• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton had no official State Dept. email address

Jack Hays said:
I think BHO's people probably fed the Hillary email story to the NYT in the first place.
Click to expand...

Most likely. They wouldn't run with it otherwise. Obama's people have been careful, but perhaps not quite enough. The firewall they've erected is not insurmountable, and they should not consider themselves beyond reach. The Clintons can be vengeful and they have political power with a significant following. Their money hasn't been raised for simple pleasure. They already have more than enough for that. Should be interesting.
 
Fearandloathing said:
What Obama does or doesn't do with this will be interesting. I have not abandoned the theory that the White House is aiding this scandal. Right now, clearly, they are sitting on it, waiting, which is the smart strategy.

I don't think Obama has handlers in the traditional sense. Jarret and co., are errand people, they carry the bags and throw the snowballs. Obama is not the kind of guy who wants a differing opinion around, someone who might rattle the over-sized confidence he has in himself.

It has always been so, with the left, that opposing opinions are not allowed. There is no greater group of people who interpret freedom of expression, which is what we have here, means you can say anything you like so long as we agree with it. University campuses, which should be the center of freedom of expression are now places of freedom of expression of their ideas. Try to put up a poster of an unborn fetus on a campus anywhere in North America. They cannot comprehend the leftist ideology of the 18th century, the then "liberal" concept of "I may not necessarily agree with what you say,. but I will defend to my death your right to say it." [Now attributed to an American, although it was a French philosopher of the left at that time.

They then sneer at the constitution, it's old, the founding fathers could not have foreseen.....which is why they made an amending formula, but that's a mere detail. What they don't see with the "Bush did it to" excuse, or the arguments of mitigation, is that it might be to their advantage today, but tomorrow when the other side is calling the shots, they will scream "tyranny" and be correct, tyranny they brought to the fore.

Having had the benefit of a US education though high school, and a good one then, and watching Canada muddle through its own constitution and a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" the view from here is different. I see Canada becoming the world leader in freedoms, while Americans surrenders theirs with relish. The right has insisted on draconian laws to fight "terrorism" and ripped away most of your freedoms. Obama rules by decree and the left cheers him on, it's justified in reaching that all important "agenda" that keeps changing. So from both sides, the erosion occurs and no one notices. A foreign leader is INVITED to speak, and his integrity and his nation are attacked viciously because he dared have an opinion, slightly different than Obama. How then is say a college senior able to question him, or other politicians; they have been made into not only "enemies" but enemies out to destroy America.

They will howl like crazy and run for the border as they did during Vietnam, when another Nixon strolls into the White House, pronounces Democrats as "enemies", and saying "Obama did it too" order IRS audits of every registered Democrat in the country.

By then I hope will have sealed the border.
Click to expand...

Heh. You don't have enough people to seal the border. We'll be coming, even if it's cold. The warmth of freedom is all that's required.
 
humbolt said:
Heh. You don't have enough people to seal the border. We'll be coming, even if it's cold. The warmth of freedom is all that's required.
Click to expand...


We do not need people to seal the border, that's why we have beaver.

For those that want quiet, polite and easy going, we open our arms. For those who bring their homeland politics with them, it will be uncomfortable and lonely. We don't care. We won't listen. Living in the shadow of a giant you learn to ignore, and stay under the radar. No one dislikes us save Iran. Even Kim Jung Un thinks we're cool, "but enough with that human rights crap". A Canadian passport is gold, anywhere in the world, although ISIS is a might pissed with us now. That's fine, Iran has been trying to wage war with us since Reagan.

We are a socialist country, for all intents and purposes; universal health care since 1967, a solid social safety net, a standard of living on par with the US...however the politics is boring. We have no left right argument, although people argue. Stephen Harper is boring, Justin Trudeau is interesting but......and the left, well, they do what they do and pretend they're a force nationally when they occasionally make government provincially. Then the people wake from their slumber like bears, hungry and mean and kick them out. That's as interesting as it gets save the age old argument over who is leaving this decade, which language should be prominent in advertising and when will the leafs ever become a real hockey team?

