New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

It's funny how she is a 'shameless liar' when Trump's lie actually incriminates thousands of innocent people. That isn't 'shameless' to them... hence racial bias... not overt, but still racist tendencies. They feel absolutely NO SYMPATHY for the lie that incriminated all Muslims in Jersey city.


Ohh.. but it was a 'embellishment'.. Yes, falsifying the numbers from 5-10 men on a roof to thousands upon thousands is just a mere 'embellishment'. Go and and keep on using silly euphemisms to justify his disgusting lie.

 

Except you have to stretch yours. Hillary straight up lied. As in, asked question, gave explicitly false statement. For a year. To Congress. And the Press.

Trump hasn't lied in that fashion, he's made exuberant campaign generalizations, sure. Offensive, sure. But again -- his insult on some New Jersey Muslims vs Hillary's bold faced lying in regards to a very serious matter...on that matter, I find Hillary's more concerning.

Racial bias? I don't agree with you, so it must be my race.

 

How is making up 9990 people in thin air celebrating 9/11 in Jersey city not an explicit lie?

You really are hooked on this arbitrary debate of 'lie vs embellishment' just so you can overlook that his 'embellishment' actually created hatred towards innocent people while Hilary's mismanagement of emails and lies to cover up said mismanagement have done what exactly to this country?

 

No, the argument boils down to...

In the most recent example of behavior similar to Hillary Clinton's treatment of email, more than 700 times as many emails were deleted from an unsecured private email server than Hillary deleted. In that previous instance, there were zero investigations, zero indictments, and zero prosecutions. Despite the fact that partisans gnashed their teeth over the affair, nothing criminal happened, so nobody was prosecuted for criminal behavior.

Given that, it doesn't make any sense at all to prosecute Hillary Clinton since there simply isn't enough evidence to convict her (which is basically what Comey's statement boils down to).

No, there are people who believe in equal treatment under the law and Clinton is being treated the same as people who engaged in much more egregious behavior regarding email.

 

You are incorrect as always, Gladio. Deleting emails was only a small portion of the equation. She mishandled classified information. Should I go and find you a whole list of people who have done this and have been punished? Most of the ones you have alluded to are no longer in office. They are not running for the top office of this country.

Either way, at what point do we start holding people who (willfully) ignore their responsibilities to protect state secrets? When they are Republicans?

 

Your sense of outrage appears to be limited only to people (or more precisely, the one person) running for the top office of this country. So previous Secretary of States and other office holders weren't deserving of the same sense of outrage.

Seems your outrage is more connected to this political race. So are you sure its not just because she is a Democrat?

 

Given that it is you saying this, I'll take it as evidence that I'm absolutely correct.

The difference, of course, is that we don't know if Bush et. al. mishandled classified information because they just deleted everything. Powell sent and received classified information using an account and a server over which neither he nor the government had any control at all.

Deleting emails was only a small portion of the equation, the biggest component was the biased partisanship of those who ran the investigation.

Sure, list every single Secretary of State who has ever been punished for similar behavior.

No, they WERE the people in the top offices of this country, did things that were much more egregious, and weren't even investigated, much less indicted.

At the point where there is enough evidence to prosecute.

No, the Republicans who did much worse didn't even get investigated, which should be your first clue that this is nothing more than (yet another) partisan witch hunt.

 

This is exactly the reason.

 

Previous SOS didn't do what Hillary did. Having a private server isn't illegal and totally within State Department rules. Colin Powell wasn't attempting to hide information, nor did he lie about it afterwards. The policies were just being established in regard to personal servers. Hillary having a server isn't the big deal. Hillary trying to keep that server a secret from even President Obama while she used it to pass along confidential information is what's so important here. Then she lied about it over and over again.

Are Republicans going after her more strongly because she is the Democrat nominee...well, yah, it's still politics, but that doesn't mean her actions weren't extremely alarming. It couldn't have come at a worse time, IMO because I can't trust Hillary and I can't trust Trump. So now I have to decide do I vote for an a-hole, a habitual liar, or a stoner?

I understand that the first reaction is to assume partisanship. But really and truly, that's not where I am coming from personally. I might have voted for Hillary to avoid a Trump presidency had she not been a colossal failure as SOS.

Pointing to other administrations and saying "we don't know what they could have possibly done," doesn't absolve Hillary of her reckless behavior, nor does it absolve her lying to the people or potentially Congress.

