• 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!

Hillary Clinton Tweets That She Wants Her Email Released To The Public

No, the congress is duty bound to pursue. I just don't see them getting her on this. She's such an experienced crook she'll likely only be caught out by history after she's gone, if then.

Then the posts in this thread by yourself and others are tantamount to baseless bitching and moaning. Here's what I'm hearing:

1)"Release your emails!"
2)"But if you do, don't doctor them!"
3)"And if do release them and we don't see what we want to see, you deleted them!"

So I ask, "What do you want?"

Answer: "Release your emails!"

And around and around and around it goes. Honestly, this has got to be one of the only "scandals" I've seen where lack of evidence is evidence of guilt.
 
Hillary Clinton is simply not to be trusted or believed. Her history of lies, deceptions and amnesia are too long to trust her.

I suggest Hillary release all her emails from her server to the Benghazi Committee, and to the State Dept. Personal and otherwise. Everything. She skirted the system, she is untrustworthy... as far as I'm concerned that was the default SoS server... and the contents are our property.

Her tweet was truncated due to the 140 character limit... it should have said she wanted to release all of the emails "that are left"
 
Then the posts in this thread by yourself and others are tantamount to baseless bitching and moaning. Here's what I'm hearing:

1)"Release your emails!"
2)"But if you do, don't doctor them!"
3)"And if do release them and we don't see what we want to see, you deleted them!"

So I ask, "What do you want?"

Answer: "Release your emails!"

And around and around and around it goes. Honestly, this has got to be one of the only "scandals" I've seen where lack of evidence is evidence of guilt.

Hey, you know what? Tough S***! This is why we have secured, archived federal servers and chain of custody protocols in place. She broke the trust, no use whining that people don't trust her.
 
Obama would never been elected had it not been the press running cover. The defining moment of it was Joe the Plumber asking a question, letting Obama run his mouth uninterrupted, and in the process he revealed his lean was as many of us knew... socialist in nature... "spread the wealth around".

Then the full force of the Obama Media attacked Joe.

Hillary is shrill, corrupt, and Bill ... who pals with pedofiles ... well... the combined decades of abuse has taken its toll. The Dem power holders obviously seem to want to dump her... this is their excuse.

It certainly looks like most of the leaders of the Democratic Party think she is a liability. Many married women do not like or trust her for tolerating her husband's womanizing as she did, and as you say, she is shrill and corrupt. She may well have committed a felony by using these private e-mails the way she did. There is also the fact that at her inauguration she would be the oldest president in U.S. history, older than Ronald Reagan was. And a related problem is the suspicion that her health is not good. What was the story, for example, with her fainting, her hospitalization, and the odd eyeglasses she wore afterwards?
 
Then the posts in this thread by yourself and others are tantamount to baseless bitching and moaning. Here's what I'm hearing:

1)"Release your emails!"
2)"But if you do, don't doctor them!"
3)"And if do release them and we don't see what we want to see, you deleted them!"

So I ask, "What do you want?"

Answer: "Release your emails!"

And around and around and around it goes. Honestly, this has got to be one of the only "scandals" I've seen where lack of evidence is evidence of guilt.

You're barking up the wrong tree. I don't give two ****s if she releases her emails. They're not going to contain anything probative anyway. What I do care about was that she should be on the hook for going private with the emails in the first place.
 
It certainly looks like most of the leaders of the Democratic Party think she is a liability. Many married women do not like or trust her for tolerating her husband's womanizing as she did, and as you say, she is shrill and corrupt. She may well have committed a felony by using these private e-mails the way she did. There is also the fact that at her inauguration she would be the oldest president in U.S. history, older than Ronald Reagan was. And a related problem is the suspicion that her health is not good. What was the story, for example, with her fainting, her hospitalization, and the odd eyeglasses she wore afterwards?


Why again should I give a tinkers damn about her husband again cheating on her? I'm sorry I fail to see what that has to do with anything of him as president? If he does the job and didn't do like Petraus and give his girlfriend secrets and ****, speaking as a woman, I could give a tinkers damn where his dick is. It's not my business.
 
Hey, you know what? Tough S***! This is why we have secured, archived federal servers and chain of custody protocols in place. She broke the trust, no use whining that people don't trust her.