Yeah it's good. But war we don't do, have never started one, and finished a few, thank you. So if it gets too weird, head on up, mind the beaver, and bring mittens.
 
Fearandloathing said:
We do not need people to seal the border, that's why we have beaver.

For those that want quiet, polite and easy going, we open our arms. For those who bring their homeland politics with them, it will be uncomfortable and lonely. We don't care. We won't listen. Living in the shadow of a giant you learn to ignore, and stay under the radar. No one dislikes us save Iran. Even Kim Jung Un thinks we're cool, "but enough with that human rights crap". A Canadian passport is gold, anywhere in the world, although ISIS is a might pissed with us now. That's fine, Iran has been trying to wage war with us since Reagan.

We are a socialist country, for all intents and purposes; universal health care since 1967, a solid social safety net, a standard of living on par with the US...however the politics is boring. We have no left right argument, although people argue. Stephen Harper is boring, Justin Trudeau is interesting but......and the left, well, they do what they do and pretend they're a force nationally when they occasionally make government provincially. Then the people wake from their slumber like bears, hungry and mean and kick them out. That's as interesting as it gets save the age old argument over who is leaving this decade, which language should be prominent in advertising and when will the leafs ever become a real hockey team?

Yeah it's good. But war we don't do, have never started one, and finished a few, thank you. So if it gets too weird, head on up, mind the beaver, and bring mittens.
Click to expand...

I'm not too worried about socialsim if it's not an agenda focused on control. Canada had the second largest standing army in the world by the end of WWII. We thank you for that - at least those of us who appreciate what we were fighting thank you. The rest are focused on the next video offering, and appreciate nothing of any worth whatever. We'll be leaving them behind, if it comes down to it.

I'm 65. It's not likely I'll make the permanent trip. My sons, however, have been encouraged to influence politics here as well as they can, and to ditch the place if it looks untenable. Freedom is paramount, whether it's socialist freedom, capitalist freedom, or whatever freedom. What's in a name? Homeland politics here are largely poisoned, so those who make it an objective are likely to become poisoned themselves. Hopefully, this will change, but I fear it will be a long time coming unless it gets violent - and I'm not a fan of violence with my fellow travelers whatever their disposition. Americans are Americans, or at least I hope so. Doesn't seem that way of late, but much that has been accepted as the norm seems to be in question just now. We'll see.
 
Fearandloathing said:
We do not need people to seal the border, that's why we have beaver.

For those that want quiet, polite and easy going, we open our arms. For those who bring their homeland politics with them, it will be uncomfortable and lonely. We don't care. We won't listen. Living in the shadow of a giant you learn to ignore, and stay under the radar. No one dislikes us save Iran. Even Kim Jung Un thinks we're cool, "but enough with that human rights crap". A Canadian passport is gold, anywhere in the world, although ISIS is a might pissed with us now. That's fine, Iran has been trying to wage war with us since Reagan.

We are a socialist country, for all intents and purposes; universal health care since 1967, a solid social safety net, a standard of living on par with the US...however the politics is boring. We have no left right argument, although people argue. Stephen Harper is boring, Justin Trudeau is interesting but......and the left, well, they do what they do and pretend they're a force nationally when they occasionally make government provincially. Then the people wake from their slumber like bears, hungry and mean and kick them out. That's as interesting as it gets save the age old argument over who is leaving this decade, which language should be prominent in advertising and when will the leafs ever become a real hockey team?

Yeah it's good. But war we don't do, have never started one, and finished a few, thank you. So if it gets too weird, head on up, mind the beaver, and bring mittens.
Click to expand...

