Hillary Clinton's Private E-Mail Draws Scrutiny

[nobodythank you]

I seriously do not know how to respond to this.

You wrote a bunch of words and opinions that are not supported by the facts of the investigation and impeachment proceedings.

Didn't Hillary come out and say that previous SECSTATEs had used personal emails to conduct official business? Is that where you're going with the idea that everybody in DC is whoring around?

Hyde prosecuted Clinton's impeachment because he was the Chairman of the Judiciary committee. If he had moral indiscretions, he did not make false statements, did not conspire to have others do the same, he did not pay just under $1 mil to any victim, and he did not lose his license to practice law.

Justify his actions all you want. I personally don't care what he did with whom. The bottom line is he broke the law, the House, as a body, agreed the he broke two laws however, the Senate did not think his lying and obstruction presented a clear and present danger to the peoples' liberties so they acquitted.

He, like Hillary, had the chance to "call their shots" and own it yet in typical Clinton fashion, they lie, accuse, and bomb Serbia.

Bravo, good job attempting to dismiss or belittle my argument with the appearance of supposition and ignorance. Let us use our analytical and comprehension skills when reading over facts from the investigation and proceedings.

The larger issue for hillary is her distribution of classified materials and the destruction of evidence. Previous SECSTATEs have not been investigated for distribution of classified material AND have not impeded any investigation by destroying evidence. However, as previous SECSTATE Colin Powell correctly stated "The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't...If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share." As to using a personal email to conduct business, that is likely a protocol or policy violation that does not meet the same level of damage as the distribution of classified materials.

What was the origin of the investigation? His activities with an intern. Were his activities a threat to national security or did they impair his ability to govern? Obviously not as the investigation was centered on his false statements. It is also fact that Hyde had moral indiscretions (which is relevant to the discussion) as he admitted to them later. Which is irrelevant to the clinton investigation, but shows an alarming bit of hypocrisy. We can come up with any bullshit investigation to ask questions and go after someone for lying about being asked. Similar to the example I provided earlier of stopping someone for a tag light in order to fish for a reason to arrest. Legal yes, but a waste of time that borders on the unethical.

Nowhere in any of my posts did I even attempt to justify his actions. I despise the clintons and everything they stand for. However, I also despise my former party because they chose poorly in their desire to discredit the then President, and therefore caused the party to be in the state of affairs it is in today.

 

[Il Duce]

@ke4gde - on a different thread many months ago you once blasted me for pigeon-holing you as a conservative. You said something to the effect that you have opinions that are critical of both parties. I will admit, I did not believe you. I figured hatred/love of one ideology drove your opinions as it does for most (and I'm ashamed to say at times my own). I was wrong. You were right.

 

[nobodythank you]

@ke4gde - on a different thread many months ago you once blasted me for pigeon-holing you as a conservative. You said something to the effect that you have opinions that are critical of both parties. I will admit, I did not believe you. I figured hatred/love of one ideology drove your opinions as it does for most (and I'm ashamed to say at times my own). I was wrong. You were right.

Thank you. You honor me with your words. I appreciate the lively debates we engage in as they help me to grow.

 

[nobodythank you]

I see what you're saying. I have less tolerance for Presidential indiscretions, especially when the Oval Office--which belongs to the people--is used as a fuck chamber by the First Executive. Other Presidents may have had their concubines, but that doesn't make it right. My opinion is that if a man will lie to and betray his own family, he's not going to think twice about lying to and betraying strangers...in this case the American people. Okay, so it's not Murder One...but my point is still that any flak aimed at the Clintons, whether chicken shit or something of substance, will be denigrated to nothing more than partisan politics and because of their cushy relationship with the liberal media most of the lemmings will believe what they are told.

I can respect that feeling completely. Look, I don't think anyone should be using the O office (lol) as their personal conquest quarters. If it isn't right then it should not be accepted as the norm. However, mistakes are made as we are human. In that light, everyone should look inward and think about how they have dishonored themselves or their family at some point in their lives. There is not a man among us who has not done so at one point in their lives at the very least. Sometimes we are caught, other times we are not. In the end, most of us try to make amends and better ourselves through out deeds. It is how we learn to be better, and why we encourage our children to be better. That is one reason why it is never wise to judge another person for their infidelities.

