Forum Thread

Really confused about Hillary's email scandal

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 12 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I am confused about Hillary's email scandal:

    How did the system work? Did people send emails to her state.gov address and then her aides figured out if that was classified or not and forwarded it to her private email server? Or did people directly send emails classified and all to her email address.

    How does she benefit from this setup? If the government asks for her emails and she controls what she hands over to the government by deleting emails etc. then she is in even bigger soup than anything the emails could reveal? If I want to talk about something very secretive would I use traditional means of communication like phone calls etc. or even a different email account.

    Did she really use bleachbit to wipe her server?

    Doesn't the blackberry she have support personal email servers like gmail or so? Are there more emails to be released?

    When the FBI asked for her emails why did she delete so many emails and why wasn't the entire email server be handed over to the FBI?

    Did she delete those emails personally or her lawyers did? Among the 30000 emails she deleted were there clearly work related emails?

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    scaredoftrump Wrote:

    I am confused about Hillary's email scandal:

    How did the system work? Did people send emails to her state.gov address and then her aides figured out if that was classified or not and forwarded it to her private email server? Or did people directly send emails classified and all to her email address.

    How does she benefit from this setup? If the government asks for her emails and she controls what she hands over to the government by deleting emails etc. then she is in even bigger soup than anything the emails could reveal? If I want to talk about something very secretive would I use traditional means of communication like phone calls etc. or even a different email account.

    Did she really use bleachbit to wipe her server?

    Doesn't the blackberry she have support personal email servers like gmail or so? Are there more emails to be released?

    When the FBI asked for her emails why did she delete so many emails and why wasn't the entire email server be handed over to the FBI?

    Did she delete those emails personally or her lawyers did? Among the 30000 emails she deleted were there clearly work related emails?

    Actually I don't care; we are busy electing an President. In other mails I already said our options are now only two persons. I doubt if any "third" party contenders are viable. Thus the answer is: Hillary made lots of faults; I think the Benghazi one was the biggest; you don't sent anyone to Libya without protection when they just killed Ghadafi, ( stupid, also from this ambassador) Anyway the choice is easy ( I would vote Bernie; but he's no longer there) thus only Hillary is left or if you want an total hypocrite bully ego tripping asshole, then vote for Trump.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I agree Dutch but Hillard didn't send anyone to Libia. They were all there doing their job. The ambassador was specifically warned about going where he did for the very reason ps that killed him. Blaming Hillary is a real stretch in this case.

    The whole e mail nonsense is just that - more rubbish to try and make her, and thus the Democrats, look bad when in reality many of them did itand it was hardly unusual. Not a good practice, for sure, but no story there at all just a Republican fear mongering hype.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote:

    I agree Dutch but Hillard didn't send anyone to Libia. They were all there doing their job. The ambassador was specifically warned about going where he did for the very reason ps that killed him. Blaming Hillary is a real stretch in this case.

    The whole e mail nonsense is just that - more rubbish to try and make her, and thus the Democrats, look bad when in reality many of them did itand it was hardly unusual. Not a good practice, for sure, but no story there at all just a Republican fear mongering hype.

    P.R. which ever way you look at it, neither candidate makes me jump from joy. About Benghazi; if lower personnel screws up then the blame always moves up the "ladder" Since she was up that "ladder", she should have known better, The same with her server and other things. Neither candidate is suited for the job; especially in these complex times.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Sometimes I wonder if anyone is? Certainly no modern day candidate has been. Perhaps FDR was?
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    If we continue to apply purity tests to petty issues like e-mails and ignore the really big thinking issues, then we will never find the perfect candidate. Ideologues on the left will never be satisfied with someone in the middle. Hence they push candidates like Jill Stein. Ideologues on the right likewise have a hard time finding candidates who meet all the criteria of the white Christian working man who believes Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya.

