Drip, drip, drip.... the Clinton email saga continues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Claiming that former secretary of states had private email servers is like apples and oranges.

Colin Powell had a private email for housekeeping and secure email for state matters. When he started at the state department email was a new concept and he had to persuade people to get funding for new computers and what not.

Clinton had an entire whole private email server now we know she used to communicate classified information, and was Secretary of State during a time when email was mainstream and we knew about the dangers of hackers and what not. Even in private companies we all got training on how to secure information. Her entire actions smack of hubris and at the best very poor judgement.

Does that include or not include the 22 million emails that Rove and company erased from the private email server that senior Bush administration members used? http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/03/18/flashback-rove-erases-22-million-white-house-emails-on-private-server-at-height-of-u-s-attorney-scandal-media-yawns/[/quoteright, it was different. There
No, that was different.

Agreed, that was far worse, as not only were private email servers used extensively but emails showing involvement in possible criminal actions by the administration such as unmasking of Valerie Plame and fimproper firing of us attorneys were destroyed.

Only about 200 news articles about this. Read the one upthread or Google Bush email controversy.
Evidence of this??

Read any of the 200 plus news articles about it. One upthread or Google Bush email controversy. Bush administration couldn't't respond to subpoenas from congressional investigation s because 22 million and ninety five percent of Rove emails destroyed and erased from private server .

Here's the difference between the bush administration and Hilary's email controversy for you. Absolutely poor judgement from Hilary.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/juan-williams/media-reaction-george-w-bushs-email-controversy/

First of all, there’s the difference in who’s at the receiving end of the criticisms. In 2007, it was a group of higher-up White House staffers and advisers (notably Rove) who occasionally used private email accounts for official business. As far as we can tell, though, Bush himself was not suspected as being part of this group. Today, the target is a former secretary of state, who only used private email when conducting official government business.

[Anonymous]

Here's the different between the bush administration and Hilary for you. Absolutely poor judgement from Hilary.nand the argument hey did it so it is ok for her to do it does not pass muster with me. So because one person escaped drunk driving means all drunk drivers get a pass?

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/juan-williams/media-reaction-george-w-bushs-email-controversy/

First of all, there’s the difference in who’s at the receiving end of the criticisms. In 2007, it was a group of higher-up White House staffers and advisers (notably Rove) who occasionally used private email accounts for official business. As far as we can tell, though, Bush himself was not suspected as being part of this group. Today, the target is a former secretary of state, who only used private email when conducting official government business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the different between the bush administration and Hilary for you. Absolutely poor judgement fr
om Hilary.nand the argument hey did it so it is ok for her to do it does not pass muster with me. So because one person escaped drunk driving means all drunk drivers get a pass?

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/juan-williams/media-reaction-george-w-bushs-email-controversy/

First of all, there’s the difference in who’s at the receiving end of the criticisms. In 2007, it was a group of higher-up White House staffers and advisers (notably Rove) who occasionally used private email accounts for official business. As far as we can tell, though, Bush himself was not suspected as being part of this group. Today, the target is a former secretary of state, who only used private email when conducting official government business.

Nobody said it was Bush but most t certainly very senior members of his administration.22.million emails is hardly an isolated occurrence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the difference between the bush administration and Hilary's email controversy for you. Absolutely poor judgement from Hilary.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/juan-williams/media-reaction-george-w-bushs-email-controversy/

First of all, there’s the difference in who’s at the receiving end of the criticisms. In 2007, it was a group of higher-up White House staffers and advisers (notably Rove) who occasionally used private email accounts for official business. As far as we can tell, though, Bush himself was not suspected as being part of this group. Today, the target is a former secretary of state, who only used private email when conducting official government business.

New poster. You are misrepresenting the linked analysis. That analysis is saying the Bush and Clinton email situation were actually fairly similar on the substance. It also is clear that much less criticism was brought to bear on the Bush situation. The difference that the analysis is discussing is not a substantive difference, but rather why they were treated differently. It concludes the two similar email situations are being treated differently because Clinton is running for President in 2016, while Bush had completed his political runs at the time his email misuse surfaced. Also, Bush's email misuse was secondary to the even-larger scandal if Bush's illegal political firing of several US Attorneys. Key quotes from the analysis are below.

Over the course of the investigation, it came out that some White House officials had conducted White House business over private email accounts set up on a server through the Republican National Committee. The White House later admitted that some internal White House emails conducted on the RNC server might have been lost. Democrats in Congress accused the administration of purposefully circumventing recordkeeping processes, while the White House said staffers were supposed to use the RNC emails solely for political affairs, not official business. Comparing the Bush and Clinton email scandals is not exactly apples to apples, but there are some similarities. ...

Clinton is in all likelihood running for president in 2016, so she has a lot of media attention on her to begin with. At the time of their email controversy, the Bush administration was past their 2004 second-term election and the 2006 midterms. Additionally, the White House email controversy was on the periphery of a much larger scandal -- the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys.

If you're going to make up stuff, at least find some garbage Breitbart piece that supports your false claims. Posting something that refutes your false narrative is just embarrassing for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the difference between the bush administration and Hilary's email controversy for you. Absolutely poor judgement from Hilary.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/juan-williams/media-reaction-george-w-bushs-email-controversy/

First of all, there’s the difference in who’s at the receiving end of the criticisms. In 2007, it was a group of higher-up White House staffers and advisers (notably Rove) who occasionally used private email accounts for official business. As far as we can tell, though, Bush himself was not suspected as being part of this group. Today, the target is a former secretary of state, who only used private email when conducting official government business.

New poster. You are misrepresenting the linked analysis. That analysis is saying the Bush and Clinton email situation were actually fairly similar on the substance. It also is clear that much less criticism was brought to bear on the Bush situation. The difference that the analysis is discussing is not a substantive difference, but rather why they were treated differently. It concludes the two similar email situations are being treated differently because Clinton is running for President in 2016, while Bush had completed his political runs at the time his email misuse surfaced. Also, Bush's email misuse was secondary to the even-larger scandal if Bush's illegal political firing of several US Attorneys. Key quotes from the analysis are below.

Over the course of the investigation, it came out that some White House officials had conducted White House business over private email accounts set up on a server through the Republican National Committee. The White House later admitted that some internal White House emails conducted on the RNC server might have been lost. Democrats in Congress accused the administration of purposefully circumventing recordkeeping processes, while the White House said staffers were supposed to use the RNC emails solely for political affairs, not official business. Comparing the Bush and Clinton email scandals is not exactly apples to apples, but there are some similarities. ...

Clinton is in all likelihood running for president in 2016, so she has a lot of media attention on her to begin with. At the time of their email controversy, the Bush administration was past their 2004 second-term election and the 2006 midterms. Additionally, the White House email controversy was on the periphery of a much larger scandal -- the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys.

If you're going to make up stuff, at least find some garbage Breitbart piece that supports your false claims. Posting something that refutes your false narrative is just embarrassing for you.

urghed. The argument they did it so she gets to do it is not a good argument. Both broke the law. Hilary is likely to get indicted for this. Go Sanders!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 19:16 so not a Hillary fan but I agree that she will not be indicted. More info will come out, she will look bad and the election will go on. Many will question her judgement and doubt her commitment to following rules and laws that are inconvenient for her but she won't be indicted. Sorry to say. Hopefully this will cost her votes but she is not going to the joint.

If anything, she will have a 'spell' that will be tied back to her previous head injury, and she will bow out for 'grave health reasons'.

I predict that this will happened shortly after she gets the nomination.

No doubt it's coming...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a part of her wants to go to federal prison - she would be away from bill, away from it all, and would get to explore her sexuality freely.

Ouch.