Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Immunity Deals for Clinton Email Cohorts

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,537
This was written by Lea Grover;


1. Hillary Clinton shared state secrets through her private email server.
In short, no, this isn’t true. But it is complicated.

One thing that sucks about being secretary of state (or president, for that matter) is that your job literally runs 24/7. Of course, you can’t be in the office around the clock. So every secretary of state since the smartphone became accessible has had one. Colin Powell had one. Condoleezza Rice had one. And they all used them to keep doing their job after the office was closed for the day. And all of them used unsecured servers, because all of them took their Blackberries home, in order to answer emails with state department employees and dignitaries abroad in different time zones.

What made Hillary Clinton’s different from her predecessors was that she knew it was insecure. In fact, she asked the NSA to give her a secure server, just to be on the safe side. And the NSA said no. They weren’t set up for things like that, and they didn’t want to take the time, so they told her it would be fine. Hillary Clinton wasn’t so sure, though. In a time when information hacks of the U.S. government by China, Russia, and other potential threats were becoming increasingly present threats, Hillary Clinton decided not to use the State Department server and decided instead to use the server the Secret Service set up for her husband after he left the White House. This is a secure server, it’s just not the same secure server. And while the State Department was hacked, Hillary’s private server wasn’t. So what the question boiled down to is “Was Hillary Clinton committing a crime?”

After millions and millions of our tax dollars were spent trying to answer this question, the answer was no. She didn’t commit a crime. But it was improper to unilaterally decide to use her own server when no other government agency signed off on it.
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,703

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,050
Arkie - sorry, you/that author is wrong about others 'setting up servers'. Colin Powell has cleared this up himself and via his own leaked emails.

...He did write former Secretary Clinton an email memo describing his use of his personal AOL email account for unclassified messages and how it vastly improved communications within the State Department. At the time there was no equivalent system within the Department. He used a secure State computer on his desk to manage classified information."
and

A State Department inspector general report stated in May that Powell and other senior officials used personal email accounts for official business, but by 2009 the rules had been clarified that acting in such a manner had been determined dangerous because of “significant security risks.”
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8509/colin-powell-no-i-never-told-hillary-set-private-hank-berrien#
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,488
I have to say, it cracks me up to see people who go on and on about Hillary's server, for which she was investigated for, apologized for, learned from, and said if she could go back in time, would do differently, supporting (sorry, not supporting, just endlessly defending) a man who:

a) is an apologist for and very possibly has deep financial ties to dictators who may be trying to influence our election
b) has, numerous times, asked "why do we have nuclear weapons if we can't use them?"
c) is completely ignorant on foreign policy and cybersecurity in general

...because this really isn't about security issues for you.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
The people who have concerns about Hillary and her deceptive practices also have concerns about the Donald. We just don't need to start threads about it because their are enough already, started by some Hillary supporters who seem to have no issue with her inability to tell the truth.

It is deeply troubling to me that Mills was given immunity.

Edited to add "some" supporters because I know there are a few here who have an issue with her. Corrected name.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,050
E B|1475162368|4081984 said:
I have to say, it cracks me up to see people who go on and on about Hillary's server, for which she was investigated for, apologized for, learned from, and said if she could go back in time, would do differently, supporting (sorry, not supporting, just endlessly defending) a man who:

a) is an apologist for and very possibly has deep financial ties to dictators who may be trying to influence our election
b) has, numerous times, asked "why do we have nuclear weapons if we can't use them?"
c) is completely ignorant on foreign policy and cybersecurity in general

...because this really isn't about security issues for you.
IMO, her apology is not worth her back-pocket-MSM-airwaves it crossed, given the repeated lies she told the public pertaining to this topic, followed by the blatantly-obvious cover-up measures by her staff once she was essentially outed for the server. And as someone who wore the uniform, who has worked for our government, it IS about security for me! When part of your job entails ensuring the security of others' lives, you better make damn sure you are going above & beyond to ensure their safety, and following the letter of the law/policy when doing so.