As a finale, I admit I'm fading tonight. Busy day today, and a busy one tomorrow. I just turned the tube on, and all I can say is "To hell with LaHood". Clint Eastwood isn't bad sometimes. The badest guy gets to win and shoot others with impunity all while being hailed a hero. Not bad, all in all. Most have dreamed of it. Few would admit it beyond cheering when it happens. Bill and Hillary are probably dreaming of it right now.
 
humbolt said:
I'm not too worried about socialsim if it's not an agenda focused on control. Canada had the second largest standing army in the world by the end of WWII. We thank you for that - at least those of us who appreciate what we were fighting thank you. The rest are focused on the next video offering, and appreciate nothing of any worth whatever. We'll be leaving them behind, if it comes down to it.

I'm 65. It's not likely I'll make the permanent trip. My sons, however, have been encouraged to influence politics here as well as they can, and to ditch the place if it looks untenable. Freedom is paramount, whether it's socialist freedom, capitalist freedom, or whatever freedom. What's in a name? Homeland politics here are largely poisoned, so those who make it an objective are likely to become poisoned themselves. Hopefully, this will change, but I fear it will be a long time coming unless it gets violent - and I'm not a fan of violence with my fellow travelers whatever their disposition. Americans are Americans, or at least I hope so. Doesn't seem that way of late, but much that has been accepted as the norm seems to be in question just now. We'll see.
Click to expand...

I am also up there, turning 66 in nine days.

Freedom of the individual IS paramount, and is only freedom with acceptance of differences.

As we opened our doors to runaway slaves, draft dodgers and stranded airline passengers in 911, we remain free by offering that freedom to those most in need. A few years ago, after an accident and a nine hour hospital stay, I met a cab driver with the full turban of an orthodox Sikh, born in the Punjab, a peasant. Cab driving to him was a godsend, and being able to talk with me, in the front seat was why he was in Canada. He said: "India is where I was born, Canada is my home. I would die for her." I wondered if I would. That's what I want my country to be, where he can associate with a caste above his own...imagine that.

The socialism here is, well, true classic liberalism; social safety nets without intervention into the personal lives of individuals, small as possible, delivering the greatest amount of $ to the greatest amount of those in need. We have Conservative Harper in power now who has increased federal spending in health care more than any other prime minister, and guess what, he makes an economic, not political argument: a healthy nation is a productive nation. he had eliminated corporate welfare until Obama forced us to meet the deal with the automakers, and now we own Chrysler Canada..thank you it is netting us nice dividends. Screw loans, buy the thing.

I still have some faith in the America I knew, a nine year old kid from rural Ontario who thought racism could be ended by Louis Armstrong telling Eisenhower to knock it off and play fair. We were taught the US constitution on three fronts, and it appears taught well. And I learned the truth about those early wars years, when the right wanted war with Britain and the left wanted no war and the middle wanted, maybe, to somehow, get Hitler to stop dropping bombs on London. It was an incredibly divided nation, a president beleagured for the failures of his social agenda.

Then Pearl Harbor and a defeated nation united, rose up and became the world's most powerful force in five short years. That America can rise again. It will take a leader, a real leader who will first unite the nation and then start forwarding an agenda.

If not, mind the beaver
 
wow. This thread has become a conservative circle-jerk. have fun, all.
 
paddymcdougall said:
wow. This thread has become a conservative circle-jerk. have fun, all.
Click to expand...

Yea, because Conservatives forced Hillary Clinton to set up a private email server for the exclusive purpose of circumventing FOIA and Oversight Committee request...

Lol

You lefties have a strange definition of what accountability is and who it applies too.

Its almost like you apply it selectively based on Political affiliation.

The NORMAL repsonse to this impressive bit of Liberal corruption would be to acknowledge it for what it is regardless of what Political party she identifies with. You know, be critical of her blatant and possibly illegal attempts to circumvent full disclosure of all her communications.

Not to blame Conservatives for daring to talk about it. Thats just childish and hackish.
 
Fenton said:
Yea, because Conservatives forced Hillary Clinton to set up a private email server for the exclusive purpose of circumventing FOIA and Oversight Committee request...

Lol

You lefties have a strange definition of what accountability is and who it applies too.

Its almost like you apply it selectively based on Political affiliation.

