Clinton to hand over email server to FBI

[Doc Savage Fan]

Republicans are now starting to hope she gets the nomination. Who saw that coming?

 

[nageov3t]

Republicans are now starting to hope she gets the nomination. Who saw that coming?

so they'll be shutting down these Benghazi hearings, the entire root premise of which was to damage Hillary before the 2016 elections?

 

[alien42]

Republicans are now starting to hope she gets the nomination. Who saw that coming?

no one, because it's complete nonsense.

what's funny is that a lot of Democrats have been hoping Trump gets the nomination for months now because he is so unelectable. now here you are trying to portray the Dems reality on the Republican clown car.

 

[Jhhnn]

She's too arrogent to admit a mistake!! Why can't she just apologize to the American people?? AARRGG!!

...then

She ADMITTED WRONGDOING!!!!!1111oneshiftone!!!!!

Who saw that coming?

The best part is how the focus gets shifted around from what actually happened to how she played it afterwards, which was the only real mistake in any of it.

In that sense, the whole episode belongs with the Benghazi investigation because it's been Benghazied.

Better to have played it like this-

I put it all on my private server to achieve better information control as was my right at the time. As SoS, I had the obligation to use a private server for anything that might later be construed to be political, anyway. We all know what my opponents would have made of that. I'll exercise the same sort of care & honesty as my predecessors in what's deemed private & political in what gets released for screening by the State Dept. If the President & Congress trusted me enough to make me SoS I hope the American people trust me in dealing with this. Anybody who doesn't would never vote for me anyway.

 

[werepossum]

Yawn. "As most of us understand, what was true about Iraq's WMDs and WMD programs in 1998 was no longer true in 2001. Things change over time." "That's why we had inspectors in Iraq, to gather updated intel and confirm Iraq's WMD capabilities were effectively destroyed. The only urgency in attacking Iraq was that the U.N. inspectors kept finding there was no there there."

Perhaps you truly aren't capable of understanding this, but the day Bill Clinton left office WAS in 2001.

no one, because it's complete nonsense.

what's funny is that a lot of Democrats have been hoping Trump gets the nomination for months now because he is so unelectable. now here you are trying to portray the Dems reality on the Republican clown car.

It's not nonsense. Republicans are salivating over another year of plowing this very fertile ground just as Democrats are salivating over the prospects of somehow doing to Trump what their brothers in the GOP leadership have been unable to accomplish.

 

[alien42]

It's not nonsense. Republicans are salivating over another year of plowing this very fertile ground just as Democrats are salivating over the prospects of somehow doing to Trump what their brothers in the GOP leadership have been unable to accomplish.

the idea of "fertile ground" is absolutely nonsense, just how many more attempted conspiracies can they fail at launching?

 

[Jhhnn]

the idea of "fertile ground" is absolutely nonsense, just how many more attempted conspiracies can they fail at launching?

People incapable of recognizing when they're being manipulated with innuendo & conspiracy theory can't possibly understand how other people aren't so affected.

Having already been led through multiple leaps of faith they'll always take another if what's on the other side appeals to them at an emotional level. They decided long ago to hate Hillary because she's "untrustworthy" so they'll leap again for anything that tends to confirm their suspicion. They want to believe whatever it is quite desperately.

 

[Fern]

Not at all surprised. I tend to believe it's because he's just a shamelessly dishonest RNC shill. As most of us understand, what was true about Iraq's WMDs and WMD programs in 1998 was no longer true in 2001. Things change over time. It is possible, however, that he really "could just be stupid" enough to fail to grasp this simple fact. If we find him quoting FDR from 1941 as a reason to attack Japan now, we can concede it's "stupid" at play. Otherwise, "dishonest RNC shill" seems more likely.
-snip-

You're calling someone a shill? Bwuhahaha.

The Clinton quote is from 2003 and he didn't leave office until early 2001. I.e., 1998 is irrelevant.

You too stupid "to grasp this simple fact"?

Fern

 

[Fern]

Reading comprehension isn't easy but let me help you.
Was saddom a bad man? Absolutely! No one disputes that.
Was saddom capable of producing WMD's? No. His capability was destroyed in the first gulf war and any resurgence he might have had after the gulf war were destroyed by operation desert fox.
Claiming saddom to be a bad guy is not the same as saying he has the ability to produce WMD's and it's also not the same thing as saying he could one day have that power if we leave him alone.

The failure to comply with UN resolution 1441 (IIRC that's the #) was primarily about existing stockpiles IIRC, not production capability.

I.e., your remarks about production capability are irrelevant.

Did you just link to a wiki page that is essentially dedicated to debunking the claim that there was an al queda and Iraq link? Thanks! I guess...

Yeah. I can think of no better refutation of your claim than quoting an article you feel favorable to your position yet disagrees with you so concretely.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

You're calling someone a shill? Bwuhahaha.

