all speculation on your part. As to what happened in the past yes it does matter. Because what is being done today is someone is being held to a different standard. It was ok then but not now. By the way I'm not justifying Hillary using her own server to avoid hacking the emails. I wish she hadn't done it and I don't know her thinking on why she did it. However the fact is her emails were probably safer on her server. Only fool would think that there isn't a bullseye on all our government servers by powers that would like to hurt this country. Even Kerry said he believes foreign powers are probably reading his emails. Give me absolute proof there are cover ups. I absolutely agree, other governments are definitely working on hacking our government computers, and those computers are the highest protected. So if they are able to get into them, imagine how much easier a private server would be to hack. You are right that it does matter what happened before. It was wrong then, and Hillary rightfully called that out, but she is holding herself to a different standard and saying it wasn't wrong what she did, when it was the exact same thing. As far as absolute proof, considering that she destroyed the server, that's not going to be possible, but it definitely paints her in a light as someone trying to cover something up.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 19:03:21 GMT
Where is your proof? It's all speculation on your part. As to what happened in the past yes it does matter. Because what is being done today is someone is being held to a different standard. It was ok then but not now. By the way I'm not justifying Hillary using her own server to avoid hacking the emails. I wish she hadn't done it and I don't know her thinking on why she did it. However the fact is her emails were probably safer on her server. Only fool would think that there isn't a bullseye on all our government servers by powers that would like to hurt this country. Even Kerry said he believes foreign powers are probably reading his emails. Give me absolute proof there are cover ups. I absolutely agree, other governments are definitely working on hacking our government computers, and those computers are the highest protected. So if they are able to get into them, imagine how much easier a private server would be to hack. You are right that it does matter what happened before. It was wrong then, and Hillary rightfully called that out, but she is holding herself to a different standard and saying it wasn't wrong what she did, when it was the exact same thing. As far as absolute proof, considering that she destroyed the server, that's not going to be possible, but it definitely paints her in a light as someone trying to cover something up. Is she trying to cover something up or understands no matter how much information she gives or how many questions she answers its never going to be enough. Was it you who said as SOS she wasn't allowed to have personal emails. Who decided that?
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 17, 2015 20:51:08 GMT
I absolutely agree, other governments are definitely working on hacking our government computers, and those computers are the highest protected. So if they are able to get into them, imagine how much easier a private server would be to hack. You are right that it does matter what happened before. It was wrong then, and Hillary rightfully called that out, but she is holding herself to a different standard and saying it wasn't wrong what she did, when it was the exact same thing. As far as absolute proof, considering that she destroyed the server, that's not going to be possible, but it definitely paints her in a light as someone trying to cover something up. Is she trying to cover something up or understands no matter how much information she gives or how many questions she answers its never going to be enough. Was it you who said as SOS she wasn't allowed to have personal emails. Who decided that? The subpoena was for the server and the emails. This came from Congress. She printed off the emails rather than turning over the server so it could be searchable electronically. After a second subpoena came for the server, she said that it had been wiped clean. This potentially violates the Freedom of Information Act in several ways. Even for the law as it stood when she was SOS. She wasn't allowed to contact or conduct any government business from a private email account. She is allowed personal emails, however, by combining both personal and work emails on the same private email account, she leaves all emails subject to scrutiny, and in order to be completely up and up, must allow an independent party to research each email to see what belongs to the government and what was personl. Her and her staff don't have the right to do that. Wiping the server so that the electronic trace of them is deleted, shows deliberate ethical conundrum on her part. Here's an article from NPR that outlines 4 areas that could lead to prosecution. linkPrior to this, I was actually thawing towards her in such a way that I could have supported her had she become president. Now, this is the same Hillary that I've always distrusted. Someone with nothing to hide, especially a government figure, would have not waited 6 years to turn over the server, wouldn't have been required by a subpoena to do so, and wouldn't have wiped the server to it was rendered irretrievable.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 21:54:08 GMT
Is she trying to cover something up or understands no matter how much information she gives or how many questions she answers its never going to be enough. Was it you who said as SOS she wasn't allowed to have personal emails. Who decided that? The subpoena was for the server and the emails. This came from Congress. She printed off the emails rather than turning over the server so it could be searchable electronically. After a second subpoena came for the server, she said that it had been wiped clean. This potentially violates the Freedom of Information Act in several ways. Even for the law as it stood when she was SOS. She wasn't allowed to contact or conduct any government business from a private email account. She is allowed personal emails, however, by combining both personal and work emails on the same private email account, she leaves all emails subject to scrutiny, and in order to be completely up and up, must allow an independent party to research each email to see what belongs to the government and what was personl. Her and her staff don't have the right to do that. Wiping the server so that the electronic trace of them is deleted, shows deliberate ethical conundrum on her part. Here's an article from NPR that outlines 4 areas that could lead to prosecution. linkPrior to this, I was actually thawing towards her in such a way that I could have supported her had she become president. Now, this is the same Hillary that I've always distrusted. Someone with nothing to hide, especially a government figure, would have not waited 6 years to turn over the server, wouldn't have been required by a subpoena to do so, and wouldn't have wiped the server to it was rendered irretrievable. I agree with the ones who feel more than likely she hasn't broken any laws. The reason because the laws are ambiguous. However I will say this again. If she should falter then it's Go Bernie and she has no one to blame but herself. Having said that I'm sure the GOP is loving this because it is taking the attention away from the clusterf%>k of the gaggle of 17. I mean look at this thread. It didn't start out about Hillary but the gaggle of 17 and yet here we are. As much as you don t like Hillary or Bernie can you imagine the damage a Trump Presidency would do to this country. The gaggle of 17 better hope one of them drops out soon and I'm not talking about Rick Perry.