Oh and Fchowd, I like how you pull the number "9990" out, since there are about 10,000 NJ Muslims and Trump said "thousands" therefore 9990 technically fits into the "thousands" quota. Good spin. A generic campaign statement about NJ Muslims celebrating 9/11 vs actual mishandling of classified information while the top dog and then lying about it. Yah I'm still going with Hillary in terms of recklessness here. But that's probably because I'm a racist, right?

 

You should feel free to go back and read my position on this.

Your logic is that there never was precedence so therefore nobody should be held accountable. This is incorrect.

I understand you do not understand the seriousness of the issue at hand as most Americans do not either...and this is what Clinton is hedging on. When an individual goes through the process of getting a security clearance from the government, all of this is very clearly explained. And this not like a drivers license where once received, you forget about it for a decade until you need to renew. There is NO excuse.

In 2010 when Private Manning dumped all the info to Wikileaks, InfoSec was overhauled and revamped. One no longer gets "lol ooppsie, silly me. I didn't know that" or "my predecessor did it, so I thought I could do it".

That said, I never suggested Clinton should be turned into a criminal for what she did. What I fully support is her security clearance being revoked.

 

Why not get more specific? Every SOS who has ever been punished who worked under Obama and had the initials HRC? The position does not matter.

Allegations. Where is your proof? Are you back on the Cheney war profiteering spin? Or Bush orchestrating 9/11?

Clearly no amount of evidence would support prosecution to you.

 

Hmm... what I believe you fully support is for Hillary to not become President. The rest is just the latest in a line of stories why...

 

Nope... Nope...

Not going to let you change Trump's language with lies.

He stated "THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS".


Not "Thousands"

A 'few thousand' would suggest 3000 or less.

'Several thousand' would suggest more than 2 thousand but not many

'Thousands UPON thousands' suggests a number far beyond a mere 'few' thousand, so yes, TEN THOUSAND is a reasonable assumption and in fact a LOW ESTIMATE for the phrase 'THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS', and since Trump has MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of supporters who believe his word to be credible, they will hang on to that 'thousands upon thousands' quantity as pretty much the entire Muslim population of Jersey city as Jersey city has only 10,000 Muslims.

So stop with your little **** euphemisms. Trump lies to SPREAD HATE. Hilary lies to cover her ass. Lying to spread hate is more MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE than to save your own skin.

Honestly, you should have ceased debating me a long time ago. You failed on your assertion that you could find Muslim America celebrating 9/11 on video 'easily' because you believed that there was significant enough amount of Muslim Americans that are terrorist sympathizers. You were THOROUGHLY debunked and now you are trying to whitewash someone who incriminated an entire city's population of Muslims... disgusting. You honestly should be ashamed to equate that to mismanaging ****ing servers and lying to cover it up.

 

argumentum ad absurdum

You don't get more specific because you should be trying to compare apples to apples.

Right back at you for your logical fallacy.

Yes, the position matters. The circumstances matter. The fact that they couldn't find enough evidence to warrant a reasonable prosecution matters.

No, the fact that Powell and Rice both used private email, Powell's wasn't even under his or any government office's control in any way. Bush and Cheney used private email and deleted over 20 million emails so that there wouldn't be any way to determine if they ever sent classified information.

I'm comparing apples to apples, which you can't do because such comparisons inevitably reach the conclusion that a prosecution isn't warranted in Clinton's case.

Right back at you for your straw man fallacy.

Not true in the least. If the FBI director had recommended an indictment, I would be fully on board with prosecuting Clinton to the fullest extent of the law. The FBI determined that there was almost no chance that there was enough evidence to warrant even an indictment.

 

Yes, because you're a biased partisan.

 

No, any unbiased person would want her security clearance revoked. The only people supporting Hillary on this are those who are biased partisans. If she were just a random person, she'd have been indicted for her crimes.....so revoking a security clearance is obvious. In fact, Bill Clinton's clearance should be revoked as well due to his connection to Hillary. That's how things usually work when politics isn't involved.

 

Bennnnnnnngggggggggghhhaaazzzi!

Whitewater!

The Clinton Foundation!

Honestly, most people really don't care.

The Republicans will eventually figure it out...... no they wont, it has been over 20 years.