Re: Hillary email via Obama spokesman: Let the coverup begin

zork

zork

2,500+ Posts
The standards have been set for what constitues treatment or mistreatment of classified documents as well as the punishments for the later. If the Obama Justice dept is changing those rules we need to know what the changes are. She should not be able to blame this on anyone else, no fall girl or fall guy, because it was Hillary's server, she used it, she emailed to and from it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2000828/

What is the process for not letting this die assuming the justice dept downplays the case? Even Sandy Berger got sanctioned.
 
zork said:
The standards have been set for what constitues treatment or mistreatment of classified documents as well as the punishments for the later. If the Obama Justice dept is changing those rules we need to know what the changes are. She should not be able to blame this on anyone else, no fall girl or fall guy, because it was Hillary's server, she used it, she emailed to and from it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2000828/

What is the process for not letting this die assuming the justice dept downplays the case? Even Sandy Berger got sanctioned.
Click to expand...
btw, my post above is also related to these type of comments about point of fact breaks in classified document safekeeping which is what causes the persons misuseing said documents up for charges or censure or at minimum no dessert for a few days.

"You can't have 1,300 highly sensitive emails that contain highly sensitive material that's taken all, or in part from classified documents, and have it be an accident," he said. "There's no question, she knew she had a responsibility and she circumvented it. And she circumvented it a second time when she knowingly let highly-classified material get onto emails in an unclassified format."
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/i...-to-indict-clinton-and-abedin/article/2581811

If she was telling the truth about no classified material being or passing through the server that would be one thing. She was not telling the truth about it if the reports are true. This would be worse than watergate if Obama's Justice dept lets this pass. They can't. That is unless there is a different justice for people running for President?
 
Could they drag this out until after the election and if she won (perish the thought but we know even posters on here will vote for her) could BO decide to drop it completely?
 
zork said:
How can people not care?
Click to expand...
Because they now realize the the FBI is part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

All BO wants is a D victory in November. If Hillary is too damaged he will drop her like a hot potato and let the Justice Dept. indict her. There is no love lost between BO and the Clintons, and Joe Biden will ride in on his white horse to save the day for the Dems.
 
If Hillary is too damaged he will drop her like a hot potato and let the Justice Dept. indict her.
Click to expand...

This server thing, the investigation of Hillary's reported misuse of around 1300 classified documents, has been known for a year. There is no valid reason for the delay. Does it really take a year to determine guilt once you get past the first 10 or so documents?

It sets a horrible precedent that there is a different set of rules for people running for president or who are related to former presidents. Classified documents, if not important as not indicting Hillary seems to show, should be opened for all to see.
 
And now the State Dept says some emails are too secret to be released to the public, BUT Clinton says not so and should be released, what?
I am still of the opinion she will not be indicted, but will remain unscathed. Just as impossible as the reelection of Obama should have been she will persevere.
 
zork said:
How can people not care?
Click to expand...

This isn't your father's America. Things like honoring the oath you took and morality in general are no longer as valued as they once were.

It's been happening for a while. It probably coincides with the decline in religion. Now partisanship and "win at any costs" are most important. Hell, Slick Willie looked the people right in the eye, lied his *** off, and got reelected.
 
nashhorn said:
And now the State Dept says some emails are too secret to be released to the public, BUT Clinton says not so and should be released, what?
I am still of the opinion she will not be indicted, but will remain unscathed. Just as impossible as the reelection of Obama should have been she will persevere.
Click to expand...

I agree. The problem is that a large number of voters only care about ethics when it's the other party's candidates under scrutiny. The reason why is that it's more important to them that their opponents lose than that they get an ethical President. Accordingly, they'll vote for HRC knowing she's a lying fraud just to deny Trump, Cruz, Rubio, etc. As Austin radio talk show host Jeff Ward used to say back when I lived in Austin, "we don't vote for something, we vote against someone."
 