A) she is also an apologist who accepts money/donations from countries who treat women and gays horribly!
B) she asked "what difference does it make" when talking about human lives lost who relied on HER State Department and our government for security and assistance while representing HER department.
C) really? given HER own ignorance of classified materials handling and cybersecurity risks with her home-brew server, AS A LAWYER! And fwiw, I thought she handed Trump his azz in Monday's debate, but one point he made was correct - all her foreign policy "experience" doesn't amount to a hill of beans when the results are failures.

:wavey: $0.02
 

ruby59

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
3,553
E B|1475162368|4081984 said:
I have to say, it cracks me up to see people who go on and on about Hillary's server, for which she was investigated for, apologized for, learned from, and said if she could go back in time, would do differently, supporting (sorry, not supporting, just endlessly defending) a man who:

a) is an apologist for and very possibly has deep financial ties to dictators who may be trying to influence our election
b) has, numerous times, asked "why do we have nuclear weapons if we can't use them?"
c) is completely ignorant on foreign policy and cybersecurity in general

...because this really isn't about security issues for you.

At the end of the day of who has a potty mouth or who slept with whom, the bolded statement is what terrifies me.
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,488
Jenn, we can go 'round and 'round with Clinton vs. Trump on security issues, or their charitable foundations. But when you claim, straight-faced (I assume) that all of MSM is in the tank for Hillary, or that she carelessly said "what difference does it make" about the lives lost in Benghazi without the very important context behind the answer, there's really no point. It all comes from the place that also erroneously claims Hillary slept through the Benghazi attacks (remember that?), and I'm done playing Snopes.

I just can't understand supporting Trump in all of his ignorance of foreign policy and government in general, claiming he knows "more about ISIS than the generals," saying he wouldn't hesitate to start a war over a rude gesture, and because it can't be repeated enough, asked REPEATEDLY why we have nuclear weapons if we aren't supposed to use them if you're truly worried about this nation's security.

Even if I go along with the whole "Hillary is corrupt to her core" narrative (which I think is a load of bunk), I'll take corrupt but knowledgable and steady over corrupt, ignorant, and reactive any day. And, like it or not, it'll be one of these two at the helm.
 

AnnaH

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,226
Not worried that either candidate will hit the nuclear button, however, HRC is more hawkish than Trump.
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,488
AnnaH|1475182738|4082151 said:
Not worried that either candidate will hit the nuclear button, however, HRC is more hawkish than Trump.
How so? I'm all ears, honestly. He is on the record as being for both the war in Iraq and intervention in Libya. He also, on the debate stage Monday, advocated commission of a war crime. On live TV!
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
10,537
AnnaH|1475183870|4082162 said:
an op-ed is supposed to suffice as "proof" that HRC is more "hawkish"?

The op-ed is just silly, particularly because the author seems to ignore that Trump is a liar. Like this part:

The prime example of commander-in-chief judgment Trump offers is the fact that, like Obama, he thought the invasion of Iraq was a stupid idea.

He can sound belligerent, of course, saying that he would bomb the expletive-deleted out of ISIS and that he would think up new and imaginative ways to torture terrorists and kill their families.

But he says that in most cases he would rather do the art of the deal than shock and awe.
The fact that Trump didn't come out against the war before it started (no matter how much he'd like to claim he did) is relatively well known. Just because an op-ed author decided that somehow HRC is more "manly" than Trump in certain ways does not back up your point with any facts.
 

AnnaH

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,226
Just because the author used humor doesn't mean he's wrong. There's plenty of info out there. Do you really think Hillary is the dove and Don the hawk?
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,488
AnnaH|1475183870|4082162 said:
Ok, so it's the NYTimes, but it's still Maureen Dowd. Barely counts. :cheeky: (Kidding, of course.)

The problem is that it makes a lot of assumptions about a man who can't be held accountable to any promise or view. He is very easy to poke and incredibly reactive. He also leads a base who is much more war-positive than Hillary's is. The article also states in his favor that he claims was against the war in Iraq as Obama was, which is false. He was against long after it'd started, but is on record saying he was for before. People can argue whether or not it was an enthusiastic yes, but it was still a yes. And it was a very enthusiastic yes on Libya.

His general unpredictability is scary, in this area the most.
 