|
|
Kath
Full Member
Posts: 446
Jun 26, 2014 12:15:31 GMT
|
Post by Kath on Aug 17, 2015 22:02:35 GMT
I've talked with some people in my circles in casual conversation recently, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, and all of them watch Trump with great amusement and express positive support with where he's going, women and men alike. Not all because they think Trump would make a great president or because they think he's wonderful or because they agree with him in anything, although there are a few who have bought buttons off the Internet (really). No, it's because they dislike the establishment, and anything that bothers the establishment, which becomes deaf to the general public after elections are over, and upsets the proper little system, press included, brings them pleasure. I think that's where you'll find the main reasoning to Trump's high numbers at this point in time. It's really not about Trump at all.
However, there is the conspiracy theory that's been mentioned by some that Trump's bought out, he's a pawn, he'll split off into third party/independent once rejected by the Republicans in whichever way that happens and split the Republican vote, and the Democrats will win (again).
But for now, it's entertainment.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 22:03:01 GMT
US: Up to 305 Clinton emails might have classified data Associated Press By STEPHEN BRAUN WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department review of Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails so far has found as many as 305 messages that could contain classified information and require further scrutiny by federal agencies, the department said Monday. In a court filing that was part of a lawsuit against the State Department, officials told a federal judge in Washington they would be able to meet an existing schedule to release copies of Clinton's emails because only about 5 percent of the messages reviewed so far contain possible secret information that could hold them back for further analysis. The agency said those 305 emails with potential classified data were among more than 1,500 documents analyzed so far. The filing came after Clinton said in an Iowa radio interview that during her stint as secretary of state in the Obama administration, she had never sent or received any emails on her private server that had information clearly marked classified. Republican critics have warned that Clinton may have compromised national security by sending and receiving messages that contained secret information, but she has sloughed off the criticism, saying she followed security guidelines and is the one who made the previously withheld emails available to the American public. "If I had not asked for my emails all to be made public, none of this would have been in the public arena," she said in the interview, recorded last Friday. But The Associated Press and other news organizations had sought copies of Clinton's emails under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act for years. The AP was first to identify Clinton's private email server and trace it in March to her family's home in New York. The server was surrendered to the FBI last week, months after Clinton said it was her personal property and wouldn't be turned over. Clinton said in March she had exchanged about 60,000 emails during her four years in the Obama administration, about half of which were personal and deleted. She turned over the others to the State Department, which is reviewing and releasing them on a monthly basis. Clinton campaign officials did not respond Monday to an emailed request for comment about the court filing about her correspondence. The State Department has censored some of Clinton's emails for national security reasons before they were publicly released. The government blacked-out all or parts of those messages under a provision of the Freedom of Information Act intended to protect material that had been deemed and properly classified for purposes of national defense or foreign policy. Last month, the inspector general for the State Department warned that some of the information that passed through Clinton's homebrew server was classified information produced by the U.S. intelligence community. It's generally not possible to forward or cut-and-paste an email marked classified to a private account because classified email systems are closed to outsiders. But it can be illegal to paraphrase or retype classified information from a secure email into an unprotected message sent to a personal address. The State Department acknowledgement that 305 Clinton emails were being reviewed for possible national security concerns came as part of legal sparring in a lawsuit against the agency by journalist Jason Leopold, a reporter with Vice News. In January, Leopold sued the agency to quickly produce Clinton emails and other documents that were sought under a freedom of information request dating back to 2014. Leopold's case is one of several pending against the State Department for Clinton records. The AP also sued the agency this year for failing to turn over copies of emails and other documents since mid-2013 and in one case, back to 2010. In both cases, U.S. district court judges have pressed the State Department to produce records on a firm schedule. But Leopold's lawyers have raised concerns that the intelligence review of Clinton's emails has bogged down the schedule of release ordered previously by U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras. Leopold's lawyer said the department missed its July target by more than 1,000 pages of emails, in part because of screening by five intelligence agencies. "It is likely that additional delay