• 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!

Did Hillary Clinton Lie about turning over all of her work-related emails?

Did Hillary turn over all of her work emails?

  • Hillary did not turn over all of her work emails

    Votes: 10 76.9%

  • Hillary was on a vacation from email during those major time gaps

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • At This Point, Really, What Difference Does It Make If Hillary Lied?

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • Total voters
    13
cpwill said:
Hillary Clinton claimed that she turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department..... but refused to turn over (and seems to have destroyed) tens of thousands of emails during that time. Massive gaps exist in the records that she turned over - for example, when she flew to Libya and during the Benghazi attack.... we have weeks of gaps in which Clinton claims no work-related emails occurred.....

Which leaves us with an interesting dilemma. Either this means that Clinton was completely off the job for critical weeks of American foreign policy..... or she's lying.


So, which is it?
Click to expand...

She's lying, she's a politician.
 
"Every time a Clinton lies, a Prius gets a Coexist bumper sticker."
 
I've asked this before and not received an answer from anyone so I'll ask it again and expand on it. If the US government, through the NSA and the courts, have determined that monitoring the communications of private citizens can be justified as in the national interests, why is it not possible/preferable that all government employees and agents, including politicians, routinely have their communications copied and stored for future reference? Why leave it up to individual employees/politicians to adhere to the legislated mandates for retention and storage of communications data when the government has a multi $billion facility that can do it seamlessly and completely?

If private citizens have no real expectation of privacy in this regard, why should those on the government payroll have any privacy rights?
 
Paschendale said:
But you seem to expect to find something malicious.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I don't know. And since she destroyed ~32,000 government documents rather than let anyone take a look at them, we'll never know.

Given the option to clear her name of any record of wrongdoing, she chose not to, and she was willing to illegally destroy documents she is required to turn over in order to do so. That is fairly suggestive of the notion that she believes she would be harmed by transparency.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I've asked this before and not received an answer from anyone so I'll ask it again and expand on it. If the US government, through the NSA and the courts, have determined that monitoring the communications of private citizens can be justified as in the national interests, why is it not possible/preferable that all government employees and agents, including politicians, routinely have their communications copied and stored for future reference
Click to expand...

They do. That's why they are required to use government email addresses and servers for business.

If private citizens have no real expectation of privacy in this regard, why should those on the government payroll have any privacy rights?
Click to expand...

Private citizens do - their content requires warrants to get at.
 
cpwill said:
They do. That's why they are required to use government email addresses and servers for business.



Private citizens do - their content requires warrants to get at.
Click to expand...

My point, in this regard, is why didn't the NSA collect all of Clinton's emails from her private server since she chose to use it as the government substitute? Wouldn't that have been easier than going back now, hat in hand, asking her to provide access to the server?
 
CanadaJohn said:
My point, in this regard, is why didn't the NSA collect all of Clinton's emails from her private server since she chose to use it as the government substitute? Wouldn't that have been easier than going back now, hat in hand, asking her to provide access to the server?
Click to expand...

NSA collect on SecState? Um. No. That would require specific POTUS approval, specific Judicial approval, and would most likely go to the FBI.
 
Last edited:
Declan said:
Maybe she just called people on a secure satphone during that period. I don't buy her story generally, but I would not expect a SoS to be communicating but on secure channels while overseas on sensitive trips.
Click to expand...

And "maybe" she's lying her ass off to escape prison.

Maybes are easy, explanations are what's needed. Maybe the dog ate the sever .,..who knows with a Clinton
 
Fearandloathing said:
And "maybe" she's lying her ass off to escape prison.
Click to expand...

She is lying because she knows she can. She is banking that liberals will feel that they have no choice but to protect her.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I've asked this before and not received an answer from anyone so I'll ask it again and expand on it. If the US government, through the NSA and the courts, have determined that monitoring the communications of private citizens can be justified as in the national interests, why is it not possible/preferable that all government employees and agents, including politicians, routinely have their communications copied and stored for future reference? Why leave it up to individual employees/politicians to adhere to the legislated mandates for retention and storage of communications data when the government has a multi $billion facility that can do it seamlessly and completely?

If private citizens have no real expectation of privacy in this regard, why should those on the government payroll have any privacy rights?
Click to expand...



As is usual with one of your probing, thought out questions, I have absolutely no answer for that.
 
CanadaJohn said:
If the NSA can collect on the Chancellor of Germany, why not their own Secretary of State?
Click to expand...

Because A) one is not a US person and B) the other is Secretary of State, who outranks DoD.
 
cpwill said:
She is lying because she knows she can. She is banking that liberals will feel that they have no choice but to protect her.
Click to expand...

