Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Hillary being beckoned to suspend campaign

Hillary being beckoned to suspend campaign

+9
Wordslinger
polecat
gatorfan
Vikingwoman
ZVUGKTUBM
2seaoat
Hospital Bob
Markle
RealLindaL
13 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 7]

Guest


Guest

Then why didn't the state dept turn over her emails beginning in 2012? They specifically said they didn't have any.

The dos had to repeatedly request that she comply with her obligations... even though many in govt knew.

Markle

Markle

Vikingwoman wrote:
What? wrote:

Pretty damning if you ask me.

Petraus lost his job over an affair w/ a journalist w/ whom he discussed secret info. and there is no evidence Clinton hid emails. Total BS!

Surely you jest!

How were the emails NOT hidden when she stored them on an illegal, hidden private server unknown to the government?

IF no emails are hidden, where are the 30,000+ she deleted in secret?

You're a hoot!

Markle

Markle

PkrBum wrote:Then why didn't the state dept turn over her emails beginning in 2012? They specifically said they didn't have any.

The dos had to repeatedly request that she comply with her obligations... even though many in govt knew.

It was two years after the investigations began that, of all papers, the New York Times broke the story about the Clinton's secret private server.

Guest


Guest

Just a little ethics test. If you have no problem with your govt official doing this... you have none either.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/clinton-foundation-corruption-news/

The 276 pages of internal State Department documents we released this week reveal that within two days of the deadly terrorist attack on Benghazi, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, the president of Libya’s National Congress, asked to participate in a Clinton Global Initiative function and “meet President Clinton.”

The meeting had not previously been disclosed.

The documents also show that Clinton’s staff coordinated with the Clinton Foundation’s staff to have her thank Clinton Global Initiative project sponsors for their “commitments” during a Foundation speech on September 25, 2009.

We obtained those documents as a result of a federal court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department on May 28, 2013, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00772)).

Here’s the incredible back story:

In September 13, 2012, al-Magariaf advisor Dr. Fathi Nuah wrote to the Clinton Foundation’s Director of Foreign Policy Amitabh Desai:

“Dr. Almagariaf will be addressing the United Nations this September in New York as the Libyan Head of State, and he expressed a wish to meet President Clinton and to participate at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting for New York as well.”

Four hours later, Desai emailed Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills asking,

“Would USG [U.S. Government] have concerns about Libyan President being invited to CGI [Clinton Global Initiative]? Odd timing, I know.” Mills emailed back: “We would not have issues.”

Four days later, on September 17, Desai emailed Mills again, saying,

“The Libyan president is “asking for a meeting with WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] next week.” Desai asked, “Would you recommend accepting or declining the WJC meeting request?”

The State Department apparently had no objection to the meeting, because on September 26, Desai emailed Mills, “He had a v good meeting with Libya …” Hillary Clinton and al-Magariaf did not have a meeting until September 24. .

Don’t you find it incredible that the Libyan president would call and meet Bill Clinton through the Clinton Foundation before meeting Hillary Clinton about Benghazi!

The illicit partnership between Hillary Clinton’s State Department and her family foundation extended even to fundraising.

An August 2009 email chain including Hillary Clinton’s then-Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, Mills, and then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jake Sullivan shows that the State Department coordinated with Clinton Foundation staff on how Mrs. Clinton was to thank Foundation supporters/partners for their “commitments.”

Caitlin Klevorick, senior advisor to the counselor and chief of staff to the secretary of state who previously worked at the Foundation, notes: “One question is if we want to see if there is a decent mass of fs [funds] related commitments to announce together at closing as a ‘mega’ commitment.”

The State Department material includes background information about Clinton Foundation partners, which include Foundation donors Nduna Foundation, Grupo ABCA, and Britannia Industries. Other CGI partners noted in the State Department documents include a federal agency (the Centers for Disease Control) and various United Nations entities, which also receive U.S. taxpayer funds.

The transcript of Hillary Clinton’s speech on the State Department Internet site confirms that the then-secretary of state did thank those making “exceptional commitments” to her husband’s foundation:

And so I congratulate all who helped to put on this (inaudible) CGI [Clinton Global Initiative]. I especially thank you for having a separate track on girls and women, which I think was well received for all the obvious reasons. (Applause.) And this is an exceptional gathering of people who have made exceptional commitments to bettering our world.

