But Her Emails...

[Joes Place]

Here's the problem I have with those picking sides on "emails" and "phone records".


Hillary Clinton's Emails problems had NOTHING to do with 'national security' or 'secure information'. Had she illegally leaked secure info, she'd have been charged for it. Sure, none of that info should have been on non-secure systems (hers, or any others), but they found zero evidence she put it there, nor any evidence anyone intentionally moved secure info onto unsecure emails - that is inclusive of .gov email addresses that Clinton was mailing back/forth to.

The REAL problem with Clinton's email system was FOIA and transparency in government - and I've pointed this out, many many times. Hiding her communications on a private system, and doing her "government" work on her own private system, impeded any accountability or transparency of what she was doing, limiting any government oversight and the ability to review her documentation at any point in the future.

It is THAT transparency in our government that makes things work, holds our elected and appointed officials accountable, and prevents abuses of office and "self-dealing". And I had a BIG problem with Clinton over that point.


The thing is, the Republicans never really pushed that point - they went after the red-herring "secure info" nonsense. The true issue was government transparency.

And here we are again, with Trump's admin and his own kids (appointed to their roles) DOING THE SAME THINGS CLINTON DID. And NONE in the GOP give a shit.

It was a problem then; it is a problem now.

And the fact that Trump, himself, has been using his private phone, to avoid any oversight from his administration, is an even BIGGER issue. It is the "Clinton Emails Issue" on steroids.

Yet no one wants to discuss it, and the same MAGAs who blasted Clinton for this, are completely selling out and giving Trump a Mulligan on it.

My position on this has been consistent. I'd encourage the MAGA-folks to take a step back, and recognize the con that is going on here. If you had a problem with Clinton hiding her government activities (and possibly any personal-gain elements), bypassing the government oversight/protections in place, you should have a very very BIG problem with what has happened since with Trump.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

cannot you just stick with the issue at hand here? removing trump in the senate with votes. get after it!! quit taking your eye off the ball!

 

[gonegolfing]

The equivalency that dumbass democrats continue to fall for is insulting, to themselves. Grow up.

 

[herkyhawk00]

Here's the problem I have with those picking sides on "emails" and "phone records".


Hillary Clinton's Emails problems had NOTHING to do with 'national security' or 'secure information'. Had she illegally leaked secure info, she'd have been charged for it. Sure, none of that info should have been on non-secure systems (hers, or any others), but they found zero evidence she put it there, nor any evidence anyone intentionally moved secure info onto unsecure emails - that is inclusive of .gov email addresses that Clinton was mailing back/forth to.

The REAL problem with Clinton's email system was FOIA and transparency in government - and I've pointed this out, many many times. Hiding her communications on a private system, and doing her "government" work on her own private system, impeded any accountability or transparency of what she was doing, limiting any government oversight and the ability to review her documentation at any point in the future.

It is THAT transparency in our government that makes things work, holds our elected and appointed officials accountable, and prevents abuses of office and "self-dealing". And I had a BIG problem with Clinton over that point.


The thing is, the Republicans never really pushed that point - they went after the red-herring "secure info" nonsense. The true issue was government transparency.

And here we are again, with Trump's admin and his own kids (appointed to their roles) DOING THE SAME THINGS CLINTON DID. And NONE in the GOP give a shit.

It was a problem then; it is a problem now.

And the fact that Trump, himself, has been using his private phone, to avoid any oversight from his administration, is an even BIGGER issue. It is the "Clinton Emails Issue" on steroids.

Yet no one wants to discuss it, and the same MAGAs who blasted Clinton for this, are completely selling out and giving Trump a Mulligan on it.

My position on this has been consistent. I'd encourage the MAGA-folks to take a step back, and recognize the con that is going on here. If you had a problem with Clinton hiding her government activities (and possibly any personal-gain elements), bypassing the government oversight/protections in place, you should have a very very BIG problem with what has happened since with Trump.

Now, if she didn't acid wash her hard drive and destroy several lap tops and phones that were on unsecure servers, maybe we would have a better idea.

 

[Joes Place]

Now, if she didn't acid wash her hard drive and destroy several lap tops and phones that were on unsecure servers, maybe we would have a better idea.

 

[ping72]

Someone please help me find the Mike Pence buttery males meme. Thanks in advance.

 

[MWardT]

Did it have anything to do with smashing phones with hammers?

 

[hawkedoff]

There is also the fact that if literally anyone else had taken the exact same actions as her they would go to jail. She was Secretary of State not some flunkie and yet she wasn't aware how vulnerable she made this country by doing what she did? Our company gets constant attacks by nation states trying to grab data....she didnt in her position know this would happen to her scotch taped home brew server? She knew and did it anyway which is the same thing as handing it to them. It was her job to know and she didn't anyway

Yes it matters and it is a prime example of people covering for her that would have sent others to prison for a very long time.

 

[Joes Place]

Did it have anything to do with smashing phones with hammers?

If "obstruction" occurred, then why wasn't anyone indicted for it?