AnnaH

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,226
That's what's so ironic. The right led by a dove and the left by a hawk.
Recently Donald was criticized for saying he would never make the first nuclear strike. The left said the president should never take that off the table.
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,703
AnnaH|1475183870|4082162 said:
just because it's an opinion piece in the NY Times doesn't make it liberal, Dowd is a notorious conservative in my book, I saw her interviewed on PBS News Hour last night... Trump a hawk, does building a wall, all that anger he throws around doesn't give me touchy feely hawkishness.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/29/the-daily-show-digs-up-creepy-clip-of-trump-defending-statutory-rape.html

ETA: Anna I've commented on your new ring on the thread - but can I say again, it is AWESOME!! it's beautiful!!
 

AnnaH

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,226
Just because Dowd isn't left doesn't mean she should be dismissed.

T, I haven't posted anything; must be another Anna. Wish it were me.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,050
E B|1475181267|4082143 said:
Jenn, we can go 'round and 'round with Clinton vs. Trump on security issues, or their charitable foundations. But when you claim, straight-faced (I assume) that all of MSM is in the tank for Hillary, or that she carelessly said "what difference does it make" about the lives lost in Benghazi without the very important context behind the answer, there's really no point. It all comes from the place that also erroneously claims Hillary slept through the Benghazi attacks (remember that?), and I'm done playing Snopes.

I just can't understand supporting Trump in all of his ignorance of foreign policy and government in general, claiming he knows "more about ISIS than the generals," saying he wouldn't hesitate to start a war over a rude gesture, and because it can't be repeated enough, asked REPEATEDLY why we have nuclear weapons if we aren't supposed to use them if you're truly worried about this nation's security.

Even if I go along with the whole "Hillary is corrupt to her core" narrative (which I think is a load of bunk), I'll take corrupt but knowledgable and steady over corrupt, ignorant, and reactive any day. And, like it or not, it'll be one of these two at the helm.
You really need to stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say; it's just discredits yourself. No one is forcing you to be a forum fact checker, so feel free to relinquish the duty. And you didn't post any more context with your list of "Chump-isms". You cherry pick some "anti-Trump talking points", casting Hillary in some angelic light (which is laughable), and when the thread is leveled with her own Chump-like behavior (WHILE A PUBLIC SERVANT, mind you) whoa ... it's time to bring out the daggers and defend the "dem's darling". :roll:

And I am really starting to think there are some reading comprehension issues on these political threads. Stating an opinion about one candidate does NOT make one in its opponent's camp. I just tire of such biased, one-sided drivel poured out over someone who claims to be for everything her record and actions stand in stark contrast to. And you and others do a great job of slamming Chump already. I think they are both clowns ... liars ... cheats ... and the list could go on.

Or am I not entitled to an opinion because I am a conservative ... a minority in these parts. Hmm ... so much for equality. :roll:
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,590
JoCoJenn|1475197148|4082247 said:
Or am I not entitled to an opinion because I am a conservative ... a minority in these parts. Hmm ... so much for equality. :roll:
:shhh: ..don't say it too loud... :lol:
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
Dancing Fire|1475198799|4082256 said:
JoCoJenn|1475197148|4082247 said:
Or am I not entitled to an opinion because I am a conservative ... a minority in these parts. Hmm ... so much for equality. :roll:
:shhh: ..don't say it too loud... :lol:
I don't give a hang who knows. In fact it's pretty obvious. ;))
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,590
redwood66|1475199055|4082257 said:
Dancing Fire|1475198799|4082256 said:
JoCoJenn|1475197148|4082247 said:
Or am I not entitled to an opinion because I am a conservative ... a minority in these parts. Hmm ... so much for equality. :roll:
:shhh: ..don't say it too loud... :lol:
I don't give a hang who knows. In fact it's pretty obvious. ;))
You're the minority party leader here... :lol:
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
Dancing Fire|1475199538|4082260 said:
redwood66|1475199055|4082257 said:
Dancing Fire|1475198799|4082256 said:
JoCoJenn|1475197148|4082247 said:
Or am I not entitled to an opinion because I am a conservative ... a minority in these parts. Hmm ... so much for equality. :roll:
:shhh: ..don't say it too loud... :lol:
I don't give a hang who knows. In fact it's pretty obvious. ;))
You're the minority party leader here... :lol:
LOL. I can't be because I come and go too much. That would require too much dedication and I don't have it. :) Maybe AnnaH or JCJ.
 