As previously reported elsewhere, a June 2012 email chain discusses a “firm invitation for President Clinton” to speak at a Congo conference, hosted in part by the controversial Joseph Kabila, president of that nation. Bill Clinton is offered $650,000 in fees and expenses, concerning which, as Desai emails Mills and others, “WJC wants to know that state [sic] thinks of it if he took it 100% for the foundation.”

This questionable activity is part of a pattern.

Our lawsuit had previously forced the disclosure of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflict-of-interest rulings that led to at least $48 million in speaking fees for the Clintons during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran, among others.

We are continuing our litigation to obtain these conflict of interest records. The State Department has yet to explain why it failed to conduct a proper, timely search in the 20 months between when it received our request on May 2, 2011, and the February 1, 2013, date that Clinton left office.

Here’s why this is important.

Hillary Clinton and her State Department aides were involved in fundraising for the Clinton Foundation.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked hand in glove with the Clinton Foundation on fundraising and foreign policy. Despite the law and her promises to the contrary, she turned the State Department into the DC office of the Clinton Foundation.

Our lawsuit has become particularly noteworthy because it has been reported that the Clinton Foundation, now known as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, accepted millions of dollars from at least seven foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state.

The Foundation has acknowledged that a $500,000 donation it received from the government of Algeria while Mrs. Clinton was in office violated a 2008 ethics agreement between the foundation and the Obama administration. Some of the foreign governments that have made donations to the Clinton Foundation – Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman – have questionable human rights records.

The public reaction to these latest JW findings was one of outrage. As one opinion writer at The Washington Post observed:

And, Clinton’s State Department was apparently coordinating meetings for Bill Clinton with foreign heads of state. If any other employee at the State Department had arranged such meetings for their spouse and actively thanked contributors to their spouse’s foundation, they would likely go to jail. No lawyer would even let it go to trial, because the sentencing guidelines would guarantee years behind bars. Another way to think about what was going on is to imagine that another country’s foreign minister’s spouse or family ran a foundation that American companies were caught giving to. Those American companies would certainly be vulnerable to prosecution by the Justice Department under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

It’s only because Hillary’s last name is Clinton and because she is the Democratic front-runner for president that she isn’t already being prosecuted for something or another. For anyone else at the State Department, their conviction and sentencing would produce only a matter-of-fact, back-page reference in The Washington Post.

You can find the full set of documents here.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

What? wrote:Seems as if Markle hits a nerve.  The evidence already known is damning. There was the same sort of angst among the followers of President Clinton as well. He ended up impeached in the House and lost his law license for committing perjury.  I really do believe it's a matter of time. Immunity is offered when it helps to seal the deal on a case.  With Trump in court too over Trump University allegations it would be even wilder if both he and Hillary had to resign from the campaign. It would also be a huge sign that this experiment in being a democratic republic is at the end or near the end

Good point.  Only the Disunited American States have never truly been a democratic republic. This has never been a country governed by and for its people. Since the days of George Washington (the wealthiest person in Virginia), this country has been run by the wealthy, for the wealthy.  All the electoral angst now being generated by the broad majority of the American people -- the volatile hatred and distrust for ANYTHING and ANYONE in Washington DC -- is apparent by the success of "outsiders" like Trump and Sanders, who have taken up the leadership of what is clearly a newer and perhaps more powerful revolution than any this country has yet experienced. Not since the 1917 Russian revolution have the masses of a major country decided to eat the 1% and all their cronies.  

It's about time!!  Reality.

Guest


Guest

Are you calling russia a success... lol? They didn't stop with the 1%... they then went after the landowners, merchants, farmers, academics... etc. In total over 100 million murdered... countless subjugated and oppressed. Social justice?

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

PkrBum wrote:Are you calling russia a success... lol? They didn't stop with the 1%... they then went after the landowners, merchants, farmers, academics... etc. In total over 100 million murdered... countless subjugated and oppressed. Social justice?

In the sense that they did away with the Russian monarchy and many of their wealthy cronies, it was a success. Unfortunately, the revolution was quickly taken over by tyrants who were equally as bad, if not worse.