You are correct in stating that the media and the worshipers will believe as they like. However, if I am going to make an argument for something, personally, I want to bring the strongest evidence to bear that is supported by fact and law. Morality is such a subjective area, that I feel we lose the force of our argument when we try to evoke our morality onto someone else. That is of course only my opinion with words unsupported by fact :-":troll:

 

[Brill]

@ke4gde, I wasn't trying to belittle your opinion (ok, maybe just a bit...ok, geez, a lot) but let my try to understand your position:

-Clinton's perjury charge "it means nothing in the legal system" and you cited several examples of such.

-The investigation was because he got hummer. "People eat, shit, fuck, and sleep. Even those in power."

My position is that a President lying under oath SHOULD be a big deal and the House agreed.

The the Lewinsky "affair" was actually part of a larger and ongoing investigation. Tripp's tapes were given to Starr, who was already appointed Independent Counsel by the DOJ for the Jones' civil suit and that line of inquiry begat the two charges because of Clinton's action during the investigation (1998) vice during the President's actions with Lewinsky in 1995.

I should have used the words condone vice justify as it appeared to me your position was that Hyde and others did/have done basically the same thing the most people do.

I disagree this was a waste: surely this and the email server will come up again. Hillary either ignored Bill's activity as well as her subordinates thereby demonstrating that she is aloof and incapable of knowing what's going on under her own roof OR she allowed it. If the latter, she was complicit or was powerless to stop it. In either case, it shows a HUGE character flaw. Shit is only going to get harder if she gets in the White House (pun intended???).

Regarding using personal email for Federal business (as well as its destruction), it is a violation of the Federal Records Act. It does not equate to mishandling classified material but yet it shows yet another Clinton character flaw (or tendency) that they actually believe they are above the law (when a Clinton does it, it's not illegal).

Bill's acquittal set precedence as will Hillary's if unindicted.

 

[nobodythank you]

@ke4gde, I wasn't trying to belittle your opinion (ok, maybe just a bit...ok, geez, a lot) but let my try to understand your position:

-Clinton's perjury charge "it means nothing in the legal system" and you cited several examples of such.

-The investigation was because he got hummer. "People eat, shit, fuck, and sleep. Even those in power."

My position is that a President lying under oath SHOULD be a big deal and the House agreed.

The the Lewinsky "affair" was actually part of a larger and ongoing investigation. Tripp's tapes were given to Starr, who was already appointed Independent Counsel by the DOJ for the Jones' civil suit and that line of inquiry begat the two charges because of Clinton's action during the investigation (1998) vice during the President's actions with Lewinsky in 1995.

I should have used the words condone vice justify as it appeared to me your position was that Hyde and others did/have done basically the same thing the most people do.

I disagree this was a waste: surely this and the email server will come up again. Hillary either ignored Bill's activity as well as her subordinates thereby demonstrating that she is aloof and incapable of knowing what's going on under her own roof OR she allowed it. If the latter, she was complicit or was powerless to stop it. In either case, it shows a HUGE character flaw. Shit is only going to get harder if she gets in the White House (pun intended???).

Regarding using personal email for Federal business (as well as its destruction), it is a violation of the Federal Records Act. It does not equate to mishandling classified material but yet it shows yet another Clinton character flaw (or tendency) that they actually believe they are above the law (when a Clinton does it, it's not illegal).

Bill's acquittal set precedence as will Hillary's if unindicted.

Well thanks for admitting as such. Theoretically, I agree that his lying under oath SHOULD be a big deal, but it is not because our own system has relegated that offense to misdemeanor joke status. Afterall, any cop in the nation can lose his credentials at ANY time for the simple act of lying during an official proceeding. That is of course not to say that we should make lying illegal (as it is not except in official proceedings), but there has to be some balance and common sense. From a legal standpoint, he should be in trouble for it and punished. That is under the assumption that partisan politics is ignored and the truth sought. However, that is not the world we live in (and that saddens me). It should be a big deal to everyone of all parties that he lied under oath, and not that he had his penile track vacuum tested. Which is why I still believe going after him was a long term mistake.

