Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release

  • Thread starter Thread starter slMike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Horton said:
See - I did NOT quote you, so my post was NOT directed at you. It really isn’t all about you Lily. Report me if you must.

Bolding mine - She did not make a “terrible mistake”, she broke the law and violated her oath of office. A mistake would be a couple of emails, not thousands.
Click to expand...
My mistake, then. Apologies, Horton.

I don’t think any of it is about me. I’m not running for president of anything. I don’t want anything to be about me. I think it’s all about Hillary Clinton.
 
grotto said:
Congressman Chris Stewart, serving on House Select Committee on Intelligence.
Click to expand...
You don’r have a link? I linked to him saying he didn’t know if the emails were classified or not when Clinton had possession of them.

The DoJ said they didn’t know, so I said if they don’t know, we can’t know. I hope we find out the truth, though.
 
grotto said:
Congressman Chris Stewart, serving on House Select Committee on Intelligence.
Click to expand...
Why does she have so much support then? Not all of it is from young kids. Most of them support Sanders anyway.

Why would older people, who should know better, support Clinton? 🤷

If the following is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then I, too, would say Clinton’s actions are criminal. To play fast and loose with the lives of others is never condoned. However, I can’t see her aides having such sensitive information. If three people know a secret, it’s not a secret any longer:

newsmax.com/Newsfront/us-officials-hillary-emails/2016/02/02/id/712417/

And why isn’t this on the TV news?

Time will tell, I guess. I actually hope she drops out of the race for president. Gives Sanders more of a chance.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Why does she have so much support then? Not all of it is from young kids. Most of them support Sanders anyway.

Why would older people, who should know better, support Clinton? 🤷

If the following is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then I, too, would say Clinton’s actions are criminal. To play fast and loose with the lives of others is never condoned. However, I can’t see her aides having such sensitive information. If three people know a secret, it’s not a secret any longer:

newsmax.com/Newsfront/us-officials-hillary-emails/2016/02/02/id/712417/

And why isn’t this on the TV news?

Time will tell, I guess. I actually hope she drops out of the race for president. Gives Sanders more of a chance.
Click to expand...
Given all the independent “fact checking” you did, I would think you would have the answer to this?
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Why does she have so much support then? Not all of it is from young kids. Most of them support Sanders anyway.

Why would older people, who should know better, support Clinton? 🤷

If the following is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then I, too, would say Clinton’s actions are criminal. To play fast and loose with the lives of others is never condoned. However, I can’t see her aides having such sensitive information. If three people know a secret, it’s not a secret any longer:

newsmax.com/Newsfront/us-officials-hillary-emails/2016/02/02/id/712417/

And why isn’t this on the TV news?

Time will tell, I guess. I actually hope she drops out of the race for president. Gives Sanders more of a chance.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you don’t watch the right channels. It has been on FOX twice today.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I dismissed that source because it contained something untrue. Even the FBI said the emails were unclassified when they were under Clinton’s control.
Click to expand...
Nope, all people have said is that the emails were not ‘marked’ as classified, which is not the same as saying they didn’t contain classified information that was generally known to be classified when it was sent.

If you read the link then you should have read his example of an email containing undercover agent contact details. That info is always secret, even if if the sender pastes it in an email and forgets to put ‘classified’ or such in the subject line.

If you still don’t see this, then provide your source where the FBI states that her emails were not deemed classified when they were sent.

ps. a member of the House Intelligence Committee would have access to the emails and would be an ‘authority’ on the subject, not a random punter.
 
mary_bobo said:
Just because they report what you don’t want to hear does not make it untrue. That seems immature to me. Grow up and don’t listen to FOX.
Click to expand...
This post seems a touch uncharitable to me. Fox News is not a reliable source IMO. No need to say “Grow up”.
 
Crossbones said:
This post seems a touch uncharitable to me. Fox News is not a reliable source IMO. No need to say “Grow up”.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I prefer a neutral station that just reports the facts. I think you and I are both old enough to make up our own minds based on facts without spin. Fox gives too much spin.
 
For those following Hillary’s fortunes but baffled by some the statements, this article does a good job explaining how the FBI normally operates vs how they are handling their investigation of Hillary’s email server

Why the Justice Department Won’t Work with the FBI on Clinton’s E-mail Case

The short answer is, the FBI doesn’t have a Justice Department prosecutor convening a grand jury (yet), so technically there are no ‘subjects’. This case is being handled atypically due to the sensitivity.

Again, it’s good background on the whole issue.
Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/430211/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-department-justice-obama?target=topic&tid=4571
 
Theo520 said:
For those following Hillary’s fortunes but baffled by some the statements, this article does a good job explaining how the FBI normally operates vs how they are handling their investigation of Hillary’s email server

Why the Justice Department Won’t Work with the FBI on Clinton’s E-mail Case

The short answer is, the FBI doesn’t have a Justice Department prosecutor convening a grand jury (yet), so technically there are no ‘subjects’. This case is being handled atypically due to the sensitivity.

Again, it’s good background on the whole issue.
Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/430211/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-department-justice-obama?target=topic&tid=4571
Click to expand...
Well, thank you. The trouble is that every news article, to some extent, is slanted either for or against Clinton.

The one you posted is slanted against her, this one for, more or less:

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/sep/10/hillary-clintons-emails-classified-or-not/

(I admit it’s slanted somewhat, so no one needs to jump on that.)

It’s just next-to-impossible to find an article with no bias. I watch CNN because it seems the least biased to me. Fox will condemn Clinton no matter what, MSNBC can be counted on to defend her. CNN seems to at least try to walk the middle road. I’ve heard both sides on CNN, something I can’t say for Fox or MSNBC.