I'm not in the least advocating a violent, armed revolution here. Just an electoral one. Same as Bernie, and in fact, same as Trump.

Are you saying the system we have now -- where 90% of the income goes to 1%, and the middle class is going broke in a rigged system -- is good?

It's time for us to achieve a fair and balanced economy run for the good of the majority and not just the privileged few. To achieve that, we will have to overturn Citizen's United, and the ridiculous tax laws that benefit the rich. And we will have to get rid of all those elected cronies in Washington who are puppets run by corrupt campaign financing.

You have a better, more practical solution, I'm all ears.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Judicial Watch is hardly a reliable source.

knothead

knothead

Floridatexan wrote:
Judicial Watch is hardly a reliable source.  


From wikipedia:

Judicial Watch is an American conservative educational foundation, which, according to its website, "advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people." Judicial Watch states that its mission is to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and other tools to investigate misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.[1]

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
Judicial Watch is hardly a reliable source.

Lol... you have no concern over whether a source is reliable when it tells you what you want to hear... usually with no documentation or proof. Judicial watch made the foia requests and then sued to force compliance when hillary and the dos hid and obstructed and obscured OUR public records for over two years. They deserve thanks. They also link to each and every claim with the actual emails and links. Try to get that accountability and factual resources from your opinion pieces and crap "journalism" like mediamatters, moveon, salon, slate, kos... etc. Go to the link and read the linked emails for yourself... but we know you won't... because you dont want to know the truth... you'd prefer self-affirming propaganda.

2seaoat



Too funny.......all this smoke being fanned, but not a bit of fire......when she wins the White House, what will be the new alleged wrong doing of Hillary. It is not a crime to be be ambitious leave all fair play aside hard hitting man.....that is called a leader.....but when a woman tries to compete in a man's world.....well she is a bitch.....a liar.....a lesbian......and worse.....about to be indicted. Sorry this is the typical......you know blacks do not have the intelligence to play QB.......just a new barrier which needs to be gone. If you really think this is about anything else, you are only fooling yourself.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

I just happen to know the history. Look it up for yourself. Try Larry Klayman, Richard Mellon Scaife (deceased in 2014) and Scaife Foundations for starters.

Guest


Guest

Now the gender card... lol. It doesn't get any more intellectually lazy than that.

Vikingwoman



Markle wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:
What? wrote:

Pretty damning if you ask me.

Petraus lost his job over an affair w/ a journalist w/ whom he discussed secret info. and there is no evidence Clinton hid emails. Total BS!

Surely you jest!

How were the emails NOT hidden when she stored them on an illegal, hidden private server unknown to the government?

IF no emails are hidden, where are the 30,000+ she deleted in secret?

You're a hoot!

How many times do you have to be told the server was not illegal before you get it? How many times are you going to tell that lie the server was unknown to the govt? Are you retarded or something? The state dept. sent her emails and she them from her "hidden" server. LOL!

Guest


Guest

The state dept repeatedly responded to foia requests and even suits for hillary's emails that it had "no relevant information". The dos also repeatedly requested the same from hillary... with no response from her. These are established facts.

Just because you either don't care or refuse to acknowledge the facts don't make them disappear.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-emails-state-219341

Guest


Guest

Vikingwoman wrote:
Markle wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:
What? wrote:

Pretty damning if you ask me.

Petraus lost his job over an affair w/ a journalist w/ whom he discussed secret info. and there is no evidence Clinton hid emails. Total BS!

Surely you jest!

How were the emails NOT hidden when she stored them on an illegal, hidden private server unknown to the government?

IF no emails are hidden, where are the 30,000+ she deleted in secret?

You're a hoot!

How many times do you have to be told the server was not illegal before you get it? How many times are you going to tell that lie the server was unknown to the govt? Are you retarded or something? The state dept. sent her emails and she them from her "hidden" server. LOL!

Yes, the server was illegal because it held emails that contained information that was one of three classifications:
1) confidential
2) secret
3) top secret (including special access programs)

It had no means of security to be holding information in that manner.

Forwarding those emails of a classified nature to non-secure computers is a crime in itself.

