Classified E-Mail -- & What it Really Means (to Hillary & all of us)
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
While we all are worrying about the status of Hillary's "classified" Emails, & how dangerous it was to "national security" --- I have discussed this situation with a good friend of mine, who has served the Federal Govt all of his life. (NOTE: In order to explain this response accurately, to you, I will quote his exact words): "My personal experience as a cryptographer at Strategic Air Command (Air Force in the 1960's), included access to the President's daily intelligence briefing. I used to read that TOP SECRET document every day I was working the day shift, as it came through our Communication Center. It consisted entirely of headlines & summaries of newspaper articles, editorials, & even advertisements from all over the world. Newspaper articles. The only reason for classifying it Top Secret was to hide the fact of how readily available the information really was. (All of the information itself was public knowledge)." "Interestingly, many of the newspaper articles were from IZVESTIA, & PRAVDA." (These newspapers were commonly available in some US outlets). END. In the case of Hillary, she probably gets thousands of emails a day, & less than 1% of them are possibly Secret. Some of them will change "classified" status after a few days or less. Most of the common mail she gets would be mundane things like schedules and news briefings. The POINT IS: SHE IS TEN TIMES MORE QUALIFIED than hardly any other woman in the USA. And despite the perpetual efforts of Faux News, & a few brain-washed (& brain-dead) minions of the GOP, she has managed to get through 45 years of high status accomplishments. Many are obsessed with trying to STOP HER. // The quality and caliber of those women who oppose her could never even begin to fill her shoes. All of these attacks against Hillary are just attempts to destroy her resolve, & prevent us from ever having a WOMAN President. IF YOU CAN'T TRUST a WOMAN who has served courageously -- (for 40 years) -- as First Lady of Arkansas, & a Lawyer, then as FIRST LADY of the USA (under President Bill Clinton), then as Senator from New York, -- and then SECRETARY of STATE (under Obama) -- & has spent her entire life serving the US Govt -- then WHO CAN YOU TRUST??
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
There is no "There", there. The e-mail "scandal" is not a scandal but rather a self serving quest by the mainstream media to engage in what has become populist "Clinton bashing" to take her down a few notches. Media Matters discusses this at length here: Media Matters, September 3, 2015: So Now Even The Boring Clinton Emails Are Big News? Hillary Clinton likes to watch Parks and Recreation. That's what the Clinton email kerfuffle seemed to amount to this week. News organization excitedly dove into the latest trove of emails released from Clinton's time as secretary of state, only to have to settle for vacuous nuggets about her TV viewing habits. We seem to be at the stage where the mere existence of publicly-available Clinton emails prompts journalists to hype each additional set as big news, even when the contents of the emails are non-descript. Hard-wired into the Republican way of thinking, the Beltway press often automatically treats Clinton's electronic communications as damning and suspect. But they're not. We've seen this pattern repeated numerous times in recent days, and not just with the latest, monthly release of Clinton's State Department emails. Last week, news outlets including CNN, Washington Post, and ABC News dutifully typed up reports about emails obtained by the Clinton-bashing group Citizens United, which filed lawsuits for the release of Hillary Clinton's communications. Presented as containing some damning revelations, upon closer examination the emails simply produced more yawns. ------------------------------------------ It seems that certain media are following the Clinton e-mails like MSNBC follows everything Donald Trump. They are looking for a sensational scoop to help their ratings. So Hillary Clinton likes to watch Parks and Recreation on TV. Is that a scandal? Next up...more Benghazi hearings to rehash old findings and make them into "new revelations cast doubt" or something manufactured like that.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:There is no "There", there. The e-mail "scandal" is not a scandal but rather a self serving quest by the mainstream media to engage in what has become populist "Clinton bashing" to take her down a few notches. Media Matters discusses this at length here: Media Matters, September 3, 2015: So Now Even The Boring Clinton Emails Are Big News? Hillary Clinton likes to watch Parks and Recreation. That's what the Clinton email kerfuffle seemed to amount to this week. News organization excitedly dove into the latest trove of emails released from Clinton's time as secretary of state, only to have to settle for vacuous nuggets about her TV viewing habits. We seem to be at the stage where the mere existence of publicly-available Clinton emails prompts journalists to hype each additional set as big news, even when the contents of the emails