Why would anybody want to protect wrong doing. And particularly wrong doing that has a potential to compromise security. Is what's good for ones party more important than what's good for America?
 
Montecresto said:
Why would anybody want to protect wrong doing.
Click to expand...

Partisan dedication to The Inevitable Candidate.

And particularly wrong doing that has a potential to compromise security. Is what's good for ones party more important than what's good for America?
Click to expand...

There are many who are unable to distinguish between those two things.
 
cpwill said:
Because A) one is not a US person and B) the other is Secretary of State, who outranks DoD.
Click to expand...

I'm saying it should be part of the NSA's legislated mandate - the collection and storage of all communications, via whatever electronic method, of all persons on the US government payroll. It's remarkable to me that Hillary Clinton gets to hold the Congress hostage to her whims when it comes to her service as Secretary of State. And you're supposed to trust her?? Laughable, really.
 
cpwill said:
She is lying because she knows she can. She is banking that liberals will feel that they have no choice but to protect her.
Click to expand...



They don't. Who else do they have? That's why all the made up "maybes" and umping on threads with denials on the first post.

She is relying, and I have said this a thousand times, on the "stupid voter". She knows damn well that the majority of voters who might swing here way have no time for the minute details. In listening to Gowdy, who never says she is lying, there are so many lapses of honesty that, like Watergate fr two years, are simply too involved for the American voter.

She merely has to keep the debate on a simple "yes" or "no" axis, as in "did she do anything wrong" and she wins, just like Bill was able to make perjury about a blow job. Most Americans to this day don't realize he lied under oath and got away with it.
 
cpwill said:
Partisan dedication to The Inevitable Candidate.



There are many who are unable to distinguish between those two things.
Click to expand...

Well, that seems like a worthwhile problem to combat then.
 
Fearandloathing said:
And "maybe" she's lying her ass off to escape prison.

Maybes are easy, explanations are what's needed. Maybe the dog ate the sever .,..who knows with a Clinton
Click to expand...

That are just as easy as "Maybe she is guilty". I don't care if she did or didn't or if it was legal or not. As I have said before, the appearance of a scandal and the appearance that she was up to something when she started down this road are good enough for me to want to see her and her whole family out of politics. Time for something new and different and Clintons are neither at this point.
 
Declan said:
That are just as easy as "Maybe she is guilty". I don't care if she did or didn't or if it was legal or not. As I have said before, the appearance of a scandal and the appearance that she was up to something when she started down this road are good enough for me to want to see her and her whole family out of politics. Time for something new and different and Clintons are neither at this point.
Click to expand...



I can't disagree with that in this case. Any reasonable person, with their background and history would at least be sensitive to the appearance of propriety. And considering her clearly stated ambitions, an honest person would have ensured that everything was above board, there was no opportunity for "I maybe should have..." second thoughts.

As it stands, this is very cynical
 
Come on yall, stop picking on Hillary. She said her people read every word of every email before deleting it. Her word is her bond. :mrgreen:
 
American said:
Come on yall, stop picking on Hillary. She said her people read every word of every email before deleting it. Her word is her bond. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Neither Jeb's nor Hillary's word should be certification for this.
 
cpwill said:
Hillary Clinton claimed that she turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department..... but refused to turn over (and seems to have destroyed) tens of thousands of emails during that time. Massive gaps exist in the records that she turned over - for example, when she flew to Libya and during the Benghazi attack.... we have weeks of gaps in which Clinton claims no work-related emails occurred.....

Which leaves us with an interesting dilemma. Either this means that Clinton was completely off the job for critical weeks of American foreign policy..... or she's lying.


So, which is it?
Click to expand...

I think the poll needs a 4rd option here, which would be 'How can we tell?'

There've been reports kicking around that she deleted 30,000 emails, which she claims were all private. We have no way of determining that, and the closest that we might get to is a computer forensic analysis of the server to recovery any deleted emails and check them out. Of course, Hillary feels above the law and flaunts the law (in multiple ways), and says she'll keep that email server private. Wonder if a congressional subpoena would change her mind about that (probably not I'm guessing - what's flaunting one more law, right?).
 
pbrauer said:
In my opinion, you are working with a poor assumpton. That she cant do her work without email. In case you missed it they have developed this thing call a phone.
Click to expand...



No one has questioned she can handle email, in fact she's an expert. How many people can claim 30,000?


The question is, if she is such a bubble head that she can't handle two devices, how will she remember the launch codes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom