J
Jeanne_S
Guest
the Clinton’s having been pushing the envelope for years…this maybe the final push before they implode!
- Status
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
They get away with a lot, but I don’t have any confidence that anyone will put an end to it.
U
Usige
Guest
I in no way think that all politicians are angels, but to say that all politicians have jeopardized national security is a little like saying all humans have committed abortion. Yes, we have all sinned (and likely mortally), but that does not mean all sins are the same.
There is a huge difference from bilking the government for pork barrel projects and compromising national security. Both are sleazy, but one is more likely to get people killed.
O
otjm
Guest
You are missing the issue. It is not a matter of judging the emails; it is likely we will not know the contents of them ever.They get away with a lot, but I don’t have any confidence that anyone will put an end to it.
The issue is that Hilary used a computer system which had nowhere near the security measures which government computer systems have, and was transmitting information over her system which was and is Top Secret. She cannot claim ignorance either of the security issues of her system itself, nor the requirement that security matters of this level be only transmitted on secure systems. And it is completely beyond any belief that she did not know the matters were Top Secret.
And the fact that government systems have been hacked makes this all the more critical.
It matters not that the material was not stamped TS (although someone, including her, had a duty to mark it) so much as that at the least it appears to show a cavalier attitude to protocols which have a very clear and definite purpose of protecting information. Go back and look at what Petraeus did; this is even more egregious.
Aside from needing a Top Secret clearance, there is also the issue of “need to know”. I may have a TS clearance, but have no need to know the information as either part of my job or as part of the material, and so I have absolutely no right to see or hear any of it.
We also have no information if others may have been privy to some of the information she was transmitting, which could also be violations of security laws. People who have access to classified information also have a duty to control the dissemination and flow of that material.
There is not a whole lot of difference between transmitting TS information on a private computer system, and standing at a cocktail party quietly telling someone else the contents of the TS information. Both are open to others who have absolutely no right to access, obtaining the information. Both are a breach of security protocols.
Even if the emails had been watermarked “Top Secret” or had headings and footers marking it, she had absolutely no business transmitting it on a private system.
And even if it could be absolutely shown that her system was never hacked, and that the information was never disseminated beyond those who had a need to know, it still is a major violation of security protocols, the kind of which has the potential for possible criminal charges, as well as a host of other possible penalties.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I don’t know that national security was jeopardized.
How was it jeopardized? What in the emails in question jeopardized national security?
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Interesting. Thanks for posting. Writer is typical Dem, we will back Hillary no matter what she does or who she steps on in the process. Frightening.
M
mikekle
Guest
Well, if they are supporting her to that degree, its probable they have worked out a deal to benefit in the future in some way if she wins.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I agree with you.
E
Exiled_Child
Guest
Emails “too damaging” to release, banks “too big” to fail, politicians “too big” to jail…
T
Theo520
Guest
Youtube: Hillary’s I Will Survive ad
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
She will probably survive and become the first female president of the United States. She’s not my choice, but that seems to be the direction in which things are heading.
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
Oh really? Do tell. Provide us the other examples of cabinet members, politicians, or even military members who run private servers for proprietary government emails, or ones who send and receive classified data with the markings stripped off. I am sure for anyone minimizing this issue they are rife with examples.
And now watch the goalposts move yet again, and the comeback simply be “I just don’t think anything will happen” which is a far cry from “Everyone does it.”
The old “everyone is corrupt” excuse is nonsense, and untrue. Few if any people with security clearances do this sort of thing. Petraeus got in trouble for what he did. Edward Snowden is another one. Now Hillary Clinton.
If you are seriously claiming it doesn’t bother you as much because everyone sins or is corrupt, you have basically given up the right to every be offended by anything, ever. And we know that isn’t the case for any of us. Nor is that acceptable to God. In terms of the intelligence community, you are basically saying anyone who has gotten a speeding ticket can’t get upset if some is guilty of rape. Yeah, okay.
No, not all politicians lie, violate a signed oath regarding national security secrets, and flip the bird to the security policy in place regarding storage in a private server. You do realize that we have had spies who to jail for life for intentionally doing what she may have done accidentally. I wonder how many people had a bullet put in their head from their own governments due to her arrogance and her staff’s moronic behavior? We will likely never know, of course.
But by all means, keep minimizing the things that folks like Aldrich Ames, John Walker, Ronald Pelton, Clayton Roundtree, and Hillary Clinton do with the secrets they are entrusted with.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Name a politician who never told a lie. I noticed you didn’t do that.
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
Your argument is basically “name a person who has never sinned. That’s why I don’t consider rape a big deal.”
The reason no one entertains your question is because is ludicrous and pointless. No one is arguing about a fact-checking exercise from a debate. Somehow this went from a national security violation of the highest magnitude to “everyone lies.” Goalposts in sand.
A better question would be “name a person running for President who ran an unencrypted server from a closet in Pennsylvania and expunged classification markings from communiques above the TS/SCI level, with less security than I have on my Android smart phone.”
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Thanks! I see you can’t name a politician who never lied.Your argument is basically “name a person who has never sinned. That’s why I don’t consider rape a big deal.”
The reason no one entertains your question is because is ludicrous and pointless. No one is arguing about a fact-checking exercise from a debate. Somehow this went from a national security violation of the highest magnitude to “everyone lies.” Goalposts in sand.
A better question would be “name a person running for President who ran an unencrypted server from a closet in Pennsylvania and expunged classification markings from communiques above the TS/SCI level, with less security than I have on my Android smart phone.”
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Honest politician…the quintessential oxymoron.
Re this article…biased much?I find it hard to believe that HC,et all on the Dems side are more truthful than any of the Republicans…yeah,right
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
Not sure why the other thread was deleted, but here is a repost:
The funny thing is you can argue facts, and you can argue the truth of what will be.
I don’t nearly as much for specific facts as I do untruths like “I will make this country great” or “my play for a single-payer system will work.”
In the case of the ACA, it was lacking both. Specific facts ended up as lies, and bold promises fell flat.
Will Bernie Sanders really make this country great? To me, he will ruin it with his bizarre policies not founded in fiscal reality and business acumen. Will Hillary make this country great? Given her rapid love of abortion, and the opportunity to fill three USSC slots, I’d say no way.
Not to mention, do these articles take into account every utterance the person has said since they entered public life? If not, they are missing Hillary’s decades of bull, which should characterize her credibility for anyone.
Lily, for someone who claims not support Hillary, and claims to be “above the fray” you do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time looking for ways to defend her.
To me personally, I view the beliefs of defending abortion, euthanasia, and gay “marriage” as no better than the beliefs espoused in Nazi Germany in the 1940s. To many, they are no different and just as heinous. To those who se differently, those topics become just another campaign issue like taxes and immigration.
As such, I don’t feel any real need to compare and contrast the truthfulness records of those who espouse beliefs we view as akin to exterminating Jews, Catholics, and homosexuals.
Of course, despite this sort of article, the American public sees Hillary for the untruthful person she is, as seen in the specific polling numbers of trustworthiness and truthfulness. They view Trump in a similar way, but since this isn’t a topic created to defend Trump’s honesty, that is not relevant to this topic.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
When I checked the facts reported, the Clintons proved to be more honest than some Republicans I won’t name. But the point isn’t that one party is more honest than the other. It’s that we really can’t trust anyone in politics to be honest with us, and we should be able to do that.Honest politician…the quintessential oxymoron.
Re this article…biased much?I find it hard to believe that HC,et all on the Dems side are more truthful than any of the Republicans…yeah,right
- Status