above and beyond that added by independent review" by five intelligence agencies "will result," Leopold's lawyers warned. State Department lawyers said that despite the growing number of Clinton emails that will have to be forwarded to intelligence agencies for review, the government was confident that the low number — 5.1 percent of the total — would not slow down public release of the emails. Separate from the court case, State Department spokesman John Kirby said 63 of Clinton's emails that previously were unclassified have now been classified and censored — of the more than 3,000 emails released. The numbers of emails, Kirby stressed, represent a "small amount." But it reflects "the care and the scrutiny with which we are scrutinizing this email traffic." Also Monday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said he has asked Clinton's long-time lawyer, David Kendall, about whether he and other members of his law firm received national security clearances as part of their legal work for the former top diplomat. Grassley wrote Kendall in an Aug. 14 letter that he was also concerned the lawyer kept thumb-drive copies of Clinton's emails that were not properly secured. Associated Press writer Bradley Klapper contributed to this report. news.yahoo.com/us-305-clinton-emails-might-classified-data-193217062--politics.html
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 22:06:53 GMT
IT firm hired by Hillary Clinton: It's 'highly likely' there's a backup of emails she deleted Business Insider By Natasha Bertrand The IT firm hired by Hillary Clinton to oversee her private server has told ABC it is "highly likely" a backup copy of the server was made, meaning any emails Clinton deleted before she handed the server over to investigators may still be accessible. Being able to access the deleted emails via a backup server would most likely make investigators' job much easier, cybersecurity expert Alex McGeorge of Immunity Inc. told Business Insider on Friday. "The reason you back up a server is fairly straightforward, and it would be standard practice to do so," McGeorge said. "There's a lot they [investigators] can learn from the server, but not having the backups would probably make that job much more difficult." Having access to the server's backups could also give investigators "a better timeline," McGeorge said, and allow them to see whether her private account was ever breached by hackers. ABC News chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl said the firm hired by Clinton in 2013, the Denver-based Platte River Networks, said it was "cooperating with the FBI.” Clinton says she deleted roughly 30,000 emails off of her server that were "personal" in nature before handing over another 30,000 emails to the State Department. "I was permitted to and used a personal email and, obviously in retrospect, given all the concerns that have been raised, it would have been probably smarter not to," she told Iowa Public Radio last week. "But I never sent nor received any classified email, nothing marked 'Classified.' And I think this will all sort itself out." But authorities sifting through the emails say they have reportedly found more than 60 emails containing classified information, though it's mostly at low levels. Those 60 emails did not include two emails discovered by the intelligence community's inspector general, Charles McCullough III, which allegedly contained information classified as Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information, the government's highest levels of classification. Platte River "is not cleared" to have access to classified material, Cindy McGovern, chief public affairs officer for the Defense Security Service, told The Daily Caller. Consequently, the possibility that any sensitive information was stored on the server while it was under Platte River's oversight was "troubling," McGeorge said. "The fact that Platte River is not a cleared contractor is largely irrelevant, since they were handling what should have been unclassified email," McGeorge said. "That classified email may have been received by a server under their control is troubling, and they may have been less equipped to deal with it." Clinton's unusual email system, currently under investigation by the FBI, was originally set up by a staffer during Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. It replaced another private server used by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. The new server was run by Bryan Pagliano, who had worked as the IT director on Hillary Clinton's campaign before joining the State Department in May 2009. In 2013 — the same year she left the State Department — Clinton hired Platte River to oversee the system. "My big issue here is do you want a small firm with little/no government experience or contracting (according to what's being reported) and no stated security expertise to be in charge of the email system for our secretary of state?" McGeorge said. "That is fundamentally ridiculous." There is no evidence that Clinton broke the law, but her campaign is concerned nonetheless. "They're worried about it," a longtime Clinton adviser and confidant told The Washington Post last week. "They don't know where it goes. That's the problem." finance.yahoo.com/news/firm-hired-hillary-clinton-highly-160300928.html
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 22:25:39 GMT
"I was permitted to and used a personal email and, obviously in retrospect, given all the concerns that have been raised, it would have been probably smarter not to," she told Iowa Public Radio last week. "But I never sent nor received any classified email, nothing marked 'Classified.' And I think this will all sort itself out."