Logical answer is these are simply rightwing smear campaigns, with limited basis in reality.
Jeff Sessions answered the House during his hearings: "If you can point me to evidence of a crime, I will prosecute it"

As "obstructive acts" are crimes, then he'd easily have taken on these 'slam dunk' cases, were they real. That's essentially how I know they are primarily bullshit.

 

[Joes Place]

There is also the fact that if literally anyone else had taken the exact same actions as her they would go to jail.

FUNFACT: NONE of her aides were indicted or 'went to jail', either.

 

[Hawkeyenuts66]

Did it have anything to do with smashing phones with hammers?

BleachBit and Ball peens are required items in the Democrat starter kit.

 

[MWardT]

FUNFACT: NONE of her aides were indicted or 'went to jail', either.

Who was in charge of the AGs office?

 

[Joes Place]

BleachBit and Ball peens are required items in the Democrat starter kit.

Again, if that actually happened, then why did no one take that evidence to Jeff Sessions when they had the opportunity? Why hasn't Bill Barr taken it up? It would be a clear-cut case of "obstruction".

 

[THE_DEVIL]

There is also the fact that if literally anyone else had taken the exact same actions as her they would go to jail. She was Secretary of State not some flunkie and yet she wasn't aware how vulnerable she made this country by doing what she did? Our company gets constant attacks by nation states trying to grab data....she didnt in her position know this would happen to her scotch taped home brew server? She knew and did it anyway which is the same thing as handing it to them. It was her job to know and she didn't anyway

Yes it matters and it is a prime example of people covering for her that would have sent others to prison for a very long time.

View embedded media

View embedded media

 

[Joes Place]

Who was in charge of the AGs office?

Sessions.
Barr.

Any and all of those crimes would still have had an active statute of limitations.
Neither has moved on these "alleged" crimes. That means either:

A) They never actually occurred
or
B) Sessions and Barr are colossally incompetent, or complicit

Occam's Razor indicates A is the correct answer here.

 

[MWardT]

Sessions.
Barr.

Any and all of those crimes would still have had an active statute of limitations.
Neither has moved on these "alleged" crimes. That means either:

A) They never actually occurred
or
B) Sessions and Barr are colossally incompetent, or complicit

Occam's Razor indicates A is the correct answer here.

Who obstructed in the investigation with their public comments when he was president?

 

[Joes Place]

.

Just so people can see it:

 

[Joes Place]

Who obstructed in the investigation with their public comments when he was president?

A: No one.

 

[Joes Place]

Who obstructed in the investigation with their public comments when he was president?

If they were "guilty", he'd have pre-emptively pardoned them, if he wanted to make sure they never faced any responsibility for their alleged actions.

Can you link us to those "pardons"? TIA

 

[sober_teacher]

There is also the fact that if literally anyone else had taken the exact same actions as her they would go to jail. She was Secretary of State not some flunkie and yet she wasn't aware how vulnerable she made this country by doing what she did? Our company gets constant attacks by nation states trying to grab data....she didnt in her position know this would happen to her scotch taped home brew server? She knew and did it anyway which is the same thing as handing it to them. It was her job to know and she didn't anyway

Yes it matters and it is a prime example of people covering for her that would have sent others to prison for a very long time.

We also know now that Powell also used his private email at times when he was SoS under Bush, and numerous other cabinet level people (including the Trump administration) have done so as well. You're also kidding yourself if you think no one in Congress doesn't do this - either party. You're right that she should have known better. So should a lot of other people.

There are a disturbing number of people in public office who don't fully grasp how vulnerable digital communications are. She was wrong to do what she did, which is not the same thing as saying it was criminal.

 

[SSG T]

Who obstructed in the investigation with their public comments when he was president?

Then bring charges of Obstruction. That would be a federal crime. Again, Barr could do that...so why doesn't he?

 

[MWardT]

I was just taking a page out of the Dems playbook to get you going Joe.

 

[Hawkeyenuts66]

Again, if that actually happened, then why did no one take that evidence to Jeff Sessions when they had the opportunity? Why hasn't Bill Barr taken it up? It would be a clear-cut case of "obstruction".

OMG... obtuse much?? Who the hell do you think was pulling the strings through the entire Clinton debacle? The entire investigation was a joke, and most sane people can grasp that. I would not be at all surprised that Barr will continue to investigate all the players in that joke of an investigation.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hil...3000-emails-secretary-state/story?id=42389308
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...nned-that-clinton-aides-destroyed-phones-with
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/16/james-comey-thinks-its-normal-smash-old-cell-phone/
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/best-of-clinton-fbi-report-227692

 

[hawkedoff]

We also know now that Powell also used his private email at times when he was SoS under Bush, and numerous other cabinet level people (including the Trump administration) have done so as well. You're also kidding yourself if you think no one in Congress doesn't do this - either party. You're right that she should have known better. So should a lot of other people.

There are a disturbing number of people in public office who don't fully grasp how vulnerable digital communications are. She was wrong to do what she did, which is not the same thing as saying it was criminal.