Worse yet is that we all pretty much know that hillary is going to likely get away with it unless someone radical, with little or not party ties (hint hint), gets into office and makes her answer for her crimes. Perhaps it is my distaste for the religious agenda/hypocrisy that is prevalent within the the Republican party that is biasing my outlook. Or it could be that I feel that the Republicans chose poorly, yet again, on which battles to fight. In any event, it set the stage for the current atmosphere of belief that hillary has done no wrong and is being persecuted by a large portion of the country (as is evidenced by her standing in the polls).

As for the records act, it is a violation, but in what context, criminal or civil? Mishandling classified data is the criminal fish to fry that will derail her political aspirations for good. Along with the whole clinton trio. Regardless, I look forward to the day (that likely will never come) where we can all lift our drinks in celebration, and continue to belittle each other a lot or a little

 

[Grunt]

Aren't y'all trying to say that a lying, perjuring, dirtbag should be held accountable regardless of their lot in life. Like one law for all...something like that....

 

[Brill]

In any event, it set the stage for the current atmosphere of belief that hillary has done no wrong and is being persecuted by a large portion of the country (as is evidenced by her standing in the polls).

As for the records act, it is a violation, but in what context, criminal or civil? Mishandling classified data is the criminal fish to fry that will derail her political aspirations for good.

I think the media isn't telling the entire story about WHY her email server is such a big deal (yoga routines???). Anyone who tries to explain is labeled as a "Trump"-er.

The Records Act falls under USC 44, which violations this gross, would result in firing but the destruction of work emails falls under destruction of Federal property and USC 18, which (this gross) felony charges.

I think they will pressure the little guys (IT staffers, DOS employees, etc) and seriously follow the money. This incident makes Nixon look like a saint.

 

[Red Flag 1]

For corrupt political "leadership" unfamiliar with these moral basics, I would start with consulting with top Doctors of Philosophy who concentrate on Moral Philosophy, specifically normative and applied ethics.

(But, you know, actual qualification and expertise in a specific field seem to account for less and less these days. Just look at the leading Republican POTUS candidate. )


The following would also be a fine starting point, IMO:

Marine Corps Leadership Traits

Video Form

I fully concur @DocIllinois; those seeking public office should have in their hearts and minds, pure ethic responsibility, and insight. Sadly we are talking about people who are, in some cases, already corrupted. They could care less about ethics, morals, or a sense of responsibility to those who have elected them to office. Words of wisdom from our greatest moralists, and ethical behavior experts would be found in a book rack in their john, if at all. Things can be turned around, and they should be. Debates for the highest office in our country is reduced to name calling, and backing up claims of everyone else lying. We have already seen that lying is accepted behavior; hell, it is nearly condoned in recent "debates". I am beginning to believe that the voting public today, has no idea of the issues facing our nation today. The candidates aren't helping all that much either. Debate winners today are the ones with the least amount of mud sticking on them at the end; and that is decided by the media.The words of the great thinkers will go unread by the voting public, watching the news on TV tells them all they need to know. The "reporters" are all well groomed, attractive to look at, and use big words. The talking heads they bring before other cameras, show just more of the same; and it takes all day. Who has time to read anything besides "People","Time", "Rolling Stone" and other such trusted publications ?

 

[ZmanTX]

I think the media isn't telling the entire story about WHY her email server is such a big deal (yoga routines???). Anyone who tries to explain is labeled as a "Trump"-er.

The Records Act falls under USC 44, which violations this gross, would result in firing but the destruction of work emails falls under destruction of Federal property and USC 18, which (this gross) felony charges.

I think they will pressure the little guys (IT staffers, DOS employees, etc) and seriously follow the money. This incident makes Nixon look like a saint.