It is eerie, and I wish I could find the exact footage, but in response to a question about the emails, Hillary responded, "I did not send nor receive anything that was classified..."
It was said in the same tone, cadence, and with the conviction of Bill's infamous "I did not have sex with that woman..." statement.
Politics aside, these two have taken being shady, lying about it, and escaping unscathed to a new level. I have never seen anything like these two.
 
It's certainly true that many, nay most of our votes these days, are against a candidate, but we still cast a vote for someone. How can we completely ignore that fact. Even when I have voted against someone I was still voting 'for' someone. How can someone completely ignore that fact?
 
nashhorn said:
It's certainly true that many, nay most of our votes these days, are against a candidate, but we still cast a vote for someone. How can we completely ignore that fact. Even when I have voted against someone I was still voting 'for' someone. How can someone completely ignore that fact?
Click to expand...

Nash,

He's taking about the motivation for our votes. At least in the general election, most of us cast our votes out of opposition for the other party's candidate than out of support for our own guy.

That's why negative ads are so effective and why people will vote for sleazy candidates. Personally, I know a ton of Democrats. (I'm a personal injury trial lawyer by trade, and my wife is a federal employee and a classroom teacher by trade. Very few Republicans run in our circles.) Not a single one of them is a Clinton fan. They think Bill is a bigger misogynist than Trump and think Hillary is self-promoting and dishonest phony. They're voting for her for one reason only - to keep a Republican out of the White House.

Consider the 2012 election. Assuming you voted GOP, how excited were you to vote for Mitt Romney compared to your excitement at voting against Obama? Which factor motivated you more? While I'm sure that choosing Romney over Obama was an easy choice, suppose the Democrats had nominated Zell Miller instead of Obama. Would your choice have been so easy? I doubt it. The reason is that opposition to Obama drove your vote more than anything else.
 
Two things -

How effective could a Secretary of State be if she never sent or received any classified documents?? I know she was a pathetic S of S but even then you would think she would have gotten a few.

This whole email scheme was simply a way to to make sure she could control all emails so that no one could find out what she was doing and use it against her in her coronation campaign. Unfortunately for her the guy wiping her server clean didn't do a good enough job.
 
Watergate was about breaking the rules trying to cheat the system to figure out what political opponents were doing, breaking the law. This seems just below that because she was routinely breaking the law, reportedly 1300+ times, while trying to hide what she was doing from political opponents while not keeping the secrets of the country safe.

Enforce the law or create new law that says certain people can be above it. Let the country know what the rules are so we can follow them or who we need to bow down to as our royalty who are above the law.
 
She and her group have created a masterful Catch-22 at this point.
"Oh, please look at my emails to see how innocent I am" but, the emails can't be viewed due to the high classification.
Oh, that Hillary!
 
Clean said:
This isn't your father's America. Things like honoring the oath you took and morality in general are no longer as valued as they once were.
Click to expand...
Careful Clean...that sounds like a something an old white male would say.

We all know old white male values like "truth," "patriotism" (in the old sense), "courage" (in the old sense)", "independence," "industriousness," "faith," "loyalty," "chivalry," "family," and "Honor" are outdated, impractical, mysogynistic, and oppressive.
 
Last edited:
AustinBat said:
Secretary of State be if she never sent or received any classified documents?
Click to expand...

It would be impossible. It would be impossible for anyone in the diplomatic/national security/defense/intelligence communities...

Which is why we have classified email systems that everyone is suppose to use.
 
Last edited:
texas_ex2000 said:
We all know old white male values like "truth," "patriotism" (in the old sense), "courage" (in the old sense)", "independence," "industriousness," "faith," "loyalty," "chivalry," "family," and "Honor" are outdated, impractical, mysogynistic, and oppressive.
Click to expand...

If I misspelled them all and stuck a "z" on the end would it be less white and oppressive; honorz, troothz, etc.?
 
CaPD_VrUEAA6Vpm.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top