Hillary's E-Mail (Breaking News: Smoking Gun Officially Announced)

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Tiger in NC, Mar 12, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Winston1

    Winston1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    7,423
    Well tell me Red who is that? Why do you bring up the red herring of Colin Powell? Typical diversion when one has nothing to say.
     
  2. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    47,986
    Likes Received:
    22,992
    Oprah?
     
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Who sent them is not the issue. Who failed to classify them is the issue.

    Do you think that the Secretary of State classifies government documents? How naive can you get? Her responsibility is to handle classified documents properly and she says she did. If someone failed to classify them, how is she supposed to know that they were classified. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

    Finally! Yes. They did not ask that Hillary be investigated as you claimed. They asked that the classified documents be investigated.
     
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    I've been saying a lot, you should pay better attention and I wouldn't have to repeat myself 4 or 5 times. I bring him up because he also used private email but I've heard nothing about his emails also being investigated. It is a political witch hunt singling out a democratic presidential candidate who did the same thing her republican predecessor did.
     
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Let us just see who is making things up.

    Here is a report on the Times article by Newsweek. I have listed some key paragraphs below, but you should read the whole thing and see if it clarifies things for you. It is a doozy.

    http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246

    How 'The New York Times' Bungled the Hillary Clinton Emails Story
    In March, the newspaper published a highly touted article about Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account that, as I wrote in an earlier column, was wrong in its major points. The Times’s public editor defended that piece, linking to a lengthy series of regulations that, in fact, proved the allegations contained in the article were false.

    Then, on Thursday night, the Times dropped a bombshell: Two government inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department about Clinton and her handling of the emails. The story was largely impenetrable, because at no point did it offer even a suggestion of what might constitute a crime. By Friday morning, the Times did what is known in the media trade as a “skin back”—the article now said the criminal referral wasn’t about Clinton but about the department’s handling of emails. Still, it conveyed no indication of what possible crime might be involved.
    ...
    The story seemed to further fall apart on Friday morning when Representative Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) issued a statement saying that he had spoken to the inspector general of the State Department and that there had been no criminal referral regarding Clinton’s email usage. Rather, Cummings said, the inspectors general for State and the intelligence community had simply notified the Justice Department—which issues the regulations on Freedom of Information Act requests—that some emails subject to FOIA review had been identified as classified when they had not previously been designated that way.
    ...
    Indeed, if the Times article is based on the same documents I read, then the piece is wrong in all of its implications and in almost every particular related to the inspector generals’ conclusions. These are errors that go far beyond whether there was a criminal referral of Clinton's emails or a criminal referral at all. Sources can mislead; documents do not.
    ...
    Here are the words that were left out: Freedom of Information Act. At no point in the story does the Times mention what this memo—and the other it cited—was really all about: that the officials at the Freedom of Information office in the State Department and intelligence agencies, which were reviewing emails for release, had discovered emails that may not have been designated with the correct classification. For anyone who has dealt with the FOIA and government agencies, this is something that happens all the time in every administration.
    ...
    All of this is bad enough, but then there is the ultimate disaster, paragraph seven: “At issue are thousands of pages of State Department emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account. Mrs. Clinton has said she used the account because it was more convenient, but it also shielded her correspondence from congressional and Freedom of Information Act requests.”
    ...
    Wow. The first time that the story—which readers cannot possibly know is about FOIA requests—finally mentions FOIA requests, it just manufactures a reality out of thin air. Using a private account would not, in any way, shield Clinton’s correspondence from congressional or FOIA requests.
    ...
    Second, contrary to the implication from the first Times story, Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department. In fact, where does the Times think the FOIA offices for the State Department and the intelligence community are finding the 55,000 emails now under review that it cites in its new story? Are officials breaking into Clinton’s house in the middle of the night to examine them by flashlight? Nope. They are pulling them off of the system under the department’s control.

    In our hyper-partisan world, many people will not care about the truth here. That the Times story is false in almost every particular—down to the level of who wrote what memo—will only lead to accusations that people trying to set the record straight are pro-Hillary. I am not pro-Hillary. I am, however, pro-journalism. And this display of incompetence or malice cannot stand without correction.
     
  6. Tiger in NC

    Tiger in NC There's a sucker born everyday...

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Messages:
    6,523
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    not necessarily. I'm intrigued by Bernie Sanders right now. Word is on this thing with the IG is that it is a routine procedure for an inquiry to be made any time there is thought to be a breach in confidential information. It also looks like the emails in questions were confidential materials that were emailed to HRC but were never marked as confidential. Like I said, we'll see. I don't doubt at all that there are those within the Obama administration who don't care for her but as you alluded to, politics makes for strange bed fellows some times.
     
  7. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    47,986
    Likes Received:
    22,992
    Obama owes the Clinton's big time. They will be calling upon him to do them a service soon enough.
     
  8. Winston1

    Winston1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    7,423
    Any rag that uses Elijah Cummings as a source is slanted. There is and has been dispute over what is covered. Unfortunately it is impossible to know everything because she had the server destroyed. The only details known are what she wants known.
    Again no answer is given as to why the emails were sent without proper classification. I work for a major international corporation, Siemens. We deal with confidential information regularly and the first thing we are taught is that it is the sender's responsibility to properly classify the email.
    There is much yet to be brought to light I expect.
     
  9. Tiger in NC

    Tiger in NC There's a sucker born everyday...

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Messages:
    6,523
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    and he will do whatever they ask him to do to get her elected and he will do it gladly to preserve the programs he started
     
  10. LSUTiga

    LSUTiga TF Pubic Relations

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    32,711
    Likes Received:
    11,248
    I agree. It's often been said that ignorance of the law is no excuse. When you buy a hunting license, for example, it is incumbent on the holder to know the law. Likewise for people who hold public office, ESPECIALLY one like we're talking about.

    There's also a reason why personal emails are not allowed for business and she knew that.

    The preemptive excuses are already being put out: "What if she didn't know it was classified; we don't know who had access to her blackberry; what if it was an attachment that was unknowingly forwarded...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page