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,537
No-one in the US has been elected president in more than 60 years without experience as a governor or in Congress. It's ironic that everyone says how bad Hillary is, the thing is Trump I believe will break a heap of protocols if elected president and be many many times worse than she ever will be, he will be doing things that will be worse than unsecured emails and things that will be worse than Benghazi..... People think that he will somehow be the saviour of your flailing economy, I think he is going to help himself and his rich pals by support big business and he has a track record in his business dealings of ripping off his own staff, not giving a [email protected]#* about the little people or ordinary people and walking away from his own financial mismanagement. And I shudder to think how much diplomacy he lacks when it comes to both International relations and also on many domestic issues. Assuming his minders are going to keep him in line I think is a flawed way of thinking.

Sometimes when you have two candidates that suck, it's not a matter of throwing up your hands and saying I just can't vote for Hillary or I don't like anyone so therefore I am not going to vote, it's about realising someone with the brains of Kim Kardashian shouldn't be running for the leader of the free world let alone elected into office. I don't buy the line of thinking that he won't be that bad. It will be like Brexit, if he is elected then and only then will some of you get to see how much worse it can really get.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
And yet some feel that they cannot cast a vote for either because they are both soooo bad. The shaming that goes on by some here when someone says they are not going to vote or maybe even vote for Trump is disgusting. Accept that it is someone's right and move on. If Hillary supporters have not changed someone's mind by now then it likely will not happen. Frankly I have just accepted that my opinion is not popular and I don't really care one whit. Shame away because my shoulders are broad and I have taken much worse. Some are at least respectful about their opinion and can have a conversation without turning into a keyboard warrior and I appreciate every debate. Others not so much. I do notice that some people who have a negative opinion about Trump will attack another poster personally. Some people who do not share my views I still count as online friends because they have shown genuinely care about people including me.

Such is the reality of forums. I am a member of another forum that would turn some people here purple, much like kenny's other forums I think. :lol:
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,488
JoCoJenn|1475197148|4082247 said:
You really need to stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say; it's just discredits yourself. No one is forcing you to be a forum fact checker, so feel free to relinquish the duty. And you didn't post any more context with your list of "Chump-isms". You cherry pick some "anti-Trump talking points", casting Hillary in some angelic light (which is laughable), and when the thread is leveled with her own Chump-like behavior (WHILE A PUBLIC SERVANT, mind you) whoa ... it's time to bring out the daggers and defend the "dem's darling". :roll:

And I am really starting to think there are some reading comprehension issues on these political threads. Stating an opinion about one candidate does NOT make one in its opponent's camp. I just tire of such biased, one-sided drivel poured out over someone who claims to be for everything her record and actions stand in stark contrast to. And you and others do a great job of slamming Chump already. I think they are both clowns ... liars ... cheats ... and the list could go on.

Or am I not entitled to an opinion because I am a conservative ... a minority in these parts. Hmm ... so much for equality. :roll:
Whoa, whoa, whoa. First, the only words I may have put into your mouth is that you are a Trump supporter, and for that, I apologize. I was too quick to jump to that conclusion. In my defense, it seems like many of the (vocal) conservatives jump to defending Trump or berating Hillary on an anti-Trump thread as some sort of odd reflex if one isn't actually a Trump supporter. What's the point? Let's all just agree he's a *insert colorful descriptor here.*

That said, no one is casting Hillary in some angelic light. But when you're faced with two options, she comes out the better smelling rose a vast majority of the time. That doesn't make her a dem darling in the slightest, as is obvious by how tight this race is, and how long it's taken many liberal supporters to embrace her after the primaries.
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Handmade diamond studs
    Handmade diamond studs
    5 Diamond Misconceptions: Part 1
    5 Diamond Misconceptions: Part 1
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top