Couldn't agree with you more. It's like CNN refuses to even acknowledge that it's an issue anymore. I think they hope everyone will forget about it. If it does come up it's simply brushed away as partisan politics.

 

[nobodythank you]

I don't think it's unfair to hold the President of the United States to a higher standard of morality. He is the principal representative of our nation, our heritage, our image. He is the living symbol of America. Is it that hard to be loyal to your family and keep your pants zipped for 4 years? Or 8? Clinton didn't stray morally, he wasn't making a mistake in judgement...he was hunting pussy like a teenage boy. He thought he was a rock star. He didn't give a shit about the respectability of the Office of the Presidency, he just wanted the fringe benefits. He loved partying with celebrities.

His wife, she's different. She's in love with Power. That's always been her weakness. Bill's obsessed with poontang, she's obsessed with raw power.

Higher standard of morality I disagree with. Only because we all have differing standards of morality. It is too ambiguous. Standards of conduct on the other hand can be clearly and objectively displayed. As to is it that hard to keep his pants zipped, I don't know. I am not in his shoes. Just like I wouldn't judge you or your decisions without knowing you or what you are doing. For all we know those two worked out an agreement and as long as he didn't get caught she didn't care. It isn't the strangest idea.

Don't misunderstand me, I am by no means excusing his actions, or justifying them. I also won't condemn the man for taking advantage of the perks of his position either. Like anything else in life, it has to be taken into context. I don't take offense to desiring to seek justice, I take offense at the motivations behind that pursuit.

 

[Kraut783]

Marilyn Monroe I can understand.....Monica, nope

 

[Ranger Psych]

Off my FB feed:

Bryan Pagliano, who helped set up Clinton's private email server when she was secretary of state, has been granted immunity by the DOJ and FBI to provide information to investigators.

Dun dun DUNNNNNNNNN

 

[AWP]

Off my FB feed:

Bryan Pagliano, who helped set up Clinton's private email server when she was secretary of state, has been granted immunity by the DOJ and FBI to provide information to investigators.

Dun dun DUNNNNNNNNN

Fox is running the same story. The AG says she and the DOJ haven't decided to prosecute, claims they aren't operating against the election or a date, and are pretty tight-lipped about the whole process.

Yet here we are with a staffer receiving immunity, immunity in a case which may or may not result in charges? Makes me wonder what he knows and who he's diming out.

 

[Grunt]

There is much "quaking in their boots" going on this morning. We may see several rats jumping off of the sinking ship shortly. I do, however, believe those rats consist of "fall guys."

 

[Totentanz]

The AG says she and the DOJ haven't decided to prosecute, claims they aren't operating against the election or a date, and are pretty tight-lipped about the whole process.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

 

[DA SWO]

I still think Obama hangs her out to dry just before the convention starts allowing Biden to step in and save the day.

 

[Brill]

Fox is running the same story. The AG says she and the DOJ haven't decided to prosecute, claims they aren't operating against the election or a date, and are pretty tight-lipped about the whole process.

Yet here we are with a staffer receiving immunity, immunity in a case which may or may not result in charges? Makes me wonder what he knows and who he's diming out.

This Admin OPENLY discusses JSOC ops but is tight lipped about ANYTHING? Interesting indeed.

Napolitano: Hillary 'conspiracy' is starting to unveil

 

[ZmanTX]

Obama's Justice Department Just Gave Bryan Pagliano Immunity and Bernie Sanders the Presidency

"However, only Bryan Pagliano can explain to the FBI why Clinton needed the server, it's political utility, and most importantly, how the computer network was protected. Also, Pagliano can help with understanding the computer server's connection to other Clinton projects like their foundation, or other activities."

Wonder what Hillary thought when she heard that Pagliano was given immunity...

ZM

 

[Brill]

An aspiring attorney should file suit against Hillary and DOS for wasting taxpayer dollars.

How much time did Federal employees spend working all scanning her emails, investigating, handling press, etc. when they SHOULD have been doing their core jobs?

Had she followed the rules, this would not have been an issue.