The NORMAL repsonse to this impressive bit of Liberal corruption would be to acknowledge it for what it is regardless of what Political party she identifies with. You know, be critical of her blatant and possibly illegal attempts to circumvent full disclosure of all her communications.

Not to blame Conservatives for daring to talk about it. Thats just childish and hackish.
Click to expand...

What makes it a circle jerk is that the facts of the case are still almost completely unknown, while you and the other hacks on the right are already yelling 'burn the witch!'
 
DifferentDrummr said:
What makes it a circle jerk is that the facts of the case are still almost completely unknown, while you and the other hacks on the right are already yelling 'burn the witch!'
Click to expand...

Funny, from my reading of the posts, what comes up again and again is it's against the 1950's era law about official records, that it was against stated policy from the Obama administration to use private email accounts for official business, and that it poses a serious security risk.

Have not heard any 'burn the witch'. Can you quote or link that?

I'd further observe that there is no issue with using a private email account for private, non-government, non-official communication. Just that official government communication needs to remain on government controlled, managed, and secured communication means.
 
eohrnberger said:
Funny, from my reading of the posts, what comes up again and again is it's against the 1950's era law about official records, that it was against stated policy from the Obama administration to use private email accounts for official business, and that it poses a serious security risk.
Click to expand...
And that's the point: nobody can (yet) claim that any emails were in fact official business, for the very simple reason that the emails have not yet been made public.

Have not heard any 'burn the witch'. Can you quote or link that?
Click to expand...
Please tell me you aren't always this literal-minded. :doh

I'd further observe that there is no issue with using a private email account for private, non-government, non-official communication. Just that official government communication needs to remain on government controlled, managed, and secured communication means.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I already said as much earlier in the thread.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
What makes it a circle jerk is that the facts of the case are still almost completely unknown, while you and the other hacks on the right are already yelling 'burn the witch!'
Click to expand...

No, the facts are known.

Hillary Clinton set up a private email server for the explicit purpose of circumventing FOIA and oversight committee request. The HACKS are the one's trying to minimize her actions with pathetic mitigation's like the one you just posted.
 
Fenton said:
No, the facts are known.

Hillary Clinton set up a private email server for the explicit purpose of circumventing FOIA and oversight committee request. The HACKS are the one's trying to minimize her actions with pathetic mitigation's like the one you just posted.
Click to expand...

And of course, you have no proof. Thanks for supporting my claim.
 
The trail is as slimy as an interns dress during the Clinton admin.
20150306_hillary.jpg
Fenton said:
Yea, because Conservatives forced Hillary Clinton to set up a private email server for the exclusive purpose of circumventing FOIA and Oversight Committee request...

Lol

You lefties have a strange definition of what accountability is and who it applies too.

Its almost like you apply it selectively based on Political affiliation.

The NORMAL repsonse to this impressive bit of Liberal corruption would be to acknowledge it for what it is regardless of what Political party she identifies with. You know, be critical of her blatant and possibly illegal attempts to circumvent full disclosure of all her communications.

Not to blame Conservatives for daring to talk about it. Thats just childish and hackish.
Click to expand...
 
DifferentDrummr said:
And that's the point: nobody can (yet) claim that any emails were in fact official business, for the very simple reason that the emails have not yet been made public.
Click to expand...

It's been well recorded that she was always on email with her Blackberry. So she was emailing, allot in fact.

Safe to assume that some of those emails were doing official government SoS business.

She didn't have an official SoS email address.

Logic concludes that it is highly likely that she was doing official SoS emails from her BlackBerry and on her private email server, although, it's not impossible that she wasn't. Perhaps she didn't do any official SoS business on email? - A rather remote possibility, but not an impossibility.

DifferentDrummr said:
Please tell me you aren't always this literal-minded. :doh
Click to expand...

Seriously. Who's calling for 'burning' her? Not even in the literal sense, but int he figurative sense in which you cited it.

DifferentDrummr said:
I agree, and I already said as much earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
And of course, you have no proof. Thanks for supporting my claim.
Click to expand...