Actually it was criminal. There is zero doubt about that.

So why wasn't she indicted? Why weren't her aides indicted? After all Humas Weiner husband is the reason all of this was brought forward again. Thousands of emails on his child porn computer involving state department business. But hey no big deal right? His computer with zero safeguards that he used to entice children for sex with sensitive government access and emails.

Lots of crimes were committed including obstruction and yet nothing moved forward. Why is that exactly?

It isn't because she or her aides were clean....

 

[Joes Place]

Then bring charges of Obstruction. That would be a federal crime. Again, Barr could do that...so why doesn't he?

They literally have no answer for this.

Because the only answer is: those alleged acts of obstruction never really occurred.

 

[Joes Place]

OMG... obtuse much?? Who the hell do you think was pulling the strings through the entire Clinton debacle?

Again: if they committed crimes, neither Sessions nor Barr bothered to pursue it.

If you're convinced the Fox Pundits have it right, you should be emailing Barr and DOJ daily to make them prosecute. Sessions testified, under oath, to the House Committee that he "had no evidence of any crime".

Did he lie? Then prosecute HIM, too!!!!

 

[Joes Place]

Actually it was criminal. There is zero doubt about that.

Uh huh. All we have to go on is Sessions testifying under oath "there was no crime", and both he and Barr neglecting to prosecute the alleged crimes.

 

[gusto79]

Did it have anything to do with smashing phones with hammers?

Why is this bad? What should they do with old phones when they get new ones?

 

[hawkedoff]

Uh huh. All we have to go on is Sessions testifying under oath "there was no crime", and both he and Barr neglecting to prosecute the alleged crimes.

There is also Comey saying there was a crime but it wouldn't ever be prosecuted......

https://time.com/4394178/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-investigation/

 

[Rudolph]

It's amusing that people need Hillary to have skated on all sorts of shit as a type of defense for, you know, pretty much whatever behavior and/or actions before or since Hillary that they find serves their cause.

The ruse is rooted in the idea that Hillary did all kinds of indictable stuff yet no charges, and, of course, the audacity of no admission of guilt on her part.

All of this goes away if Hillary is actually charged and found guilty. Because if that happened, then, suddenly, accountability becomes a thing they must be subjected to as well. As long as Hillary is free, no matter what any R does, he/she gets to avoid being held to account because Hillary.

Quite convenient.

I mean, damn, look at Trump using an unsecured cell phone as opposed to the secure line. This is, of course, okay as long as Hillary's email thing remains whataboutable. And it's only whataboutable if she remains unindicted and uncharged.

Cool.

 

[Joes Place]

There is also Comey saying there was a crime but it wouldn't ever be prosecuted......

https://time.com/4394178/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-investigation/

No. That is not what he said.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

If "obstruction" occurred, then why wasn't anyone indicted for it?

Logical answer is these are simply rightwing smear campaigns, with limited basis in reality.
Jeff Sessions answered the House during his hearings: "If you can point me to evidence of a crime, I will prosecute it"

As "obstructive acts" are crimes, then he'd easily have taken on these 'slam dunk' cases, were they real. That's essentially how I know they are primarily bullshit.

logical answer is: two dead teens in mena

 

[SSG T]

There is also Comey saying there was a crime but it wouldn't ever be prosecuted......

https://time.com/4394178/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-investigation/

That's not what he said. Might want to read all of the words in the link you provide.

 

[silasstarr]

Uh huh. All we have to go on is Sessions testifying under oath "there was no crime", and both he and Barr neglecting to prosecute the alleged crimes.

Come on dude, Hannity told him there was a crime. Hannity is always right.

 

[unIowa]

OP seems obsessed with Clinton's emails, she isn't even POTUS bruh.

 

[baddog25]

 

[BioHawk]

There is also the fact that if literally anyone else had taken the exact same actions as her they would go to jail. She was Secretary of State not some flunkie and yet she wasn't aware how vulnerable she made this country by doing what she did? Our company gets constant attacks by nation states trying to grab data....she didnt in her position know this would happen to her scotch taped home brew server? She knew and did it anyway which is the same thing as handing it to them. It was her job to know and she didn't anyway

Yes it matters and it is a prime example of people covering for her that would have sent others to prison for a very long time.

No they wouldn't have. But if you feel that she should have gone to jail then you should be pounding on the FBI's door to go arrest that piece of shit in the White House, just for the crap he's admitted to doing alone.

 

[BioHawk]

OMG... obtuse much?? Who the hell do you think was pulling the strings through the entire Clinton debacle? The entire investigation was a joke, and most sane people can grasp that. I would not be at all surprised that Barr will continue to investigate all the players in that joke of an investigation.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hil...3000-emails-secretary-state/story?id=42389308
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...nned-that-clinton-aides-destroyed-phones-with
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/16/james-comey-thinks-its-normal-smash-old-cell-phone/
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/best-of-clinton-fbi-report-227692

lol, If you feel that Republicans are this incompetent at doing their jobs then quit voting for them.

 

[Joes Place]