    So Republicans end up with a carnival barker who will tell any audience what they want to hear. He can speak softly in Mexico saying how he loves the amazing Mexican people. They listen but don't cheer much. He then shift gears and goes to Phoenix where he yells for 72 minutes reading from a teleprompter telling the amazing Arizonans that he will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it...100 percent. They cheer him wildly. He then attends a black church where he delivers a sermon telling the African American congregation how amazing they are and what he's going to for them that Obama hasn't. They cheer him politely and respectfully.

    The only candidate offering anything of substance in her proposals is Hillary Clinton, but the media is obsessed with her e-mails when they are not having their noses up Trump's ass. When Hillary goes into intricate details on her proposals, the media loses interest. There is no cheering to be seen because the media has left the building.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, This is the classical "Relictis tantum unum" only one left standing proposition. The answer is there is no alternative. In the worst case scenario close your eyes, hold your nose and pick one. You can't rationalize overwhelming sentiment. Simply stand behind your choice pointing out attributes. Continually defending keeps the argument alive. Point out positives.

    If her campaign doesn't come out with a Trump style of fighting it is going to be over. Since the media loves Trump then start every attack with the word Trump.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Schmidt, This is the classical "Relictis tantum unum" only one left standing proposition. The answer is there is no alternative. In the worst case scenario close your eyes, hold your nose and pick one. You can't rationalize overwhelming sentiment. Simply stand behind your choice pointing out attributes. Continually defending keeps the argument alive. Point out positives.

    If her campaign doesn't come out with a Trump style of fighting it is going to be over. Since the media loves Trump then start every attack with the word Trump.

    Schmidt does not seem to realize that 80% of the people here have no time or the patience to go into her details. Most people are more interested on how an candidate presents itself and throws out things over which they don't have to think to long. Details as presented by Hillary become boring quickly; the same as her adds. she's got only one good add; the rest is useless. Her add agency is the worst there is and counts only money, I presume. Trump gets daily "free" publication ( 90% compared to her 10%) but she does spend millions on adds which don't work. Just like Chet says there is plenty of ammunition to attack Trump with. For instance you just need one clip of Trumps "hundred" facial expressions; that tells exactly what type of guy it is. Drag in Duck Dynasty and the picture is complete. Also you can use an picture of Trumps gold plated penthouse and personal jet, besides an picture of an "slum" trailer park for blacks or "homeless". Or an "clip" of an screaming Trump besides an calm talking Obama. Many possibilities, but her add agency as well Hillary has no fantasy at all.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch, You often use the term "Heads buried in the sand". If people don't look for the details it's because they don't want them. Many decided what they wanted long ago and facts or details would just get in the way. Sad but true. If this election goes to hell, the people will have gotten exactly what they deserve.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote: Dutch, You often use the term "Heads buried in the sand". If people don't look for the details it's because they don't want them. Many decided what they wanted long ago and facts or details would just get in the way. Sad but true. If this election goes to hell, the people will have gotten exactly what they deserve.

    T.J. I fully agree; especially your last line. Yes very sad indeed that an country of over 350 million people you can't find an suitable candidate with an "clean" background and "honesty" as well has world wide experience and "brains"; of course should be able to "present" himself perfectly on the "media" and be well spoken.?

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "Many decided what they wanted long ago and facts or details"

    People don't think period. They like to be " in the know" and "in the swim". When they are young they create the craze for the most popular toy, older they create the craze for the most popular song, dance , movie or sport. As adults they still want to be in the know so they will support what their crowd seems to be going for. The real proof that people don't think is that Bernie isn't the candidate leading by 85 percentage points.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dutch, You could have an dog named Bob. You can yell out that he's a Liar 8 times a day, every day of your life. 8 years later you can say Bob, what's the price of gasoline today ? Your drunken neighbor (David) will say, why are you asking Bob ? You know that he'll lie to you. No David, he won't. Dogs don't talk !

    Welcome to the republican party. Your neighbor won't vote for your dog because he believes that Bob lies......