How does she expect the thinking public, to even believe that as Secretary of State that is even possible?
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Aug 17, 2015 22:48:49 GMT
Government servers are NOT secure...just look what happened early this year. The Office of Personal Management had TWO separate cyber attacks that resulted in thousand and thousands of federal retirees, current employees and contractors personnel data being hacked. Cyber AttacksI work for a health insurance company. Health insurance company servers have also been hacked. Would our customers really want me to discuss their health insurance payments and claims from my personal email account???
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 18, 2015 15:04:00 GMT
The subpoena was for the server and the emails. This came from Congress. She printed off the emails rather than turning over the server so it could be searchable electronically. After a second subpoena came for the server, she said that it had been wiped clean. This potentially violates the Freedom of Information Act in several ways. Even for the law as it stood when she was SOS. She wasn't allowed to contact or conduct any government business from a private email account. She is allowed personal emails, however, by combining both personal and work emails on the same private email account, she leaves all emails subject to scrutiny, and in order to be completely up and up, must allow an independent party to research each email to see what belongs to the government and what was personl. Her and her staff don't have the right to do that. Wiping the server so that the electronic trace of them is deleted, shows deliberate ethical conundrum on her part. Here's an article from NPR that outlines 4 areas that could lead to prosecution. linkPrior to this, I was actually thawing towards her in such a way that I could have supported her had she become president. Now, this is the same Hillary that I've always distrusted. Someone with nothing to hide, especially a government figure, would have not waited 6 years to turn over the server, wouldn't have been required by a subpoena to do so, and wouldn't have wiped the server to it was rendered irretrievable. I agree with the ones who feel more than likely she hasn't broken any laws. The reason because the laws are ambiguous. However I will say this again. If she should falter then it's Go Bernie and she has no one to blame but herself. Having said that I'm sure the GOP is loving this because it is taking the attention away from the clusterf%>k of the gaggle of 17. I mean look at this thread. It didn't start out about Hillary but the gaggle of 17 and yet here we are. As much as you don t like Hillary or Bernie can you imagine the damage a Trump Presidency would do to this country. The gaggle of 17 better hope one of them drops out soon and I'm not talking about Rick Perry. The laws are ambiguous, but she should have as SOS and Presidential wannabe risen to an even higher standard. I'll have to disagree vehemently on Go Bernie. He would be worse for this nation than Donald Trump. No socialist should EVER be in power in the United States. Socialism is an affront to our founding principles. I'm ashamed that he's even been in Congress as long as he has. I'd vote for Joe Schmo off the street, campaign for Bozo the clown before I would ever consider a socialist a viable candidate.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2015 16:28:50 GMT
I agree with the ones who feel more than likely she hasn't broken any laws. The reason because the laws are ambiguous. However I will say this again. If she should falter then it's Go Bernie and she has no one to blame but herself. Having said that I'm sure the GOP is loving this because it is taking the attention away from the clusterf%>k of the gaggle of 17. I mean look at this thread. It didn't start out about Hillary but the gaggle of 17 and yet here we are. As much as you don t like Hillary or Bernie can you imagine the damage a Trump Presidency would do to this country. The gaggle of 17 better hope one of them drops out soon and I'm not talking about Rick Perry. The laws are ambiguous, but she should have as SOS and Presidential wannabe risen to an even higher standard. I'll have to disagree vehemently on Go Bernie. He would be worse for this nation than Donald Trump. No socialist should EVER be in power in the United States. Socialism is an affront to our founding principles. I'm ashamed that he's even been in Congress as long as he has. I'd vote for Joe Schmo off the street, campaign for Bozo the clown before I would ever consider a socialist a viable candidate. GO BERNIE!!!!! Actually I'm taking a long look at Jim Webb. He may be way down in the polls but if these emails get the best of Hillary I can see him becoming noticed in a favorable way. But let's be clear here. Emails or no emails I still believe Hillary is the most qualified of all the canidiates to be president.
|
|