This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The culling of the emails is a bigger deal than people realize too I suspect. Heather Samuelson was there for the final interview and that was the line of interrogation that made Mills walk out of hers. The search terms pretty much guaranteed that what was not included would by nature be excluded by the results, even though they were very likely subjects of Foia requests.
I don't know...Let me go into my variable Time Machine and input the different scenario.
Yup. I'm less lenient on the carelessness issue. But, the purpose of the server is a major concern, particularly since she obviously lied about this. The question is why did she lie about this?
You know what he means. The FFA demographic perfectly matches the anti-Hillary demographic, and as a result this place is an echo chamber when it comes to her. Yes, her unfavorables outweigh her favorables, but to some extent that's just the reality of politics in the cable news/social media era. Her favorables are higher than Congress, Ryan, Trump, and pretty much every other presidential candidate who ran other than Sanders.
Only 25% think the country is going in the right direction. Probably referring to the other 75% who know we are screwed big time.
In 2009 there were companies that provided technology that would separate and protect work data on people's personal phones. Airwatch and Mobile Iron come to mind, but there were dozens of them back then. But I don't recall any of them met the federal governments strict standards at the time.
Ah, I see. Yet another Clinton critic who can't actually back up his assertion with actual facts and laws and regulations. Just like all the folks who called her a criminal without understanding the laws they claimed she had violated.
It didn't prove that. You could speculate, but without access to the relevant emails we're pretty much in the dark.
To be clear, the FBI established that there is evidence the laws were violated. They then packaged their findings in an opinion that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. Yet what exactly is a "reasonable prosecutor"?
The FBI didn't declare she broke the law. Comey specifically stopped short of that.You must live in another reality. When the FBI declares that you broke the law as written but that it seems that the law hasn't been enforced as written, that certainly isn't a case of baseless accusations. That's a case of getting lucky that previous prosecutors chose to ignore the law as it is written.
This isn't about profiting from your work - its about having your likeness implicitly endorse a candidate without Comey's consent.
Your first issue is fairly irrelevant as what's come out of the FOIA emails has been fairly irrelevant.
This is what reasonable people think. I never cared about the emails. I only cared that she possibly and now appears did put our National Security at risk. It DOES NOT MATTER to what degree she did this. She knew better. Twice I posted a youtube in this thread of a presser she did before all this and she talks about internet and email safety and concerns.
If her motivation for setting up the server was to avoid FOIA, then that's a qualifier.
I'm not sure you realize, the people pounding on you in the last few pages are different than the usual suspects (like myself). It's a whole other group of people with some familiar faces sprinkled in.
No they didn't. They said that there was evidence of potential violations. You shouldn't say "to be clear" and then say something that's wrong.
You mean the full picture? No, that's true.
Name one prosecutor who would prosecute a Presidential Candiate less then 5 months until the General Election.
CNN:
The head of the FBI slammed Clinton and her team as "extremely careless." I think it's worse; I think she's extremely clueless about the bigger picture.
Well, if she weren't running for President we'd never have known about this.
The laws in question were written in the early part of the 20th century. Nobody involved in drafting or passing them had the relative security of electronic communications in mind.
SMH. I know you are just baiting me here but I'll try to play along. I responded to someone who posted "LOL at the "she couldn't even work at (insert agency here) theme"... I asked him to call various departments in DC that have such requirements and ask them.
If thats the crutch of an excuse you are using then you look really bad trying to argue the fact.
Would you list the times she's displayed poor judgment in your opinion starting as far back as you can. I'm curious what exactly you mean by this.
I don't want to rehash the statutes. I think everyone who was engaging in that discussion can see now that both sides had points and there was nothing unreasonable about either position (ie those who took the time to look at it properly). IMO of course, but I think this has been a bit of a nil-nil draw, perhaps with Hillary going through on a penalty kick.
I totally disagree that this would keep her from getting a job at an agency that required a background check regarding competence and trustworthiness.