You do know that she would have been allowed to use her personal email for emergencies, right? So even if she had used a state department email address for the bulk of her communications, would you have accused her of using her personal email for all the nefarious stuff?
 
It's now clear that you don't have any evidence that they were "scrubbed". Stop wasting precious server space by replying with your baseless claims.

And you have no evidence that they weren't scrubbed.

Given that behavioral pattern of the person in question, I think it legitimately cautious to believe that they were scrubbed, until proven otherwise.
 
You're barking up the wrong tree. I don't give two ****s if she releases her emails. They're not going to contain anything probative anyway. What I do care about was that she should be on the hook for going private with the emails in the first place.

Right, so essentially you're just pissed off because you want her to be guilty and you're irritated that the universe won't cooperate by handing you evidence of it.
 
So reading all the posts in here, it looks to me like the Liberals want this to stop right here. She's not guilty of anything, leave her alone, stop accusing her of anything. I guess I was wrong. She will win the nomination without any problems. She is trusted unconditionally.

Damn I miss the days when politicians and everyone over the age of 30 were suspect.
 
Hillary Clinton is simply not to be trusted or believed. Her history of lies, deceptions and amnesia are too long to trust her.

I suggest Hillary release all her emails from her server to the Benghazi Committee, and to the State Dept. Personal and otherwise. Everything. She skirted the system, she is untrustworthy... as far as I'm concerned that was the default SoS server... and the contents are our property.

So the DoJ issues a warrant, grabs the servers where her private email are housed and allows the NSA to peruse them. So simply yet that wouldn't happen in a million years. The Clintons live by their own rules, not the rules and laws of peons like the rest of America.
 
Then the posts in this thread by yourself and others are tantamount to baseless bitching and moaning. Here's what I'm hearing:

1)"Release your emails!"
2)"But if you do, don't doctor them!"
3)"And if do release them and we don't see what we want to see, you deleted them!"

So I ask, "What do you want?"

Answer: "Release your emails!"

And around and around and around it goes. Honestly, this has got to be one of the only "scandals" I've seen where lack of evidence is evidence of guilt.



A valid criticism with most, honest and reasonable people.

Hillary is not one of them. At best she is as combative as Obama. She has a record of 'misplacing' legal documents until the day after the filing deadlines, a long, long list of inconsistent statements about her affairs, has been less than honest about her personal affairs and appears to have deliberately misled the "there's nothing there/it's old news/what difference does it make" congressional hearing.

She has given no one but Gruberites any indication she can be trusted. Of course most people will think she is deliberately hiding these emails, because she has been hiding them....they were discovered by a hacker [at least now we finally have admission they exist]. Of course honest people are going to be wary of her doctoring them, because of her history. And of course people will be suspicious about what else there might be, because these emails only came to light through accident...she did not offer them when she was asked.


If you want to aim accusations of bitching and moaning, look in the mirror. Your last best hope to hold this house of cards together is as big a liar as Obama.

Get used to that. The Republicans have the floor now, all of it. And they will not soon forget her attacks, nor the overall side show the Gruberites have been throwing up; if they are not regretting "enemies, traitors and terrorists!" hurled at congressmen, nor calling Sarah Palin a "whore" and a slut", they very soon will be.

Hillary and Obama set new standards of LOW in American politics....so don't bitch and moan now when the Republican majority takes the same fight to the rats....
 
And you have no evidence that they weren't scrubbed.

I'm not claiming that they weren't. I'm asking for evidence that they were after clowboy claimed they were.

Given that behavioral pattern of the person in question, I think it legitimately cautious to believe that they were scrubbed, until proven otherwise.

I'm not into logical fallacies.
 
So the DoJ issues a warrant, grabs the servers where her private email are housed and allows the NSA to peruse them. So simply yet that wouldn't happen in a million years. The Clintons live by their own rules, not the rules and laws of peons like the rest of America.

And there in lies the significant problem with her becoming president. We've already had one administration with a liar in chief, why would we want another?
 
So the DoJ issues a warrant, grabs the servers where her private email are housed and allows the NSA to peruse them. So simply yet that wouldn't happen in a million years. The Clintons live by their own rules, not the rules and laws of peons like the rest of America.