I see you've abandoned any pretense of the high road, and are now flinging gratuitous ad homs too, when you have nothing useful to offer. Sad. As far as shilling is concerned, you have absolutely no room to talk.

The Clinton quote is from 2003 and he didn't leave office until early 2001. I.e., 1998 is irrelevant.

I'm even more disappointed that you've become so shamelessly dishonest in supporting your party line. My comment here was in response to you citing the Iraqi Liberation Act in post #814. The Iraqi Liberation Act was signed in 1998, which is exactly what I said.

You then reinforced this with your next post, #818, which also quoted Clinton from 1998. I addressed this directly in my post #826 (which you predictably ignored because that's what you do when your BS is rebutted).

So, don't stand there and sputter about how "1998 is irrelevant." YOU brought it up. I just shot it full of holes.


As far as Clinton's 2003 comments are concerned, I also addressed that (separately, in my same post #826.) You, naturally, ignored that as well, choosing to misrepresent my comment about 1998. Very dishonest of you.

You too stupid "to grasp this simple fact"?

Fern

If you object to the use of "stupid," take it up with Werepossum. I quoted it from him.

 

[ivwshane]

The failure to comply with UN resolution 1441 (IIRC that's the #) was primarily about existing stockpiles IIRC, not production capability.

I.e., your remarks about production capability are irrelevant.



Yeah. I can think of no better refutation of your claim than quoting an article you feel favorable to your position yet disagrees with you so concretely.

Fern

By all means, please explain how this paragraph supports your claim:

The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."

 

[Pens1566]

No one listens to Fern anyway. He's a birther. 'nuff said.

 

[ivwshane]

No one listens to Fern anyway. He's a birther. 'nuff said.

He actually used to add to the discussions and he wasn't always the "birther" type. Something changed about a year ago and he's since embraced the lunacy that is the right wing bubble.

I've noticed this same behavioral change in a lot of people who are around the age of 60. I wonder if exposure to mercury has anything to do with it.

 

[umbrella39]

The lobotomy didn't take...

 

[PokerGuy]

OMFG! She did just what her predecessors did.

No, she didn't. None of her predecessors set up and ran their own personal server to handle all their communications, official government business and private. Nice try though.

 

[PokerGuy]

She's too arrogent to admit a mistake!! Why can't she just apologize to the American people?? AARRGG!!

...then

She ADMITTED WRONGDOING!!!!!1111oneshiftone!!!!!

Who saw that coming?

The point is that when idiot lefties try to claim that "she did nothing wrong", sane people correctly point out that hildabeast herself already admitted that there was wrongdoing. You can't argue that nothing was wrong when she herself already admitted that using her own server was wrong. Also, she was (and remains) too arrogant to admit what she actually did and why, she was forced to apologize because of her tanking poll numbers.

A mistake is generally something unintentional. When you intentionally do something to avoid oversight and then get caught doing it, it's not a "mistake", it's intentional wrongdoing.

 

[PokerGuy]

No one listens to Fern anyway. He's a birther. 'nuff said.

Only idiots don't listen to him. I don't always agree with him, but he's by far one of the best posters on the forums. Always well thought out, always good insight.

 

[ivwshane]

No, she didn't. None of her predecessors set up and ran their own personal server to handle all their communications, official government business and private. Nice try though.

Is there a reason you quoted jhnnn's post who was responding to another poster about a lack of oversight in determining what emails to keep when you are talking about using a private server?

I can only assume it's because you aren't capable of addressing the point he was actually making.

 

[PokerGuy]

Republicans are now starting to hope she gets the nomination. Who saw that coming?

It's really an astounding turn of events. I would have never seen this coming. I thought that she would be the lefty media darling and be pretty much unassailable. Instead, her media cadre has not been able to protect her from her own arrogance and propensity to lie, and within just a few short months she looks like the most beatable of the democratic candidates. That's nothing short of amazing.

The repubs still have an uphill climb because they don't have a strong candidate to oppose her and they have to go up against the lefty media machine, but through her own actions hildabeast has opened the door where before there was no chance.

 

[PokerGuy]

Is there a reason you quoted jhnnn's post who was responding to another poster about a lack of oversight in determining what emails to keep when you are talking about using a private server?

He said she did exactly what her predecessors did. That's factually incorrect.

I can only assume it's because you aren't capable of addressing the point he was actually making.

Your assumption, like pretty much all of your other ones, is wrong.

 

[ivwshane]

The point is that when idiot lefties try to claim that "she did nothing wrong", sane people correctly point out that hildabeast herself already admitted that there was wrongdoing. You can't argue that nothing was wrong when she herself already admitted that using her own server was wrong. Also, she was (and remains) too arrogant to admit what she actually did and why, she was forced to apologize because of her tanking poll numbers.

