-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Hillary Clinton's scandals explained briefly
- Thread starter LivingWordUnity
- Start date
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
For a brief moment step outside and walk in your opposition's shoes.
Think back to all the wikileaks during the Bush lied people died years and the fanboy left support for Assange. Now take what I posted and with integrity examine.
Upvote
0
tickingclocker
Well-Known Member
That's because a dog cannot sit in two laps at the same time. This one chose Trump's lap. Yet somehow the dog just couldn't settle down with any confidence, so it chose to perch on only one leg. The other leg was uncomfortably occupied by Roger Ailes, fired CEO of Fox News and close Trump campaign adviser who was found guilty of sexual harassment, is why.
Upvote
0
tickingclocker
Well-Known Member
Have you ever asked yourself... hey, where are Trump's hacked emails? Why aren't we seeing those?
I have.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
That's an interesting response the President's press sec gave. It would imply the President did not know the email address he responded to or the address he received it from.
Now of course reading emails as a President entails handlers who pull it, review it and prioritize it for reading. President Obama could implicate his staff handler as never telling him the server source and thus blame the staffer. However that is telling in itself. The President has operational security personnel working for him. If an email to him is not .gov or .mil a flag is raised. The flag would be, "Mr. President, what you have in your hands is not from a government network." They normally do so with personal emails sent to the WH communications. Either way he would know, based on security protocols, the Clinton emails were sent from a non government source and not have the same safe guards as a government source.
Unless of course being the President he just logged on the net himself and checked a Gmail account his handlers did not know about. Which could turn out to be the case. If so, he flat out lied.
Upvote
0
- Mar 21, 2003
- 21,119
- 17,842
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
No, "was aware of the email address" would mean the opposite of that.
details of server setup are not part of an email address. Even if someone pulled up the email header info, THAT would not have revealed the server setup.
Why would that be the case? I have a military email address and send stuff to (and receive stuff from) non government address all the time. It's par for the course that people who may not be in government may want to talk to the president.
Just to be clear here, it's your position that people outside of the government talking to people inside the government by email is somehow unusual? Is it your opinion that maintaining commercial email addresses by government individuals and organizations is unusual?
As a little refresher:
https://www.propublica.org/article/hillary-clinton-email-escapades-muckreads
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The email address would indicate it was not from a government source. Every non-DOD or non .gov email I receive has in the subject line that the email is not from a DOD source.
As explained above DOD and Fed.gov sites indicate when an email and/or attachment/link is from a non-government source. Unless of course the President, as I mentioned earlier, had his own webmail account not going through WH communications. If that is the case, as the NYTs points out he may have used a pseudonym( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0) to communicate directly with HRC using an unofficial email address.
Yes of course I do too. However, the correspondence in question was not government email to private Clinton server. If it was there would be no need for the clarification. The President's press sec could have easily said "The President gets emails from various sources outside the government often." But that was not the response, and the NYTs article leaves that open with mentioning the FBI investigation discovered the President used a pseudonym to communicate with HRC.
Not the case here. HRC was in government and not using her State Dept email account to conduct business with the WH. She was using an unauthorized and now quite obviously unsecure server to conduct official State Dept business and used the same for campaign business (later), and Clinton Foundation business. Quite a colorful mess.
No it is not unusual for personal emails to be exchanged between people in and outside of government. It is unusual to conduct official business at that higher level of government using private unsecure means. It's illegal to use such means to avoid disclosure of official business.
Already answered.
Didn't need it but thanks. All the above source indicates is Hillary Clinton should not be above the law, and as Sec State the bar is much higher.
Upvote
0
Uncle Siggy
Promulgator of Annoying Tidbits of Information
You should know by now that if you claim to care, claim to fix the problem (even if in all reality you don't ) you will get a free pass by the low information supporters...
Upvote
0
No it wouldn't. It was a private server, not a private domain. Hillary's e-mail address would remain the same no matter which server it was being routed to.
