Quote:
The existence of some of that data on her personal server, is problematic to some people. She created the atmosphere, which made it necessaru to have that data on her personal server. "Clinton being forwarded what's considered at the time benign information" I don't know that we know, that 100% of what made its way to her server, was believed to be benign at the time. I wonder why she deleted all those emails. Didn't she say that everything she deleted was personal, not work-related? Wedding plans, yoga classes, and th elike? And when a reporter asked her is she had the server "wiped", she relpied "you mean with a cloth?" Yeah, that's the kind of honest leadership we need. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I know that I posted a link last week, where the IG claimed that one of the emails was flagged as top secret (or higher) at the time it hit her server. You claimed I was confusing one email with another, or one link with another, or that I was confusing Hilary with Aldrich Ames or the WikiLeaks guy. All I did was quote the IG. i don't think we know for sure, that material known to be classified, wasn't intentionally put on her server. If it was, she lied (once again). You have to admit, you approach these things with a slight...shall we say...point of view. |
Quote:
What's worse is that the info about drone strikes that led to all this "beyond top secret" hype was actually disclosed and reported on back in August. This IG letter was a trick played by Republicans to recycle already spent news. The conflict of interest here is big...it's a terrible abuse of authority. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Except he used his own personal email as well. Was that diabolical? Bush 43 get's paid six figures to speak and his foundation has similar assets to the Clinton's. Shouldn't we be investigating Jeb in case he becomes president and starts to return all those favors? |
Quote:
See, maybe you are confused. I was not quoting the letter, I was quoting another comment from the IG, which was not part of the letter (I believe what I quoted was prior to the letter). Maybe you are ignoring the evidence that doesn't make her out to be a saint. Maybe there is more to the IG than just that one letter. |
Quote:
|
Spence, here is the link I referred to, which makes no mention of the IG letter...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...challenge.html From the article...there were 2 emails on her server, 1 with data from the CIA, 1 with data from the NGA. The article states that officials from both agencies confirmed that each email was top secret when it hit her server. The State Department is challenging that. The 2 agencies consider it a closed matter. The CIA can gather its own intelligence and decide what classification to give it. What it cannot do (and thi sI know for sure) is modify the classification that another agency gives to its own data. Only the agency that generated th edata, can do that. Somehow, you have concluded that she did nothing wrong. Let's see what the investogation turns up. And why did the IG, appointed by Obama, work in secret with the GOP, as you claim? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This was Fox reporting this story. They have an ideological bias, clearly...as do you, just as clearly. If Fox made it up, they should go out of business. But I hope it gets looked into. On what basis do you automatically dismiss this report, as untrustworthy? "Perhaps you're just reading what FOX is saying and assuming it's true" Nope, I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it needs to be investigated. You are the one making a declaration, that it is not true. Again, what's your source for that? Perhaps, on the other hand, you are listening to what Hilary is saying and assuming it's all true. Ask yourself why you give default credibility to the self-serving statements of a serial liar? |
Quote:
Sen. Feinstein has also confirmed that no emails were marked top secret. Quote:
|
Quote:
The State Dept is entitled to gather its own intelligence, and to classify data as it sees fit. But how do you know that's what too kplace, in the case of these 2 emails? Other than taking her word for it, what else you got? "Sen. Feinstein has also confirmed that no emails were marked top secret." How does she know? Let's let the investigation pan out, how about that? According to you, everyone who defends her is credible, everyone who hints she acted improperly, is a partisan hack, including Obama's IG. We get it. "What will be interesting is that the IG was supposed to be reviewing email practices from the last 5 Secretaries of State" yes, that will be interesting. Spence, what of her response to the question, "did you wipe the server?", and she said "what, you mean with a cloth?" Is that a presidential answer to a fair question? |
Quote:
There was a guy on TV last week addressing this. He said it's meaningless, because security measures would prohibit an email marked as top secret from being sent to an unclassified server, meaning, it's physicaly impossible for her server to have emails flagged as top secret. Meaning, if those emails were on her server (as the CIA and NGA claim they were) but not "marked", it means either someone removed the mark so the emails could be sent to her server, or that someone made an unsecure, unmarked, copy of those emails, and sent those to her server. Either way, if this IT guy was correct, it means NOTHING that she had no 'marked' emails on her server, because that was not physically possible. She is parsing her words very carefully, isn't she? I wonder why? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
But you have reason to doubt the CIA and the NGA? What would that be? "She's been a chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. I'd say she's as well positioned to know as anyone" And Clinton was secstate. What they said is true, but if the guy I saw was correct, what they said also proves nothing. Because he said it was not possible for her to have marked emails on her personal server. So Hilary could also have said "I am not 10 feet tall", and while that's true, I'm not sure it's all then enlightening, is it? "You have that nagging feeling I'm right don't you?" I have no idea. That's why I want an investigation. Spence, have her past lies diminished her credibility in your eyes, at all? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Are you seriously using the Bush did it too excuse ? Apples and oranges . George Bush is an honorable man from an honorable family . Hillary Clinton not so much Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
I would also add that the Clintons
accepted donations while Hillary was in a position of power. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Unlike Hillary's E-mail server.. Is that what you mean? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
State.gov does on the classified side. On the unclassified side they still have better mechanisms at State than on the bathroom side. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But then again there's that whole "Holiday Inn Express" thing you're arguing with..... Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com