are non-descript. Hard-wired into the Republican way of thinking, the Beltway press often automatically treats Clinton's electronic communications as damning and suspect. But they're not. We've seen this pattern repeated numerous times in recent days, and not just with the latest, monthly release of Clinton's State Department emails. Last week, news outlets including CNN, Washington Post, and ABC News dutifully typed up reports about emails obtained by the Clinton-bashing group Citizens United, which filed lawsuits for the release of Hillary Clinton's communications. Presented as containing some damning revelations, upon closer examination the emails simply produced more yawns. ------------------------------------------ It seems that certain media are following the Clinton e-mails like MSNBC follows everything Donald Trump. They are looking for a sensational scoop to help their ratings. So Hillary Clinton likes to watch Parks and Recreation on TV. Is that a scandal? Next up...more Benghazi hearings to rehash old findings and make them into "new revelations cast doubt" or something manufactured like that. Schmidt, if you compare "news" published in Europe or here, then the difference is obvious. Here they love to hype things up and blow it out of proportions. Remember the Ebola scare; if you would have believed the news then, we would be all dead by now. News here is a pure game, as with everything. Facts don't count ask the church. If Hillary would have had the same mentality as Trump this e-mail and Benghazi thing would be long gone.
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Dutch Wrote: Schmidt, if you compare "news" published in Europe or here, then the difference is obvious. Here they love to hype things up and blow it out of proportions. Remember the Ebola scare; if you would have believed the news then, we would be all dead by now. News here is a pure game, as with everything. Facts don't count ask the church. If Hillary would have had the same mentality as Trump this e-mail and Benghazi thing would be long gone. I think it depends what "news" you decide to watch, read, or listen to. I'll watch CNN, Fox, and MSNBC to see the various talking points of the day, but I don't get my news from any of them. The cable "news" channels are in the business of making money. They have to fill 24 hours of television time seven days a week. So it is only understandable that they will sensationalize things in order to get as many people to stay glued to their television sets for as long as possible. They are in the business of shock "journalism," not actually informing their viewers of any actual news that's going on. However, there are numerous sources to get sober and intelligent news in this country. NPR, PBS, dozens of different podcasts, apolitical magazines, and a whole host of other sources do report the news without sensationalizing it. It's easy to think that this world is going to shit if you watch Fox News or CNN all day long, but facts are facts and the fact is that the world is the most peaceful its been in millennia. Fox "News" has an average daily viewership of around 2 million people. Most of those people are over 60 and have nothing better to do with their lives than sit on their couch and listen to blabbering idiots tell them that their country is being taken over by a socialist tyrant who's going to take their guns away. But 2 million people is 0.66 percent of the American people. That's hardly a majority of Americans. I'll also have to disagree with you that Europe is filled with sober minded news outlets that only report the news. Much of Europe is going through a xenophobic craze that mirrors the rise of Hitler in the early 1930's. Right wing Neo-Nazi groups are winning large chunks of parliamentary seats in many countries and those hate groups have more than enough media outlets pushing out their propaganda on a daily basis. Europe is no shining beacon of journalistic integrity. It's easy to think of the BBC and say that Europe is filled with apolitical news, but there are plenty of "news" outlets in Europe that spit out just as much garbage as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh do. There's no Neo-Nazi hate groups that hold any seats in our Congress, but there are plenty that are taking hold all throughout Europe as we speak. Be careful what you wish for when it comes to comparing us to Europe. That continent has more than a few issues that it's dealing with right now and America can't be blamed for all of them.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:There is no "There", there. The e-mail "scandal" is not a scandal but rather a self serving quest by the mainstream media to engage in what has become populist "Clinton bashing" to take her down a few notches. Exactly. I also think it has more to do with their ratings. Any sober analysis of this whole charade shows that this is yet another of a million manufactured scandals concocted by the Republican's, but 24/7 cable "news" channels have to keep it alive to appease their advertisers. I long for the days where the fourth estate will have a legitimate debate about the policy positions of a given candidate and not what e-mail address they did or didn't use.
