jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (20 posts)

Hillary Clinton's email server and Benghazi.

  1. peoplepower73 profile image86
    peoplepower73posted 22 months ago

    The committee that is investigating Benghazi is  either stupid or just naive.  If you were given a week to turn over your server, what would you do?  I know what I would do.  I would delete all my emails or nuke the hard drive.  All they are trying to do is ruin her brand because she is a threat to the GOP.  They are also trying to protect their brand by putting the attention on her.  What say you?

    1. MikeSyrSutton profile image39
      MikeSyrSuttonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Are you admitting that you would commit a federal crime if you could?

      1. peoplepower73 profile image86
        peoplepower73posted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Why is that a federal crime?

    2. teamrn profile image79
      teamrnposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      What say I? NOT THAT. Mrs. Clinton is a viable (I think everyone would be right, if they called her that) presidential candidate. As such, it is MY RIGHT to know about her e-mail server. It is just as much HER RIGHT not to let me in on the server (who, what, when, how, why and how much) info. Then that puts the ball squarely back in MY court. I've been double-dared. What do I do next?

      The decision is mine, then; to trust her and take her word that all the server contained were personal communiques about Chelsea's wedding gown and her yoga schedule. Hmmmm. The Clinton's haven't been exactly known for their forthcoming-ness. Remember her husband's parsing of the word 'is'? Her Whitewater? The scandal about donations to the Clinton Foundation? That couple has been mired in controversy and scandal for years. Excuse me if I, a voter, need substantiation that she was not involved in the deaths in Benghazi. THAT call is my right.

      I'm pleased that you're able to put blind faith in Hilary Clinton, but I've been burned by her predecessor not being transparent like he said he was going to be and not doing much of what he promised to do. The sins of the father....

      If she decided to delete all those e-mails that is HER right, but it is my right to make the assumption that she had something to hide when she deleted them. WITCH HUNT, my butt. I'm not far enough right that I wouldn't consider a nod in Hilary Clinton's direction if she were forthcoming. Telling me that it is not my business, is to thumb her nose at me and that is tantamount to telling me that you don't need my vote. 

      WHY would you delete all your e-mails if given a week? I could only conclude one thing if you did that. That there was something in there (server) that you didn't want me to see. Something so bad that you would have to hire a staff to work 24 hours a day to delete and discussion about Chelsea's wedding dress or her Yoga schedule don't cut it AT ALL. How do we know that she wasn't negotiating with Russia on her private server?

      This has NOTHING to do with my being a moderate my trying my darndest to destroy her brand because she is a threat. She's no threat. The people have a right to make up their own minds about the forthcomingness of someone who they are thinking about entrusting their vote to, thinking about entrusting the running of their country to; and they have a funny [sic] way of showing that someone who isn't forthcoming with information can violate that trust.

      My personal thinking all along is that she never wanted to run in the first place. She could taste it in 2012. But, now, it's a 'been there done that' kind of thing, with 'I WANT TO BE A GRANDMA-written all over it! 

      "The committee that is investigating Benghazi is  either stupid or just naive." Hey, cowboy, why are they stupid? What makes people who want to get to the bottom of the deaths of 4 people, 'STUPID?' I won't say what I think about that generalization.

      1. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Well... we certainly know where you stand.  And that stand has some valid points from where I stand too.

        I don't think there is enough information to make a call on the "deleted" emails. But I do think Hillary is a very smart and politically savvy woman. I do think she knows exactly the picture her actions have painted...

        Which causes me to wonder why she would put herself in this position.

        I have strong personal feelings and opinions about her and this, but very little information to back up those feelings. Of course I think my opinions are validated by the Clinton's political history, but on the email issue - for now I will just try to keep my powder dry.

        GA

        1. teamrn profile image79
          teamrnposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          "I don't think there is enough information to make a call on the "deleted" emails."  There seems to be more at issue than what deleted e-mails say-or don't say. It is a bigger picture of THAT SHE THINKS she knows what is good-or not good for us.

          Or, I may be totally off=base in that regard and she may WANT us to have a negative impression as she doesn't WANT the nod for the nomination, but she wants an excuse NOT to run. It is beyond me as to she can't say sometihng like, "I've decided not to run." But, then again, NOTHING the Clinton's do is SIMPLE.

          I agree with GA, that there are not enough facts to make a 'case' for or against, but I think by waiting or stonewalling, she's sucessfull making the case against her, which she may want. Or she's making a case for Elizabeth Warren or a GOP candidate is going to get her nod. (Stranger things have happened!)

    3. 61
      retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      If Hillary Clinton deleted official communications that passed through her personal servers, the ones she admits to using for all her correspondence, then she is guilty of a federal crime that dwarfs Nixon's infamous 18 minutes of erased tape.

    4. peoplepower73 profile image86
      peoplepower73posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      There has already been a republican house investigation and a report that  clears Hillary of the Benghazi issue...Read the link below.  The law about using your own server for government business was not in effect when she was Secretary of State.  Therefore, she did not commit a crime.

      As far as four people being killed, how about  over 4,000 troops and 1,000 of Iraqis being killed over a needless and reckless war that was started by Bush and company?  Why are people focused on just four seals and an ambassador?  I'm sure there were many more seals killed as a result of the war.  This is nothing but political theater.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/world … .html?_r=0

      1. teamrn profile image79
        teamrnposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Most Americans who do their own digging are quite aware of the timeline of the laws surrounding the server. But there is a bigger picture here. SECRECY and LACK OF TRANSPARENCY. "Hey, if she feels that she has to hide e-mails, what else is she hiding? Donor information?"

