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

@dandorotik the bush administration deleted like 22 million emails. Not sure if that qualifies as a lot. Would you say it's a plethora?

 

Please just get this thing over with

 

Flawed logic.....

Any reasonable person with that job wouldn't have set up a private server like she did. She lost her right to privacy based on her own decision to hide her government related email mixing it with personal and charity email. I run a charity myself. I have charity email, personal email and my employer email. To avoid conflict of interest and or in an effort to not mislead / confuse the recipient of an email from me, i separate the three forms of communication. It's unprofessional to mix the accounts and grounds for termination with possible legal actions taken by your employer against you.

Abedin is now claiming she doesn't know how government email wound up on Weiner World's Laptop. That guy has likely been surfing every p*rn site on the net and clicked on thousands of phishing links. It's been reported that her lawyers did not review this laptop which means they didn't have time to delete stuff off it. This is the kind of stuff that happens when you don't follow rules and I don't feel sorry for Clinton and her minions.

 

The 22M Bush WH emails were later found (during Obama first term). They were previously lost because they were "mishandled" and "mislabeled". Maybe that was an honest mistake, or some may think they did it on purpose. But the Bush WH did also use non-government email server and they knowingly did it to control which emails go where and to protect their political and private emails from being archive and made public. At least that's what they stated, but it was found they used it for official government works.

Historic context - the Clinton WH installed an email system that automatically archive all official emails (as required by laws that took event during Rea ) and any attempt at deleting was flagged. The Bush WH knowingly decided to not use that system, but instead use private email server from the RNC.

This was first known when the Bush WH said they cannot turn over requested email during Congressional investigation into firing of attorney generals, because they were lost on private email server maintained by the RNC.

 

Don't forget the time he predicted 9/11.. down to the individual behind it: Osama Bin Laden

Trump is the modern day Nostradamus

 

The Bush/Clinton families are very similar.

There is some elitist views in play.

GW was a decent human being much like Bill.

 

The democrats response to this has been completely laughable. They're clinging to Comey acting independently of Loretta Lynch. Loretta Lynch simply cannot be trusted and has zero credibility. She lost it when she got busted having the secret meeting with Bill Clinton at the airport. Much like the "Russian response" to deflect the wikileaks content, this is another smoke screen they're trying hard to push. It's so transparent.

 

You missed the entire point. That comment was an "if"- my primary point, of course, was that it's ridiculous for him to criticize the response considering what the alternative was. That's the problem with people who let partisanship affect their reason. It is a reasonable response from her- just like in Trump's situation. But, whatever.

 

Well, in the private sector, what Comey did was an offense worthy of termination. Ask any COO what they would do if their SVP of Operations acted as Comey did. Very telling that you approve of this behavior- what we say reveals who we are.

BTW, as an adult (I'm assuming you already graduated from high school), using a phrase such as "The democrats response to this..." is an example of a fallacy of composition. Since not all Democrats are "clinging" to the notion you suggest, might I recommend that you brush up on your rhetorical skills and avoid logical fallacies in your responses? ClutchFans thanks you.

 

The more I read about this situation the less serious it appears to actually be. It's possible that these emails might just be duplicates of ones that were already in the FBI possession. At the moment there really isn't enough info about them to be definitive.

That doesn't mean that they won't have a possible effect on the election as perception in these cases is usually more powerful than what the actual material is. I still think that most people have already factored in Clinton's emails.

 

Anyone find it funny how the Clinton camp is pushing that these emails "May be duplicates"

wtf are you talking about "may be duplicates"

According to you guys, you turned everything over so how is it that they "may be duplicates"

odd term of language they are using I must say...


I'm hearing this is big news.. Files inside encrypted folder marked "Life Insurance"
Clinton camp is pushing that they release the emails and msm saying they need to get through these emails asap all awhile knowings its not possible because 1. they are trying to secure a warrant to see the emails since they are encrypted and 2. They may contain classified information.

3 cases colliding and tie'ing into one another with three separate divisions working on it

The division investigating Wieners child p*rn case
The division investigating the Clinton global initiative (CGI)
The division investigating the Clinton emails

NYPD working with FBI

 

This isn't the private sector. He is director of the FBI he can do what he wants. If he gets fired he can get a cushy job as a partner at a law firm making millions of dollars. If I were him I would have gone into her office and told her to go f herself. I don't know why Hillary doesn't just release the emails. There is probably some embarrassing things in there, but most of her voters won't care. She has enough of the demographics covered where it wouldn't really matter. Trump is trying to win an election on white men. It just isn't a winning strategy. There just aren't enough of them to win an election.

 

Except it's not unprecedented at all. I can name at least 5 instances

for crying out loud this even happened when Ronald Reagan's defense secretary was indicted 4 days before the 1992 election that was a giant bombshell on George Bush Sr.

 

You seem awfully certain about what is in those emails when no one knows for sure.

 

An indictment is different from stating that "we are reviewing emails." The FBI and DOJ have always had a policy of announcing indictments regardless of when it is in relation to an election. However, announcing details around investigations are not the same and there is a separate protocol for that which dates back several decades. Comey breached standard protocol, I dont think anyone can argue otherwise.

 

Kinda could say is the new if, I guess. Saying she could say that is flawed logic unless you are saying she could say that continue to provide a bogus excuse.

 

Some high quality Lubbock Logic flowing in here! Let me ask you this - if a Nazi superior asked a subordinate to gas 1,000 Jews, would you advocate that the subordinate simply follow orders, or rather act independently? Oops your sorry logic just got blown to bits.

Lynch has zero credibility. She would have acted politically to protect Hillary, as evidenced by her private, clandestine meeting with Hillary's husband.

 

New poll: 34 percent 'less likely' to vote for Clinton after new email revelations

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-for-clinton-after-new-email-revelations.html

 

Assume I turn over every email I have ever sent out. Now, 6 months later, they find some email I sent on your computer. You still can't see how they might be duplicates?

 

First of all, Snide Piper, I don't live in Lubbock anymore- I live in The Woodlands. Second, the meeting wasn't secret with Clinton- that is what "clandestine" means - third- you're using the analogy of gassing Jews to this situation??? Really??? To answer your question, no I would expect him to act independently.

But here's another analogy, let's say I go to Clutch and say, "Clutch, I really would like to post that BigTexxx is a c**t. Because that is the most appropriate description for him. Can I do it?" Clutch says, "No, or you will be banned." I then decide that I have to act independently and call you a c**t. Now, when Clutch sees that I called you a c**t, he will ban me because he told me not to call you a c**t, but I called you a c**t anyway, so I went against the rules of the board, and so I was rightfully banned for calling you a c**t.

That is just a what-if scenario, of course.

(BTW, even though I don't live in Lubbock, again, "Lubbock Logic" shows your penchant to stereotype. Weak, sir. I thought you were above that intellectually, but apparently you can't help yourself. Such as when you refer to "the blacks." Methinks that's not too nice.)