Hilary email

[detbuch]

You see ecduz, if others broke the rules before, it's OK if you do it to.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

You see PaulS, if you want to become president the rules are different.

That makes, um, sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who used their own PRIVATE server?
Did they all or just Hillary?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...nghazi/396182/Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Who used their own PRIVATE server?
Did they all or just Hillary?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...nghazi/396182/Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I knew it was different. So it is ok if you don't use a private server. Got it. Thanks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I knew it was different. So it is ok if you don't use a private server. Got it. Thanks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never said that but I don't expect you to comprehend the meaning of different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I knew it was different. So it is ok if you don't use a private server. Got it. Thanks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pretty sure the whole point is the

"private unsecured server"

which, according to her boss..Obama, no one knew about, including him until he read it in the newspapers.....which I guess would also make it a secret private unsecured server

Spence told us that what was being investigate was Hillary's "private server", not Hillary....and looking for some systemic failure rather than at the arrogance and negligence of the owner of the secret private unsecured server

so by Spence logic, if they were not using private servers there is no private server to investigate

which means it would, in fact, be different

got it?

[wdmso]

How long did she have the Server? How long was it off line before Conservatives became magically outraged .. i'll tell you ( around election time ?)
Because if it was such an issue it should have been addressed when she United States Secretary of State, from 2009 to 2013, However it wasn't an issue until March 2015

So are we suggesting that she was able to keep that she was using it a Secret from other Government agency's .. until 2015?

and FYI not Clinton or the POTUS decides what is classified and what is not.. . its others whom responsibility it is to make sure only those who have a need to know see classified documents .. So if someone emailed you a secret document that was stamped secret the fault is theirs for miss handling classified information.. Seems some are confusing a Secret Document .. over and email which may have information that has been determined today as sensitive ...

again it falls into how The republicans work Historically work Benghazi, emails , planned parent hood , Obama a Muslim its endless they just keep repeating and investigating the same thing over and over and over , praying for Something to Show their Base.. They are the Party of the Boy who Cried wolf ! Sadly when they do find something and they may someday .. no one is except the faithful will believe them ..

[scottw]

Andy McCarthy sums thing up nicely today

"We could go on at length about Clinton’s arrogance in setting up a homebrew communications network, an outrageous violation of the transparency standards that were her responsibility as secretary of state to enforce. It was a familiar exercise in Clintonian self-dealing: Anticipating running for president in 2016, she realized she was enmeshed in the Clinton Foundation’s global scheme to sell influence for money, so she devised a way to avoid a paper trail. Accountability, after all, is for peons: the yoke of recordkeeping requirements, Freedom of Information Act productions, congressional inquiries, and the government’s disclosure duties in judicial proceedings was not for her Highness. Instead, it would be: No Records, No Problems — a convenient arrangement for a lifetime “public servant” of no discernible accomplishment whom disaster has a habit of stalking. The homebrew server was for Hillary’s State Department what an on-site drycleaner might have been for Bill’s White House.

And we’re not done, not even close. The State Department continues to slow-walk production of Clinton e-mails despite court orders for more rapid disclosure. Only some of the delay owes to the functioning of Clinton’s former department as an arm of her current campaign. The rest is attributable to the staggering breadth of classified information — some of it, the most tightly guarded national secrets — strewn through Clinton’s e-mails. Not just her e-mails but e-mail “trains,” communications involving several exchanges and multiple participants — as to which it will be difficult, if not impossible, to calculate how often and how widely recipients forwarded the information.

Moreover, we’re still talking only about the 30,000 or so e-mails, constituting 55,000 pages, that Mrs. Clinton deigned to surrender to the State Department nearly two years after she resigned. There are another 30,000 “personal” e-mails she attempted to destroy. Has the FBI been able to recover them so the intelligence community has some hope of assessing the damage? Virtually nothing Clinton has said about her non-secure e-mail system since its public revelation has been true. "


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ce-compromised

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Because if it was such an issue it should have been addressed when she United States Secretary of State, from 2009 to 2013, However it wasn't an issue until March 2015

..

ummmmm...her boss, Obama... he didn't even find out about it, until everyone else found out about it in the news reports...last spring...pretty sure I provided that quote for you a page or two back...

March 2015 "President Obama discovered former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email at the same time as news readers.

Obama, after delivering a Saturday speech in Selma, Ala., was asked when he found out about Clinton’s personal email system run from her Chappaqua home.

“The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,” he told CBS News."

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

I never said that but I don't expect you to comprehend the meaning of different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure you did. No one can read it any different. You only qualified it by saying she is running for Pres. Pls explain why when Hillary did it, it is bad (bc she is running for Pres.) but when 2 former SOS did it, it is not bad. A classified message on a public or a private server is still wrong, isn't it? And please explain it so I can "comprehend the meaning of different". And maybe you can explain why you dont think I would understand the meaning of different
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

It's the same logic as why there was no investigations into all the deaths from embasy attacks under Bush's watch but the Benghazi moment was treated like the end of the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

It's the same logic as why there was no investigations into all the deaths from embasy attacks under Bush's watch but the Benghazi moment was treated like the end of the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you still haven't checked you facts on that after I asked you to 3 or 4 times...see, this is part of the problem

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

It's the same logic as why there was no investigations into all the deaths from embasy attacks under Bush's watch but the Benghazi moment was treated like the end of the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There weren't any .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by buckman

There weren't any .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

100% wrong
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Oops...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us...smtyp=cur&_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/...rss_topstories

Can't wait to see the indictments.

Explain how the server they used is the same or is it actually different since only Hillary and her cohorts had access to HER PRIVATE server.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

100% wrong
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

please check your facts Eben, there were no American Ambassadors killed in embassy attacks or anywhere else that I'm aware of under Bush and I don't believe there were any Americans killed in embassy attacks under Bush

here's a little more....4 Pinnochio's

POLITICS
Fact Checker: Bill Clinton’s ‘Dubious’ Comparison Regarding Benghazi and Bush
Jul. 1, 2014

Former President Bill Clinton wasn’t completely accurate in drawing a parallel between the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi under the watch of his wife, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and previous attacks on diplomatic outposts.

Even this Liberal Newspaper said Bill Clintons Comments on Benghazi Bush Dubious
Former President Bill Clinton has a discussion with David Gregory of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” during a session of the annual gathering of the Clinton Global Initiative America, at the Sheraton Downtown, in Denver, Tuesday, June 24, 2014.

That’s the conclusion of the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, which gave Clinton two out of four “Pinocchios” for his assertion in a recent interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“When 10 different instances occurred when President Bush was in office where American diplomatic personnel were killed around the world, how many outraged Republican members of Congress were there?” Clinton asked. “Zero.”

In fact, the Post noted, congressional hearings were held following the deaths of diplomats when George W. Bush was president, even if those cases did not get as much attention from Congress or the media as Benghazi has:

In service of a dubious comparison, Clinton exaggerated when he claimed that there was “zero” Republican outrage about the deaths of Americans under Bush’s watch.

At least one of the deaths led to congressional hearings and a government report. That’s not the same level of attention as the myriad Benghazi probes, but it is more than zero. Moreover, in making his claim, Clinton ignores the similar one-off attacks that have killed diplomatic personnel during Obama’s presidency, making it an unbalanced comparison.

The 10 instances Clinton referenced under Bush are listed on a memorial plaque on the first floor of the State Department, the newspaper said.

In one case, Barbara Green, an employee at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, was killed in a hand grenade attack on a church in 2002. The attack prompted a congressional investigation and resulted in a Government Accountability Office report that said the State Department had inadequate safeguards to protect officials when they were outside the embassy perimeter.

“The other question is whether Clinton is comparing apples and oranges. He compares Benghazi to ’10 different instances’ during Bush’s presidency. Benghazi was a single event—an attack on a diplomatic post in which four Americans died. Most of the deaths during Bush’s presidency took place away from the embassy grounds,” the Post noted.

The Post cited four other diplomats killed in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Obama administration.

[ecduzitgood]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ty-china-trip/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ssages-it.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Explain how the server they used is the same or is it actually different since only Hillary and her cohorts had access to HER PRIVATE server.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not sure what they used but if it was personal it was either a private server or perhaps worse a public service?

I can't wait for the indictments, surely forthcoming...

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure what they used but if it was personal it was either a private server or perhaps worse a public service?

I can't wait for the indictments, surely forthcoming...

I guess you don't read links, including one that you posted....here is link you posted previously.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/...rss_topstories

The Clintons and Bush may have been involved in drug smuggling????

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...background.htm

https://youtu.be/nxaFGsdGxnc
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device