        Also, if she's deceiving about this, what other deceptions is she prepared with?
        If she wants to take the risk of witholding information, she also needs to take the risk of losing votes-for that is a risk of her behavior. An unintended consequence. But, then again, she may not want to run and my bet is on the latter assumption.

        Your statement of "Why are people focused on just four seals and an ambassador? " is just as cavalier as hers when she was asked a similar question: " "what's the difference"" Do you have the same answer?

        Although not in it's complete context, her "what's the difference" remark, speaks volumes to me and tells me that SHE feels that she should be able to make up MY mind and YOUR mind. about what we ought to know and when we should know it; and that is NOT okay with me. I don't think you want someone who thinks that their critical thinking is Superior to mine!

        I decide for myself what IS important to me. I don't need her predigested pablum of what SHE thinks I need to know, What I need and ask for is her accurate reporting of facts and then I'LL make up my own mind.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image86
          peoplepower73posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          You really don't decide what is important to you, FOX news does.  If this was never brought up by the media, you wouldn't even have an awareness of it.  It's only important because the media wants you to think it's important.  It's like one cricket chirping. It will drive you crazy. However, hundreds of crickets chriping in field is a symphony.  Four soldiers being killed is a tradgedy.  Thousand being killed is just the news.  You would rather focus on the four soldiers and Hillary then the real problem which is the thousands being killed.

          1. teamrn profile image79
            teamrnposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            How in the heck do you know from whence I get my news? Last time I looked, it was my right to chose news sources and I've chosen ones that I trust. (By the way, I've gotten into the habit of trusting Morning Joe instead of MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

            "It's only important because the media wants you to think it's important." I'm no man's 'pushover' and resent that I don't have a thought in my head that the media didn't put there. The nerve!

            As far as placing my focus on the 4 soldiers who were killed, instead of what you label is the REAL problem, "the thousands being killed," who are you to say that the thousands killed is the real problem and the 4 seales and the amassador doesn't matter. Is there a reason that they BOTH can't be central issues, central problems?

            You and Hilary must be cut from the same cloth, when you tell me the REAL problem is "the thousands being killed." The good Lord granted me a brain to use for critical thinking purposes. It's a pity you've chosen not to use your gift!

          2. 61
            retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

            You mean like the Watergate Break In and the missing 18 minutes of tape?

            You mean the first American Ambassador to be killed in 40 years?
            or
            Do you mean the first American Ambassador to be killed by Islamic extremists aided in their overthrow of the Libyan government by the White House?
            or
            Do you mean the first American Ambassador sodomized to death by terrorists and his murder excused as the result of some barely seen Youtube video?
            or
            Do you mean the Ambassador who died and all the diplomatic staff with knowledge of those events spirited away so that no subsequent investigation could follow?
            or
            Do you mean the FBI delayed from investigating the events of that attack for weeks, but the same Justice Department rushed to investigate the legitimate shooting of a violent street punk in Ferguson because it aids the White House narrative that America is a filthy country deserving of rough treatment by all the aggrieved

            Especially the people Hillary has shook down for massive donations to the Clinton Foundation, while she was still Secretary of State and the incriminating emails she has privately controlled all these years.

          3. 61
            retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

            When Nixon lied, no one died. Hillary can't say that.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image86
              peoplepower73posted 22 months ago in reply to this

              In a court of law, one is presumed innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence proves they are guilty.  In a congressional investigation, one is presumed guilty until proven innocent. The narrative for Hillary goes like this:  "She must have lied.  Now all we have to do is prove it.  Because she is a liar, she is not to be trusted.  Because we think she is a liar, what else is she capable of? She caused four seals and an ambasador to die.  Now all we have to do is prove it.   Let's hope they find the smoking gun and put her away for years.  She deserves  it because of all the other law breaking things she has done in the past." 

              It's nothing but GOP propaganda to protect their brand because of elections coming up next year and they are also trying to discredit the democratic brand. They want to put a republican in the White House, just as bad as the democrats want one of their own in there.

              In the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan  had a shadow government run by Oliver North. They violated the Boland Amendment.  People did die and what did they do to Reagan?...nothing

              1. 61
                retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                No, it is presumed that she violated all the rules regarding official government communications. The same rules violated by one of her subordinates, whom she subsequently fired. The same rules Gen. David Patreus violated and now faces investigation and possible charges.
                http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/us/po … .html?_r=0

                As for damaging Hillary, I hope she gets to run. She is dumb, hateful, bitter and cold. She is a monumentally bad candidate. Why do you think she was so handily beaten by Obama, unless you want to own up to Democrat sexism. She is eminently beatable, especially by someone who is not intimidated by the Democrat lackeys in the media who shout "racist" or "sexist" whenever their anointed candidate is challenged. It would be fun to watch that numb skull deal with Scott Walker or Ted Cruz.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image86
                  peoplepower73posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  retief2000:  Thank you for proving my point.  The key phrase is "It is presumed she violated."  So the logic is Patreus had an affair.  It is now presumed that he could have used his CIA email to mail his lover.  He is guilty until proven innocent.

                  1. 61
                    retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    I am so glad you don't work in a sensitive position with access to actual important government communications. Patreus, Clinton and others have treated positions of public trust like their personal box of kleenex. The fact that lefties find this acceptable doesn't surprise me in the least. They have found the dangerous excesses of their loved ones as just so much trivia.Lefties cannot be trusted.

 
working