Upvote
0
No it would not since it would be a .gov source. The government has multiple e-mail servers that are changed all the time. This was simply a private on prem server added to their system so it remained a .gov server. The e-mail address would not have changed. The only way to tell it was going some where different would be to look at the routing header info and even then you would need to know the exact setup to know where it was going.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Belk, maybe you missed my links to the Wikileaks emails which clearly point out HRC's emails were not coming in as state.gov. Her emails circumvented the Dept of State server. That is why the State Dept had to request she hand over thousands of emails not on their server. Thus the scandal of HRC using her private server.
Here's an excerpt:
Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails
From:cheryl.mills@gmail.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-03-07 21:41
Subject: Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails
we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Merrill
Date: Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 6:39 PM
Subject: Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails
To: Philippe Reines , Heather Samuelson < hsamuelson@cdmillsgroup.com>, Cheryl Mills
Begin forwarded message:
*From:* Josh Schwerin
*Date:* March 7, 2015 at 6:33:44 PM EST
*To:* Jennifer Palmieri , Kristina Schake < kristinakschake@gmail.com>, Nick Merrill , Jesse Ferguson
*Subject:* *POTUS on HRC emails*
Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it in the news.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077
And now this just in from Wikileaks:
Title: WIKILEAKS - Re: HRC and the email flap - There Is Just No Good Answer [Ann Marie Slaughter] - "Honestly, OTR, EVERYONE I knew at State used our private email"
Start excerpt:
From pir @hrcoffice.com
To: cheryl.mills@gmail.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com, kristinakschake@gmail.com
Date: 2015-03-07 16:01
Subject: Re: HRC and the email flap
There
Is
Just
No
Good
Answer
We need to gut through the process phase, get them all out there and let the content do the talking.
From: Cheryl Mills
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2015 12:57 PM
To: Philippe Reines; John Podesta; Jennifer Palmieri; Kristina Schake
Subject: Fwd: HRC and the email flap
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anne-Marie Slaughter > Date: Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 11:11 AM
Subject: Fwd: HRC and the email flap
To: Nick Merrill >, Jake Sullivan >, Cheryl Mills >
fyi from Tom F — not great, but useful to know. I’m thinking about writing an op-ed myself from the point of view of a former State Dept official.
Begin forwarded message:
Anne-Marie, That doesn't sound unreasonable to me, but she needs to get out there and say it and explain it. I am sure she has a case to be made and right now it is her critics who are making it. Best wishes, Tom
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Anne-Marie Slaughter > wrote:
Tom — just to follow up, didn’t you just move away from AOL a couple of years ago? Long after you knew you probably should have? Honestly, OTR, EVERYONE I knew at State used our private email (I used Princeton) when we were out of the office (except for our blackberries, which were State issued) because it was so incredibly clunky and difficult to get onto the State system when we were not in the office (it was a complicated set of steps and the system always froze or crashed). We sent sensitive but unclassified documents to our private emails so we could work on them at home and then sent them back to our work emails. Moreover, the overall lesson that everyone had taken away from the Clinton administration was not to put ANYTHING politically sensitive on email period, regardless of the system. I remember getting called on that early on — someone assumed I was putting something in email so that if it came out in the press later I would look good — a consideration that had simply never occurred to me. What seems most unfair about this is that she was working round the clock to master a completely new job and set of issues; the State Dept systems were a mess; she switched from campaign to home and then stuck with that for four years.
Best,
AM
On Mar 7, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Friedman Thomas > wrote:
Dear Anne-Marie, Thanks for your note. Always happy to hear your perspective. That all seems true to me, and yet… Even I evolved. I moved to gmail, got a Mac laptop, got rid of AOL. And I am not the Secretary of State, bound by very clear government regulations. I have to say I am troubled by what I have read about what Hillary did. I am keeping an open until I hear what she has to say, but it doesn't sit right with me. Just to let you know where I stand. Thanks for reaching out. Allbest, Tom
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32612
Upvote
0
ChristianFromKazakhstan
Well-Known Member
You know, it soooo sad, soooooooooo sad, what USA is turning into these days... You know, years ago I had this very rosy illusion, USA is free country, complete independance and freedom of press and TV, etc. Well, you understand. The American ideals. It looks like, today, they are dead. Or close to be dead. Isn't it sad? Why nobody seems to mind very much in USA? Like, America changed forever. It became opposite from what it once was. Must be made great again, or else...?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