That's been said repeatedly today by all sorts of people from the left, right and center. It's a bad habit that the Clintons have, believing and living like the rules simply never apply to them.
 
And you have no evidence that they weren't scrubbed.

Given that behavioral pattern of the person in question, I think it legitimately cautious to believe that they were scrubbed, until proven otherwise.

I'm not claiming that they weren't. I'm asking for evidence that they were after clowboy claimed they were.



I'm not into logical fallacies.

Government owned documents were kept outside of the prescribed, government controlled and managed storage facility. It is fair and prudent to not trust the documents as complete and unaltered until proven to be complete and unaltered - if possible.

Yet you call this prudent course of action and stance a logical fallacy? I'm failing to see your logic at doing so. Please explain in detail.
 
Government owned documents were kept outside of the prescribed, government controlled and managed storage facility.

Not evidence that they were scrubbed or that they weren't scrubbed. Try harder.

It is fair and prudent to not trust the documents as complete and unaltered until proven to be complete and unaltered - if possible.

What is fair and prudent is irrelevant to this discussion. A claim was made, evidence was asked to substantiate it. No evidence was provided one way or another by the person who made the claim.

Yet you call this prudent course of action and stance a logical fallacy? I'm failing to see your logic at doing so. Please explain in detail.

It's a logical fallacy because you have no evidence of anything one way or another but you're assuming that it went towards the situation that best benefits your preferred narrative. If you have evidence, bring it forward, if not, then you have nothing to substantiate the claim that they were "scrubbed".
 
And there in lies the significant problem with her becoming president. We've already had one administration with a liar in chief, why would we want another?

Because deep down (and I'm only speculating here) half the country LIKES being lied to.
 
Not evidence that they were scrubbed or that they weren't scrubbed. Try harder.



What is fair and prudent is irrelevant to this discussion. A claim was made, evidence was asked to substantiate it. No evidence was provided one way or another by the person who made the claim.



It's a logical fallacy because you have no evidence of anything one way or another but you're assuming that it went towards the situation that best benefits your preferred narrative. If you have evidence, bring it forward, if not, then you have nothing to substantiate the claim that they were "scrubbed".

The mere fact that they were stored outside of the prescribed, government controlled and managed storage facility is sufficient reason to distrust their completeness and integrity without some sort of verification first. These government owned documents were outside of the control of the government, the chain of custody was broken the moment those emails left the government network, so their accuracy and integrity cannot be validated without some sort of testing / validation procedure that proves they still have their original integrity.

Come on man. Else any criminal could write up and post date a doctors note as proof of something and the court would have to accept it. That's not how it works.
 
Because deep down (and I'm only speculating here) half the country LIKES being lied to.

There's a difference between 'white lies' and 'lies for political gain', and there in lies the difference.

Sure, people don't mind the 'white lies' all that much, call it social grease that's needed on occasion. The other ones, the lies for political gain. I don't anyone likes them.
 
The mere fact that they were stored outside of the prescribed, government controlled and managed storage facility

Means nothing one way or another in terms of validating the claim that they've been "scrubbed". If you want to claim that they were "scrubbed" like clownboy did, I welcome you to bring forward your evidence. I'm not a fan of useless conjecture.
 
You do know that she would have been allowed to use her personal email for emergencies, right? So even if she had used a state department email address for the bulk of her communications, would you have accused her of using her personal email for all the nefarious stuff?

If there is a failure of the Federal mail server she is "allowed" to use a private account for non-privileged state business AND immediately make a paper copy and submit it to the federal archive. Since she just turned over 55k emails it's clear even that rule wasn't followed. Don't play this game with me, I do this for a living. There is no possible way that a private server in your own home is within the laws narrow allowances.

She has a misdemeanor potentially in holding classified data on a private computer (what Petraeus is charged with) and a FELONY of hiding and/or destroying federal documents. That she did not turn these emails over on the previous 7 requests from Congress is pretty clearly hiding federal documents, and if it is determined that she has deleted any emails from that server then she also destroyed federal documents.

Could she just be monumentally stupid and not entirely crooked? Maybe. But then that is why YOU USE FEDERAL FREAKING SERVERS instead of a bullsh** homebrew mail server in your f-ing basement.
 
Back
Top Bottom