The server was illegal because even Hillary herself had made a policy as SOS that told employees they could not conduct state business on private computers. She broke her own rule. That is being a hypocrite.

knothead

knothead

Like all Republicans who do not claim to be scientists yet deny global warming I, on the other hand, am a Democrat who is not a lawyer, yet just do not believe there is sufficient substance to "indict" Hillary; I do, however, feel this line of allegations are only the early onslaught of her as a leading Presidential candidate and further will be the endless line of criticism after she is elected. Her opponents see the writing on the wall therefore the target of demonizing will be shifted away from President Obama and then henceforth focused on HRC to create a cloud of possible wrongdoing. It never fucking ends . . . .

Markle

Markle

Vikingwoman wrote:
Markle wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:
What? wrote:

Pretty damning if you ask me.

Petraus lost his job over an affair w/ a journalist w/ whom he discussed secret info. and there is no evidence Clinton hid emails. Total BS!

Surely you jest!

How were the emails NOT hidden when she stored them on an illegal, hidden private server unknown to the government?

IF no emails are hidden, where are the 30,000+ she deleted in secret?

You're a hoot!

How many times do you have to be told the server was not illegal before you get it? How many times are you going to tell that lie the server was unknown to the govt? Are you retarded or something? The state dept. sent her emails and she them from her "hidden" server. LOL!

A server is an inanimate object. IT is not illegal, the use was illegal. The purpose was to conceal information from the US government and to convey Confidential Information, illegally, through a private, concealed server.

As you know or are intentionally being ignorant, the mere address of an email does not tell where the server is located or who controls the server.

To attempt to use that as an excuse is simply childish.

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Are you calling russia a success... lol? They didn't stop with the 1%... they then went after the landowners, merchants, farmers, academics... etc. In total over 100 million murdered... countless subjugated and oppressed. Social justice?

In the sense that they did away with the Russian monarchy and many of their wealthy cronies, it was a success.  Unfortunately, the revolution was quickly taken over by tyrants who were equally as bad, if not worse.

I'm not in the least advocating a violent, armed revolution here.  Just an electoral one.  Same as Bernie, and in fact, same as Trump.

Are you saying the system we have now -- where 90% of the income goes to 1%, and the middle class is going broke in a rigged system -- is good?

It's time for us to achieve a fair and balanced economy run for the good of the majority and not just the privileged few.   To achieve that, we will have to overturn Citizen's United, and the ridiculous tax laws that benefit the rich.  And we will have to get rid of all those elected cronies in Washington who are puppets run by corrupt campaign financing.  

You have a better, more practical solution, I'm all ears.

It is most revealing that you prefer to be led by ignorant failures than by someone successful people.

I was blessed to be mentored by successful, hard working people all my working life. On the other hand, I have mentored others who have gone on to achieve great success.

Why Wordslinger and his cabal demand shared misery, have no clue.

Hillary being beckoned to suspend campaign - Page 3 Socialism

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

knothead wrote:Like all Republicans who do not claim to be scientists yet deny global warming I, on the other hand, am a Democrat who is not a lawyer, yet just do not believe there is sufficient substance to "indict" Hillary; I do, however, feel this line of allegations are only the early onslaught of her as a leading Presidential candidate and further will be the endless line of criticism after she is elected.  Her opponents see the writing on the wall therefore the target of demonizing will be shifted away from President Obama and then henceforth focused on HRC to create a cloud of possible wrongdoing.  It never fucking ends . . . .  

But as a fan of Hillary you will ignore her handling of Top Secret, Confidential, and Classified information.


Like Bob said...."Yes, the server was illegal because it held emails that contained information that was one of three classifications:
1) confidential
2) secret
3) top secret (including special access programs)

It had no means of security to be holding information in that manner.

Forwarding those emails of a classified nature to non-secure computers is a crime in itself.

The server was illegal because even Hillary herself had made a policy as SOS that told employees they could not conduct state business on private computers. She broke her own rule. That is being a hypocrite."

It never fuck in ends....it just depends on which side did it.

knothead

knothead

Joanimaroni wrote:
knothead wrote:Like all Republicans who do not claim to be scientists yet deny global warming I, on the other hand, am a Democrat who is not a lawyer, yet just do not believe there is sufficient substance to "indict" Hillary; I do, however, feel this line of allegations are only the early onslaught of her as a leading Presidential candidate and further will be the endless line of criticism after she is elected.  Her opponents see the writing on the wall therefore the target of demonizing will be shifted away from President Obama and then henceforth focused on HRC to create a cloud of possible wrongdoing.  It never fucking ends . . . .  