I am not a fan of Clinton’s, though I think she talks a good game. I think she was reckless. I would never have done what she is alleged to have done. However, I think Clinton stopped short of actually breaking the law. I don’t believe the DoJ will prosecute her. I don’t even believe the FBI will recommend it. The facts and the law are just too murky. And, I don’t know whether I want them to prosecute or not since none of us has all the facts. I think the emails should be made public, with names, etc. redacted. Certainly the case is not clear-cut, given the length of time the whole thing is taking. I was a plaintiff in a civil case that involved 1000s of emails, covering several years, and my lawyer and I went through them in two days. Of course I was just trying to collect money owed me. Nothing in my emails involved national security. LOL Far from it. But the money was important to me.

Time will tell on this one.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Well, thank you. The trouble is that every news article, to some extent, is slanted either for or against Clinton.

The one you posted is slanted against her, this one for, more or less:

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/sep/10/hillary-clintons-emails-classified-or-not/

(I admit it’s slanted somewhat, so no one needs to jump on that.)

It’s just next-to-impossible to find an article with no bias. I watch CNN because it seems the least biased to me. Fox will condemn Clinton no matter what, MSNBC can be counted on to defend her. CNN seems to at least try to walk the middle road. I’ve heard both sides on CNN, something I can’t say for Fox or MSNBC.

I am not a fan of Clinton’s, though I think she talks a good game. I think she was reckless. I would never have done what she is alleged to have done. However, I think Clinton stopped short of actually breaking the law. I don’t believe the DoJ will prosecute her. I don’t even believe the FBI will recommend it. The facts and the law are just too murky. And, I don’t know whether I want them to prosecute or not since none of us has all the facts. I think the emails should be made public, with names, etc. redacted. Certainly the case is not clear-cut, given the length of time the whole thing is taking. I was a plaintiff in a civil case that involved 1000s of emails, covering several years, and my lawyer and I went through them in two days. Of course I was just trying to collect money owed me. Nothing in my emails involved national security. LOL Far from it. But the money was important to me.

Time will tell on this one.
Click to expand...
I think some of our posters are confusing news programs and opinion programs. I do not see much bias in FOX newscasts, but of course there is bias on the opinion shows, both conservative and liberal. They do attempt to show both sides. And as far as the emails being made public, I don’t think they should do that if they are sensitive enough that they jeopardize methods and personnel. That seems to be what I am hearing on news programs. I don’t claim to know if Clinton is guilty or not, but the evidence (and we have not seen all of it) does not absolve her either.
 
mary_bobo said:
I think some of our posters are confusing news programs and opinion programs. I do not see much bias in FOX newscasts, but of course there is bias on the opinion shows, both conservative and liberal. They do attempt to show both sides. And as far as the emails being made public, I don’t think they should do that if they are sensitive enough that they jeopardize methods and personnel. That seems to be what I am hearing on news programs. I don’t claim to know if Clinton is guilty or not, but the evidence (and we have not seen all of it) does not absolve her either.
Click to expand...
I guess bias didn’t have anything to do with cutting away early from the Clinton-Benghazi hearings. Or is that an opinion program?
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Well, thank you. The trouble is that every news article, to some extent, is slanted either for or against Clinton.

The one you posted is slanted against her, this one for, more or less:

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/sep/10/hillary-clintons-emails-classified-or-not/

(I admit it’s slanted somewhat, so no one needs to jump on that.)

It’s just next-to-impossible to find an article with no bias. I watch CNN because it seems the least biased to me. Fox will condemn Clinton no matter what, MSNBC can be counted on to defend her. CNN seems to at least try to walk the middle road. I’ve heard both sides on CNN, something I can’t say for Fox or MSNBC.

I am not a fan of Clinton’s, though I think she talks a good game. I think she was reckless. I would never have done what she is alleged to have done. However, I think Clinton stopped short of actually breaking the law. I don’t believe the DoJ will prosecute her. I don’t even believe the FBI will recommend it. The facts and the law are just too murky. And, I don’t know whether I want them to prosecute or not since none of us has all the facts. I think the emails should be made public, with names, etc. redacted. Certainly the case is not clear-cut, given the length of time the whole thing is taking. I was a plaintiff in a civil case that involved 1000s of emails, covering several years, and my lawyer and I went through them in two days. Of course I was just trying to collect money owed me. Nothing in my emails involved national security. LOL Far from it. But the money was important to me.

Time will tell on this one.
Click to expand...
I find it illuminating that you are using a slanted and biased piece from September to justify your beliefs about what Hillary actually did.

What was known then and what is known now is vastly different. Why don’t you find a more up-to-date biased piece to defend her?

And it’s laughable that you consider CNN somewhat in the middle. CNN is at least as biased as Fox, probably moreso.
 
Horton said:
It’s not a couple of emails discussing dinner arrangements. It is thousands of emails with classified and top secret information regarding the security of the US and it’s citizens. Hillary didn’t make a “mistake”, she committed a crime against this country.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

For the benefit of those who may not be tech-savvy, she didn’t set up a personal email account and accidently use it a couple of times when she meant to use her govt email account.

Hillary Clinton intentionally and secretively called up a non-approved mom-and-pop IT company to set up an unsecured email server in her home. She hired an unqualified and untrained person, who held no security access, to maintain and monitor this server.

She did all of this intentionally to avoid FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests for her emails. She didn’t do this for convenience. And she repeatedly rebuffed requests from people below her to move to a govt email so that security could be maintained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top