Lol !

Proof that she DIDN'T set up her own personal Email server ?? Are you kidding ?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
And of course, you have no proof. Thanks for supporting my claim.
Click to expand...
Ms. Clinton's liability is premised on the report that she has not turned over, to the proper authorities, government records she sent while serving as the SOS. If she turned over every record already then there is no liability. However, right now, based on what I've read, it appears that Clinton aides themselves are saying that not every record has been turned over. Doubtlessly, this will be the debate in the coming days.

44 USC Chapter 31, which is titled RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES.
"The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities"
"§ 1236.22 What are the additional requirements for managing electronic mail records?
(a) Agencies must issue instructions to staff on the following retention and management requirements for electronic mail records:

(1) The names of sender and all addressee(s) and date the message was sent must be preserved for each electronic mail record in order for the context of the message to be understood. The agency may determine that other metadata is needed to meet agency business needs, e.g., receipt information.

(2) Attachments to electronic mail messages that are an integral part of the record must be preserved as part of the electronic mail record or linked to the electronic mail record with other related records.

(3) If the electronic mail system identifies users by codes or nicknames or identifies addressees only by the name of a distribution list, retain the intelligent or full names on directories or distributions lists to ensure identification of the sender and addressee(s) of messages that are records.
...

(b) Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

That is the law, she broke it.
 
I find it an amusing, pathetic display of lefty hypocrisy, don't you?

I mean, on the one hand, we have leftists explaining how Clinton complied with the law...as it is written...to excuse her actions. On the other hand, those same leftists argue that the current Obamacare case before the Supreme Court should be thrown out because the law...as it is written...shouldn't be followed.
 
Mycroft said:
I find it an amusing, pathetic display of lefty hypocrisy, don't you?

I mean, on the one hand, we have leftists explaining how Clinton complied with the law...as it is written...to excuse her actions. On the other hand, those same leftists argue that the current Obamacare case before the Supreme Court should be thrown out because the law...as it is written...shouldn't be followed.
Click to expand...

Au contraire. We want the law, as written, to be enforced. It seems that the intent of the words in the ACA is not clear, hence the court case. The interpretation of the people who voted for the law is fairly clear, that the US government could run the exchanges if a state decided not to. It is absurd to assume that the intent was to deny subsidies if a state decided to let the US government run the exchange. That, of course, might not keep the SCOTUS from saying that the law means something other than Congress and the President say that it means because the SCOTUS has ruled that corporations are people and that is about as stupid as you can get.
 
zip98053 said:
Au contraire. We want the law, as written, to be enforced. It seems that the intent of the words in the ACA is not clear, hence the court case. The interpretation of the people who voted for the law is fairly clear, that the US government could run the exchanges if a state decided not to. It is absurd to assume that the intent was to deny subsidies if a state decided to let the US government run the exchange. That, of course, might not keep the SCOTUS from saying that the law means something other than Congress and the President say that it means because the SCOTUS has ruled that corporations are people and that is about as stupid as you can get.
Click to expand...

The words in Obamacare...as written...are quite clear. Yet leftists don't want the words...as written...enforced. They talk about "intent". Well, if they intended one thing...but wrote another...then they screwed up.

But that's where the hypocrisy comes in. In the Clinton case, they aren't interested in "intent"...rather the words of the law...as written.
 
Mycroft said:
The words in Obamacare...as written...are quite clear. Yet leftists don't want the words...as written...enforced. They talk about "intent". Well, if they intended one thing...but wrote another...then they screwed up.
Click to expand...

If the meaning of the words was "quite clear" then I don't believe that there would be a case in front of the SCOTUS. All kinds of people who were responsible for writing and enforcing the law (including Republican Governors) have said that they assumed that the law allowed subsidies no matter the exchange (state or federal). What is actually screwed up is this continuous Republican attack the ACA.

But that's where the hypocrisy comes in. In the Clinton case, they aren't interested in "intent"...rather the words of the law...as written.
Click to expand...