But as a fan of Hillary you will ignore her handling of Top Secret, Confidential, and Classified information.

Like Bob said...."Yes, the server was illegal because it held emails that contained information that was one of three classifications:
1) confidential
2) secret
3) top secret (including special access programs)

It had no means of security to be holding information in that manner.

Forwarding those emails of a classified nature to non-secure computers is a crime in itself.

The server was illegal because even Hillary herself had made a policy as SOS that told employees they could not conduct state business on private computers. She broke her own rule. That is being a hypocrite."

It never fuck in ends....it just depends on which side did it.

Like I said I am not a legal expert and neither are you or Bob . . . . what I am saying that if nothing comes to pass to bring down Hillary the right will forevermore claim the fix was in and Obama saved her . . . . like I said it never (expletive deleted) ends . . .  



Last edited by knothead on 3/26/2016, 6:20 pm; edited 1 time in total

Vikingwoman



What? wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:
Markle wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:
What? wrote:

Pretty damning if you ask me.

Petraus lost his job over an affair w/ a journalist w/ whom he discussed secret info. and there is no evidence Clinton hid emails. Total BS!

Surely you jest!

How were the emails NOT hidden when she stored them on an illegal, hidden private server unknown to the government?

IF no emails are hidden, where are the 30,000+ she deleted in secret?

You're a hoot!

How many times do you have to be told the server was not illegal before you get it? How many times are you going to tell that lie the server was unknown to the govt? Are you retarded or something? The state dept. sent her emails and she them from her "hidden" server. LOL!

Yes, the server was illegal because it held emails that contained information that was one of three classifications:
1) confidential
2) secret
3) top secret (including special access programs)

It had no means of security to be holding information in that manner.

Forwarding those emails of a classified nature to non-secure computers is a crime in itself.

The server was illegal because even Hillary herself had made a policy as SOS that told employees they could not conduct state business on private computers. She broke her own rule. That is being a hypocrite.


That's a lie that it had no security. It was the same server Pres. Clinton used during his presidency and the emails were not classified at the time she was sent them. The changes to the govt. servers being used occurred in 2013 after she left the state dept. so quit making up stuff. If the state dept. forwarded confidential emails then that's on them not Hillary.

Vikingwoman



PkrBum wrote:The state dept repeatedly responded to foia requests and even suits for hillary's emails that it had "no relevant information". The dos also repeatedly requested the same from hillary... with no response from her. These are established facts.

Just because you either don't care or refuse to acknowledge the facts don't make them disappear.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-emails-state-219341

So?What does that have to do w/ the emails being illegal? The emails were classified after the fact and that is suspicious in itself.

Markle

Markle

Vikingwoman wrote:
PkrBum wrote:The state dept repeatedly responded to foia requests and even suits for hillary's emails that it had "no relevant information". The dos also repeatedly requested the same from hillary... with no response from her. These are established facts.

Just because you either don't care or refuse to acknowledge the facts don't make them disappear.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-emails-state-219341

So?What does that have to do w/ the emails being illegal? The emails were classified after the fact and that is suspicious in itself.

How is it living in that wonderful world of denial? All rainbows and unicorns? Why do you demand to believe, or fake believing, that the purpose of putting a private server, in a hidden, secret location for the purpose of hiding her communications from the government, is perfectly fine?

Guest


Guest

Vikingwoman wrote:
PkrBum wrote:The state dept repeatedly responded to foia requests and even suits for hillary's emails that it had "no relevant information". The dos also repeatedly requested the same from hillary... with no response from her. These are established facts.

Just because you either don't care or refuse to acknowledge the facts don't make them disappear.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-emails-state-219341

So?What does that have to do w/ the emails being illegal? The emails were classified after the fact and that is suspicious in itself.

She originated/created over 100 of the classified emails as the official in charge of the dept of state.

Ineptitude and ignorance don't absolve culpability... but I'm pretty sure that won't keep obama from squashing it.

So you can vote for a liar and corrupt candidate and claim plausible deniability. There... feel better now?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 7]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Hillary being beckoned to suspend campaign

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum