E-mail server thing looks bad for Hillary

Post Reply New Topic

I was thinking about that very thing the other day. The standard partisan Democrat narrative is that the GOP hates Obama more than anyone because racism, and that this same GOP has invented scandal after scandal trying to bring down the Clintons, but the fact that Obama has not been embroiled in scandals, manufactured or otherwise, while the Clintons had a constant stream of them, disproves part or all of this theory.

I honestly don't believe they actually believe the Clinton 'vast right wing conspiracy' defense at this point but rather simply don't care, they are so loyal and invested in partisan politics to the point that it doesn't matter to them that they're liars/crooks/criminals since in their mind they're winning. It's like sports, they can be all high and mighty about steroids when it's some other team that is aided but when they win on the backs of cheaters themselves they're not apologizing one bit. There is this mindset that cheating is only cheating when you get caught, it's literally a game and if someone else has done it and gotten away then why shouldn't they be able to?

I've said this a few times, getting Hillary on her emails would of been like getting Al Capone on his taxes but apparently now they can cheat there too. The Clintons have no respect for the rule of law, they see themselves as inconvenienced by it and above it. Why do you think Hillary went thru all the trouble of setting up this private email system? It wasn't convenience, we know that. To make another sports analogy; Jon Jones, the UFC fighter, recently got popped for a banned substance alleged to be an estrogen blocker which technically isn't a PED but I'm pretty sure Jon Jones doesn't have issues with ovulation or is being treated for breast cancer so you tell me why he's taking that drug and why Hillary had to set up that private email system.

A lot of people are like, You shouldn't let this issue affect whether you vote for Hillary Clinton, because they didn't press charges. Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute this case.

Here's the problem: The reason they didn't bring charges is because they didn't think they'd get a conviction in a criminal case, where you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to get a conviction. That is a very high standard of proof, and indeed it is good that we have such a standard in cases where the party might go to prison.

But do we voters really need to apply that standard in deciding who we're going to vote for?

I was skimming through some of this.

I just thought I'd weigh in. It's not actually true that the ordinary person would get put in prison for doing what she has done. I know a person who has sent classified information over email and have not gotten in trouble (they are in a job where classified information is common). I don't want to go into depth but it happens. The thing is most of the time people aren't charged for this sort of behavior because it kind of doesn't matter much a lot of the time.

I don't think Hilary is being given special privilege I think she is being given ordinary privilege.

However since she is running for president I hold her to higher standards than the ordinary person. Nobody would care about any of this s**t if she wasn't running for president. That's what makes the difference. I hold potential presidents to very high standards when deciding vote which is probably why I won't vote at all this election.

I don't know if you are aware, but Donald Trump's ex-wife Ivana Trump claimed in a court deposition that Donald had raped her.

According to a book called "Lost Tycoon", the supposed rape occurred as a violent assault. Before the book was published, Ivana Trump recanted, under what I consider to be suspicious circumstances (as part of a divorce settlement, she had to sign a gag agreement, prohibiting her from talking about details of their marriage. Donald Trump later claimed she was in violation of that agreement for reasons I am not familiar with, and sued her for $25 million).

According to sources, the book was published with the following statement from Ivana Trump, submitted by Donald Trump's lawyer.

"During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me."

"I wish to say that on one occasion during 1989, Mr Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage."

"As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness which he normally exhibited toward me, was absent. I referred to this as a 'rape,' but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense."

I don't know if Trump is a rapist, but he certainly meets my definition of a bully, and he targets those significantly weaker than him. When he wanted to build a larger parking lot for his casino, and could not acquire an old lady's house to do it, he attempted to have her home taken from her by convincing Atlantic City to attempt seize it using imminent domain (they failed). There are hundreds of reports of him refusing to pay contractors for their work...bare in mind, a lot of these guys are small time working men who are trying to support families, who don't have the legal resources to fight him, and then there was that fiasco with Trump University.

