Hillary Clinton's Private E-Mail Draws Scrutiny

The most racist? Didn't we have a president who put certain people in camps? Woodrow Wilson made interracial marriage illegal in DC, Ronald Reagan started and forwarded the War on Personal Freedom... Calling Obama the most racist president is hard for me to fathom.
 
Last edited:
The most racist? No. The one with the opportunity to make the greatest strides against racism in our country but instead fanned the flames? No doubt. He had a golden opportunity to address race in America and instead he waffles from one side of the debate or the other. A president has a big job and racial issues in America are a small part. Instead of making the most of that time he's squandered his opportunities. Cambridge, MA, Trayvon, Ferguson, Baltimore, and others I've since forgotten saw him stoke the flames or retreat instead of offering leadership. It is disappointing to me, but minorities in this country should be angry. Their best shot in a generation either did nothing or made it worse.
 
Can he pardon her before she is theoretically convicted?

EDIT: Maybe that is why he is having DOJ drag its feet? That way if an indictment comes too late, he will not be forced to pardon her. All highly unlikely, but as we are theorizing...

Makes sense. After all, look what they did to Bergdahl's trial date.

Funny how the AFCoS claimed it would have cost valuable time and untold resources in order to find drone operator "John" from Iowa.

Well, they finally disclosed (After all this time) that they finally found him.

“It now appears [the Defense Department] had knowledge well in advance of who and where John was,” the committee said. “They claimed ‘significant resources’ had been spent attempting to find him, but given the facts, it’s hard to imagine just how much incompetence would be required for that to be true.”

The interview of “John from Iowa” is a significant boost for Republican leaders of the committee, who have struggled to assert its legitimacy since a wave of Republican friendly fire last year.

“Thorough, fact-centered investigations corroborate information with individuals who actually have specific knowledge and expertise,” Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said. “That means talking to enlisted service members with firsthand information is just as important as talking to the generals and admirals who command them.”

I like Gowdy. He's not only a damn pitbull, but tenacious and smart enough to take on all comers.

Link

It is being reported by Fox and CNN (for some odd reason MSNBC is silent...) that her IT guy will plead the 5th in an upcoming deposition. Makes you wonder what happened to his immunity deal, why, and how this impacts the FBI investigation.

Clinton IT staffer intends to take the Fifth in upcoming deposition - CNNPolitics.com

Boom. There it is. (See below)

The lawyers argued that the immunity agreements “relate to an ongoing law enforcement investigation” and that “the Government would be prejudiced by disclosure.”

"The FBI cannot publicly disclose the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any such investigation without adversely affecting the investigation," the filing states.

Any public disclosure of Pagliano’s immunity agreement could also exact further damage on Clinton’s presidential campaign because it carries implications that someone involved may have committed a crime, although no one has been charged.

Link

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is if you take a deal in exchange for immunity, Hasta La Vista 5th Amendment.
 
Last edited:
The most racist? Didn't we have a president who put certain people in camps? Woodrow Wilson made interracial marriage illegal in DC, Ronald Reagan started and forwarded the War on Personal Freedom... Calling Obama the most racist president is hard for me to fathom.
National security was the reason for the camps. Each of them were well compensated afterwards
 
I don't expect the DOJ or the AG for that matter, to be fair and impartial during this investigation anymore than I expect my youngest stepson to come out of prison 8 years from now as a model citizen.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why it is hard to fathom. My statement said in "recent history". I am fairly safe in presuming that the majority on this board were not alive, much less of age, during WW2 and the time of the camps you mention. No other President in recent history has been as divisive and as prejudiced as the current administration. The proof is there if you are willing to accept it:
1) July 2009 - black Harvard Professor is arrested by a white cop and Obama, without all of the facts, says the cop acted "stupidly"
2) March 2012 - Obama, yet again, weighs in on a case before it even goes to trial and creates further racial tension with his asinine comment that Martin could have been his son
3) August 2014 - administration sends three reps to the funeral of a known criminal and incites further race discord when a federal, state, and local investigation proved the white cop that shot Brown was justified in the shoot and was in fear for his life (the same CnC that did not send a rep to James Foley's funeral (white reporter killed by ISIS)

Just three of many examples where the current administration has promoted racial divide, and in turn become the very thing they claim to hate. Look at his choices for AG (Holder & Lynch), both of them distinctly racist in their attempts to go after white officers involved in justified shootings. His SCOTUS pick, Sotamayor is one of the biggest racists to come out of the administration (and I say this as a fellow Hispanic who knows all too well how racist my ethnicity can truly be). So no, I do not think it is much of a logical leap to conclude this is one of the most racist and obstructionist administrations in recent history.
 
Words matter.
racism is based on prejudices and superiority/inferiority principles.

Was it racism on what we did to Germans also, of course not. It wasn't a separate race, but general population hated them just as much.
In modern society, we tend to classify racial profiling as racism- which is not the case, as you outlined.

A similar parallel can be drawn by saying that all Islamic extremists are Muslims, yet not all Muslims are extremists. Recognizing that an Islamic extremist must first be a Muslim is an important distinction to make.

But all of what I just said in the above paragraph could possibly be classified as bigotry by a college student or politician.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is if you take a deal in exchange for immunity, Hasta La Vista 5th Amendment.


The usual deal is, you have to confess to all your crimes and any crimes or criminal activity you know of that were committed by your associates. But the deck seems to be stacked in this case, maybe his deal is special.
 
Sooo....
Emails: State Dept. scrambled on trouble on Clinton's server

State Department staffers wrestled for weeks in December 2010 over a serious technical problem that affected emails from then-Secretary Hillary Clinton's home email server, causing them to temporarily disable security features on the government's own systems, according to emails released Wednesday.

Whoa! Wait a minute! So you're telling me that, in order to facilitate the private server, they deliberately violated the ATO (Authority to Operate) on Government systems? Everybody involved has now knowingly violated National Security requirements and various IT related directives/laws and they have the emails to prove it. Why are any of them still walking around without cuffs or an indictment?

If you knew what it takes to get an ATO on a new server, unclass or class, it would blow your mind. I spent almost 3 months just to get an ATO to stand up a server performing a REQUIRED monitoring function. Once the ATO is violated, the server is supposed to be decommissioned and a new ATO on a new server (or reimaged server) is required.
 
Sooo....
Emails: State Dept. scrambled on trouble on Clinton's server

Whoa! Wait a minute! So you're telling me that, in order to facilitate the private server, they deliberately violated the ATO (Authority to Operate) on Government systems? Everybody involved has now knowingly violated National Security requirements and various IT related directives/laws and they have the emails to prove it. Why are any of them still walking around without cuffs or an indictment?

If you knew what it takes to get an ATO on a new server, unclass or class, it would blow your mind. I spent almost 3 months just to get an ATO to stand up a server performing a REQUIRED monitoring function. Once the ATO is violated, the server is supposed to be decommissioned and a new ATO on a new server (or reimaged server) is required.

There are no consequences for anything done in the name of that woman. There are plenty of known entities, BIG name companies, with tried and true records of security when dealing with ATO requirements, who wait and wait and wait for that certification for a computer in a new office down the hall from the old one. Because that's the legal way. The legit way. The way you don't lose your job.

But not that bitch.
 
What's worse? Putting people in internment camps, or idolizing the guy that did it? Although if you bring it up to most progressives, they'll give you a blank stare or blurt out "but Trump!".
 
Back
Top