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
jaredsxtn Wrote:Dutch Wrote: Schmidt, if you compare "news" published in Europe or here, then the difference is obvious. Here they love to hype things up and blow it out of proportions. Remember the Ebola scare; if you would have believed the news then, we would be all dead by now. News here is a pure game, as with everything. Facts don't count ask the church. If Hillary would have had the same mentality as Trump this e-mail and Benghazi thing would be long gone. I think it depends what "news" you decide to watch, read, or listen to. I'll watch CNN, Fox, and MSNBC to see the various talking points of the day, but I don't get my news from any of them. The cable "news" channels are in the business of making money. They have to fill 24 hours of television time seven days a week. So it is only understandable that they will sensationalize things in order to get as many people to stay glued to their television sets for as long as possible. They are in the business of shock "journalism," not actually informing their viewers of any actual news that's going on. However, there are numerous sources to get sober and intelligent news in this country. NPR, PBS, dozens of different podcasts, apolitical magazines, and a whole host of other sources do report the news without sensationalizing it. It's easy to think that this world is going to shit if you watch Fox News or CNN all day long, but facts are facts and the fact is that the world is the most peaceful its been in millennia. Fox "News" has an average daily viewership of around 2 million people. Most of those people are over 60 and have nothing better to do with their lives than sit on their couch and listen to blabbering idiots tell them that their country is being taken over by a socialist tyrant who's going to take their guns away. But 2 million people is 0.66 percent of the American people. That's hardly a majority of Americans. I'll also have to disagree with you that Europe is filled with sober minded news outlets that only report the news. Much of Europe is going through a xenophobic craze that mirrors the rise of Hitler in the early 1930's. Right wing Neo-Nazi groups are winning large chunks of parliamentary seats in many countries and those hate groups have more than enough media outlets pushing out their propaganda on a daily basis. Europe is no shining beacon of journalistic integrity. It's easy to think of the BBC and say that Europe is filled with apolitical news, but there are plenty of "news" outlets in Europe that spit out just as much garbage as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh do. There's no Neo-Nazi hate groups that hold any seats in our Congress, but there are plenty that are taking hold all throughout Europe as we speak. Be careful what you wish for when it comes to comparing us to Europe. That continent has more than a few issues that it's dealing with right now and America can't be blamed for all of them. Jared of course you've got all kind of media in Europe; you have to be selective ; the same as here, but regardless the US is champion in hyping things up. For instance do you see lately any news about our fantastic bombing all over in the middle east? I guess not; but in Europe they do. Guess why all the refugees are flooding Europe; that is because we bomb all their dwellings flat. But the US is of course not guilty of that; so don't publish it at all, just blame ISIS. Actually we should sent a train load of these people to Bush's house so they can camp in his yard. No, the news here is hypocritical; not real news; only what gets "ratings" Even the BBC news here is adapted to American taste.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
I have not kept up with any European media. So I was shocked to read the posts above that suggested that many European nations are going neo-Nazi in their thoughts and beliefs. I am shocked, because I thought WWII got rid of most of that Threat. Thanks for awakening me. Please give me a few examples of European nations that exhibit this strange retro-active trend toward Nazi beliefs. --- It is bad enough we have neo-Nazi stuff all over our internet, and they have several havens right here in the USA. I mostly hear rumors, but there are a few Websites devoted to Neo-Nazi ideals. My memory is not too vivid, but I think StormFront was one of them, and I have not read any of them in many years. A few militia groups entail a bit of Nazi in them, & a few racist groups do, too. But they seem to be on the fringe & out of sight. One thing should sort of shock us out of our ordinary stupor, --- David Duke of Louisiana, had been both a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and a neo-Nazi --- and while he was involved in those 2 somewhat extraordinary enterprises --- what can I say? (ha) He also ran (as a Republican) for "President" of the USA. We thought it was bad (recently) when the Confederate Flag was still flying in South Carolina, --- but can you imagine the reaction it would generate --- if we ever did actually get a United States PRESIDENT (in the White House) --- who would like to fly the NAZI Flag, & the White Supremacy Flag, -- alongside "Old Glory" ? **LINK below will show you how David Duke's official Cabinet Meetings may look, if he gets elected: (Number of stripes indicates Rank, not prison terms served). i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/09/2583...
|