I also don't know if Bill Clinton is a rapist, but I know Hillary Clinton is not, and at the time of the accusations against her husband, she did what any good wife would in lieu of any evidence attesting to the validity of the claims against him, and supported her husband.

The only thing we know for sure about Bill Clinton as far as his sexual morals go, is that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and it was consensual. We also know Donald Trump has had affairs.

In either case, a spouse should not be judged for the sins of their partner.

its nonsense

guess who ivana supports for president?

I just heard that colin powell also used a private email server also. why was he not criticized for this, at least to the extent that Hillary is?

There are two problems with bringing charges against Clinton for using personal e-mail servers for sensitive information.

1. Many politicians use personal e-mail servers, and the FBI and judicial system would have to investigate and possibly prosecute all of them, including George W. Bush.

2. The authority to classify documents often rests with the department from which those documents originate. Department A could say department B should have classified a document, but department A does not necessarily have authority over department B, or better judgement on the situation.

Also bare in mind that there are valid reasons as to why government officials may choose to use personal e-mail servers. For example, these servers can actually be more secure. The US government is often the target of cyber attacks, often thought to originate in China under the direction of the Chinese government. It's easy to spot big, official networks, and the Chinese are good enough to circumvent security measures such as firewalls and encryption. But a small server that is not part of such a network is more likely to go unnoticed. Big networks have big data breaches that are often not discovered until days, weeks, or months after the fact. But I might notice out of the corner of my eye, the traffic light on the small server in my office is flashing in a pattern I've not seen before, and pull the plug on the connection.

He did not use a private server, he had a private personal address that he did not send classified material over whereas Hillary went thru a lot of trouble to set up this server in her home and used it exclusively for official business where she did send classified material. Doesn't it bother you that she lied and lied and lied about this over and over again right to our faces? I think it is clear as day that Hillary's intent was to skirt open government laws so the question is why?

Well now that's a bullet proof retort.

Stop being such an obvious shill.

It's my understanding that the e-mails sent and received by Hillary Clinton through her e-mail server, at the time they were sent and received, were not classified and did not contain information that had been classified. It's my understand that some of this information was only later classified.

Also, understand, classified does not mean "top secret". There are various levels of classification, "top secret" being the highest level.

I don't particularly care if a person likes Hillary Clinton, or any other politician for that matter, however I find people often develop negative sentiments towards a candidate, based not on facts but public perception, and then try to find or create negative actions or qualities to attribute to them, to reinforce their stance that said person is "no good".

I believe that is what you are possibly doing her Jacoby. I challenge you to name one good thing about Hillary Clinton, and I will explain why after your reply.

I have nothing good to say about Hillary, she has no redeemable qualities.

Also you're wrong about the classified stuff, go listen to Comey press conference and testimony the next day.

Your reasoning is, if he raped her, she wouldn't support him for president, but there is no actual logic to that other than the fact that one tends to be inclined to think a person would not support their attacker. However domestic violence can be psychologically complex, and it's well known that many victims of domestic violence engage in behaviors supportive of their abuser.

Here is a good example here.

Pregnant girl with abusive partner

The man is mistreating the woman but when passengers step in to assist her, and start hitting/restraining the man, she comes to his defense.

"I don't particularly care if a person likes Hillary Clinton, or any other politician for that matter, however I find people often develop negative sentiments towards a candidate, based not on facts but public perception, and then try to find or create negative actions or qualities to attribute to them, to reinforce their stance that said person is no good."

This is what you and most others here are doing with Trump. We have proof against Hillary! Decades worth!

Jacoby,

If you had proof you would have posted it instead of repeating the same tired disproven talking points against the Clintons. And it's funny that you're pretending that news article I posted that contradicts you never happened. Obvious Trump troll is obvious.

It contradicts nothing. Hillary lied, she is above the law, the evidence still stands. I think she is guilty of a whole lot more considering, why might she want to skirt open government laws? Is it a coincidence that the Clinton Foundation started getting megadonations from foreign donors after Hillary became Secretary of State? You are every bit a shill for Hillary, I just enjoy playing wack-a-mole with you people.