A mistake is generally something unintentional. When you intentionally do something to avoid oversight and then get caught doing it, it's not a "mistake", it's intentional wrongdoing.

No she didn't. She even specified that her mistake was using a single email for both personal and work.


Back in March:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...o-address-email-controversy-in-next-few-days/

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/08/hillary-clinton-apologizes-private-email-server

In an interview with ABC News’s David Muir which aired on Tuesday, the former secretary of state said: “That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility.”

As recently as Monday, Clinton had refused to apologize for exclusively using a personal email address while secretary of state, telling the Associated Press that she wouldn’t apologize because “what I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that”.

Clinton again insisted her use of personal email “was allowed”. She told Muir “everyone in the government I communicated with knew I was using personal email but I am sorry that it has raised all of these questions”. However, the former secretary of state expressed her regret and took responsibility “for having made what was not the best decision”.

Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, reiterated her apology in a Facebook post later on Tuesday night.

Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility.

So you are either misinformed or purposely using misleading statements. Which one is it?

 

[PokerGuy]

No she didn't. She even specified that her mistake was using a single email for both personal and work.


Back in March:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...o-address-email-controversy-in-next-few-days/

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/08/hillary-clinton-apologizes-private-email-server



So you are either misinformed or purposely using misleading statements. Which one is it?

From your own quote:

As recently as Monday, Clinton had refused to apologize for exclusively using a personal email address while secretary of state, telling the Associated Press that she wouldn’t apologize because “what I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that”.

So she wouldn't apologize because what she did was allowed (ie, nothing wrong), then did a 180 and apologized for the "mistake" <wink wink>. Those are fundamentally incompatible positions. Either you did something wrong or you didn't. First she claimed she didn't do anything wrong, now she says she made a mistake. Unless you think a "mistake" is not something wrong, there's no two ways about it.

You and other lefties can continue to blather the nonsense hildabeast and her minions keep spewing, but it's becoming clear the public understands what's going on. Hillary = liar.

 

[ivwshane]

He said she did exactly what her predecessors did. That's factually incorrect.



Your assumption, like pretty much all of your other ones, is wrong.

So when jhnnn responded to this post:

Is it really just a scandal; when Clinton has admitted wrong doing?
She has acted as judge, jury and executioner regarding what was turned over to State without any third party oversight.

Best is to see if the FBI will report completely vs what the State has released that is incomplete, redacted and being spun.

Cabri was talking about the use of a personal server? I'd say my assumption was pretty spot on. You've already been cought lying in a previous post so I'm not sure who is going to believe you.

 

[ivwshane]

From your own quote:

So she wouldn't apologize because what she did was allowed (ie, nothing wrong), then did a 180 and apologized for the "mistake" <wink wink>. Those are fundamentally incompatible positions. Either you did something wrong or you didn't. First she claimed she didn't do anything wrong, now she says she made a mistake. Unless you think a "mistake" is not something wrong, there's no two ways about it.

You and other lefties can continue to blather the nonsense hildabeast and her minions keep spewing, but it's becoming clear the public understands what's going on. Hillary = liar.

Good lord! I even have you the complete quote and context and you still refused to believe your lying eyes.
Let me help you one last time because at this point you are trolling.

Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility.

There is a difference between doing something wrong and making a mistake and you don't seem to be capable of understanding that difference.

Mistake
1. an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.
2. a misunderstanding or misconception.

 

[Jhhnn]

Is it really just a scandal; when Clinton has admitted wrong doing?
She has acted as judge, jury and executioner regarding what was turned over to State without any third party oversight.

Best is to see if the FBI will report completely vs what the State has released that is incomplete, redacted and being spun.

OMFG! She did just what her predecessors did.

The Horror!

WTF do the loons think was being redacted, anyway? Some Bilderberger/ Illuminati plot to gayify America under Sharia law because Benghazi, or what?

We'll never know, will we? All because... Hillary!

No, she didn't. None of her predecessors set up and ran their own personal server to handle all their communications, official government business and private. Nice try though.

Context is everything. Hillary & her electronic age predecessors all used private servers one way or another. They all acted as judge, jury & executioner as to what was deleted & what was released from either and/or both as was their right as SoS.

It was a mistake on Hillary's part to use her private server exclusively simply because it allows for this nonsensical sort of attack.

Reference reality.

SoS #1 uses 2 servers. Whatever came through their private server is deemed private & not subject to disclosure whether it was official business or not. They edited their govt account prior to release as was their right.

SoS #2 used a private server for everything, edited the contents prior to release as was their right.

There is no practical difference from a FOIA perspective. Zip. Zero. Nothing. Nada.

Well, other than in the bubble of circular right wing "logic" where any molehill can be made into a mountain to reinforce the beliefs of the faithful.