The intent matters. It was not common understanding that the Federal Records Act covered emails. That why Secretaries of State like Clinton and Powel maintained private email accounts and why the FRA had to be clarified to make it clear. Hillary has made her emails available. She has met the spirit of the old law. She can't go back in time and have not had a personal account but she has provided the emails which puts the record keeping at parity with the new law. Naturally, this will not keep the Republican conspiracy mill from cracking out all kinds of BS. This will juice up the base and bore the hell out of the rest of us.
 
zip98053 said:
If the meaning of the words was "quite clear" then I don't believe that there would be a case in front of the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

The words ARE quite clear. You can't get much more clear than "established by the State". The only reason it's before the Supremes is because the IRS realized how clear the words were and subsequently "re-interpreted" the law to say something it doesn't.

All kinds of people who were responsible for writing and enforcing the law (including Republican Governors) have said that they assumed that the law allowed subsidies no matter the exchange (state or federal). What is actually screwed up is this continuous Republican attack the ACA.
Click to expand...

No...what's screwed up is that the Democrats wrote the law with a certain intention (forcing the States to create their own exchanges) and when that intention blew up in their faces they found they had to go into spinning mode...hence these after-the-fact assumptions.

The intent matters. It was not common understanding that the Federal Records Act covered emails. That why Secretaries of State like Clinton and Powel maintained private email accounts and why the FRA had to be clarified to make it clear. Hillary has made her emails available. She has met the spirit of the old law. She can't go back in time and have not had a personal account but she has provided the emails which puts the record keeping at parity with the new law. Naturally, this will not keep the Republican conspiracy mill from cracking out all kinds of BS. This will juice up the base and bore the hell out of the rest of us.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that everyone is stressing the letter of the law and minimizing Hillary's actual intentions. She never made her emails available...for years...until matters forced her to turn them over. And nobody is sure she has actually turned them ALL over.


Face it...to liberals/progressives/socialists/Democrats, nothing matters...not even blatant hypocrisy...if the means bring about the ends.
 
She said she will give up 55,000 of her emails, divide 55,000 by four years in office and you have 13,750 emails per year, divide that number by 12 months and you get 1,146 per month. Take weekends off and you have 22 work days, so 1,146 emails divided by 22 gives you 52 emails per day. Anyone smell something here? Keep in mind the 55,000 does not include the emails she is hiding.
 
rhinefire said:
She said she will give up 55,000 of her emails, divide 55,000 by four years in office and you have 13,750 emails per year, divide that number by 12 months and you get 1,146 per month. Take weekends off and you have 22 work days, so 1,146 emails divided by 22 gives you 52 emails per day. Anyone smell something here? Keep in mind the 55,000 does not include the emails she is hiding.
Click to expand...

Mornin RF. :2wave: What you think is left on the burner? Even Lawrence O'Donnell from MSDNC says Hillary did this to Defy the Freedom of Info Act. That's to Defy the Law, he said.




The Clinton email controversy isn’t going away, no matter how hard Media Matters’ David Brock–a die-hard Clintonite–tries to squash it. Clinton appears to have created multiple private email address, and a senior State Department official said that she was probably operating in direct violation of State Department policy regarding electronic communications for six years. Clinton’s way of executing official government business through a private server also exposed the United States to data breaches. Additionally, it appears that 90 percent of the emails Clinton turned over could have already been in State’s hands since it was intra-department communication with employees using the state.gov email address. This pretty much kills any “she’s being transparent … because emails” talking point that some of her defenders have been peddling (via WaPo)

Of the e-mails that were turned over to State, the Clinton aide said, 90 percent were correspondence between Clinton and agency employees using their regular government e-mail accounts, which end in state.gov.

The remaining 10 percent were communications between Clinton and other government officials, including some at the White House, along with an unknown number of people “not on a government server,” the aide said. The aide requested anonymity because the e-mails are not yet public.....snip~

Wait, The State Department Already Had 90 Percent Of The Emails Clinton Turned Over? - Matt Vespa


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom