|
|
| E-mail gate? (1269616) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (1269616) | |
E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 07:57:51 2015 According to the New York Timesas Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never used a government email address and only used her own personal account. While the Times calls this "possibly breaking rules", it seems to me to be downright stunning. One can certainly infer all kinds of nefarious reasons relating to political ambitions, but is there a reasonable explanation? What possible reason could a US Secretary of State have for only using a self-managed personal email address and never using the government address? |
|
|
| (1269625) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Mar 3 08:24:21 2015, in response to E-mail gate?, posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 07:57:51 2015. Lets see the leftists on this one. When former Governor Palin was using a personal email address, the usual suspect leftists went off on her. |
|
|
| (1269626) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 3 08:28:59 2015, in response to E-mail gate?, posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 07:57:51 2015. Irrelevant.You don't know the Hillary voter. I do. They're women with issues, usually with white males. Like the woman I dated last year. Her hubby cheated on her and left her alone to raise a son. She's bitter. And she loves Hillary. No story like this can change her mind. This is entertainment for political junkies. |
|
|
| (1269627) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 3 08:31:36 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Mar 3 08:24:21 2015. The Left will say nothing.It's a non-story. What motivates the Left is being on moral high-ground. They just like to look down on people. |
|
|
| (1269628) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Mar 3 08:32:42 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Mar 3 08:24:21 2015. Precisely |
|
|
| (1269630) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Mar 3 08:36:10 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 3 08:31:36 2015. It's a non-story.If true*, it's a real story. * Mandatory OTChat disclaimer. Not intended to reflect discredit to the source. |
|
|
| (1269631) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 3 08:44:19 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by AlM on Tue Mar 3 08:36:10 2015. I think the fact that liberals believe in global warming, label those who don't believe as "anti-intellectuals" but don't live a lifestyle conducive to reduces carbon footprint is a bigger story.One thing interesting about the cuntess bitch liberal female is that Rush Limbaugh probably has a lower approval rating than Howard Stern among them even though Stern is far more degrading to women. As for this e-mail story of the day, it's a slow news day. You don't understand the element of people who support Hillary. You for example will vote for her no matter what. Honestly I think Warren will be the nominee and told you so two years ago. |
|
|
| (1269632) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Mar 3 08:46:54 2015, in response to E-mail gate?, posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 07:57:51 2015. At first blush it's OMG SHE DID A BAD THING BY NOT USING GOVERNMENT EMAIL. I have a feeling we're going to learn all about the rules of using government email in the next 6 hours. If it's true she broke the law then she won't be President.Other than that, if it's a real scandal (or appears to be one) then nobody's gonna listen to Netanyahu's speech :D your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (1269640) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 3 09:00:46 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by Fred G on Tue Mar 3 08:46:54 2015. If it's true she broke the law then she won't be President.You mean candidate. She has to win primary first. If she can win that, it won't matter in general election. Elizabeth Warren is probably going to run. Hillary may not be liberal enough for today's #element. |
|
|
| (1269644) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 09:09:07 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by Fred G on Tue Mar 3 08:46:54 2015. Well, the New York Times and CNN are big into it. |
|
|
| (1269645) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Mar 3 09:11:17 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 3 09:00:46 2015. On first look, I don't think that she has a chance of winning. You have:The Clinton Foundation taking hundreds of millions from foreign governments while Secy of State. You have $300,000 per speech while talking about income inequality. You have Benghazigate You now have the E-mail stuff Then again you do have liberal voters who will say, "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?" |
|
|
| (1269650) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Mar 3 09:15:13 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 09:09:07 2015. No surprise there.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (1269656) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 09:49:44 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by Fred G on Tue Mar 3 09:15:13 2015. The New York Times is the big news. They broke this. Back in the day they seemed like the Clinton's house organ. What happened? |
|
|
| (1269657) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Mar 3 09:54:10 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 09:49:44 2015. Back in the day they seemed like the Clinton's house organ. What happened?They never seemed like Clinton's house organ to anyone who was paying attention. The Times' news organization (as opposed to the editorial board) doesn't speak with one voice. |
|
|
| (1269658) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Mar 3 09:55:00 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 09:49:44 2015. Times change (pun intended)your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (1269659) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Mar 3 10:06:49 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by Fred G on Tue Mar 3 09:55:00 2015. But the Times never changes. :) |
|
|
| (1269661) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 10:10:03 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by AlM on Tue Mar 3 10:06:49 2015. "Come gather 'round people wherever you roam..." |
|
|
| (1269663) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 10:17:46 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Mar 3 09:11:17 2015. The e-mail stuff is serious for Hillary as a presidential contender because it plays into the "Clintons as a Law Unto Themselves" meme.I also understand that they don't have a lot of friends in the press, at least not any more. |
|
|
| (1269664) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 10:20:48 2015, in response to E-mail gate?, posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 07:57:51 2015. Politically, the most difficult part for her may be:"Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act. "It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013." |
|
|
| (1269666) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Tue Mar 3 10:37:56 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 10:20:48 2015. Can you imagine how the MSM would have reacted had this happened during a Republican administration? |
|
|
| (1269669) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 10:54:01 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 10:20:48 2015. I think that only plays politically with people who didn't really support her politically anyway. So, in other words, not at all.The problem politically only comes when her own supporters (or at least people who were reasonably likely to support her) decide that this makes no sense and could only have been done for a negative reason. Honestly, I can't see why this would be an acceptable practice myself -- whether for security reasons or for future transparency reasons. I would terminate someone in my business if they were running all of their business through a private email and not through the corporate one. I am open to the idea that government is different from business, or that there is some reasonable explanation as to why this might be acceptable. I'd just like to hear someone say what that reasonable explanation might be. |
|
|
| (1269670) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Mar 3 10:57:14 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 10:54:01 2015. There is no reasonable explanation of why it would be acceptable.It may not have been done for nefarious purposes, but it can't possibly be acceptable practice. |
|
|
| (1269671) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 11:01:55 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by AlM on Tue Mar 3 10:57:14 2015. I think she wanted and expected to keep control of information related to her government business.Considering that this is at least against government policy (Kerry got a State Department email account as soon as he took the post, and appears to be using it only) does this seem to have the possibility of nefariousness? |
|
|
| (1269672) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 11:05:33 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by AlM on Tue Mar 3 10:57:14 2015. She is not a stupid or ignorant person. If there is really no reason why it would be acceptable, then surely she knew this.So why would she do it? And, why would it be condoned? Surely people within the government would have noticed that all of her email came via an outside domain. |
|
|
| (1269673) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 11:10:08 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 11:05:33 2015. Because Clintons have been in power in one form or another for so long that a certain feeling of invulnerability seeps in.Why did a savvy man like Sheldon Silver continue what were corrupt and it would seem criminal practices even after he knew he was under investigation by the FBI? I'd say he thought his long-term stature in the New York State apparatus would protect him. |
|
|
| (1269674) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 11:14:35 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 3 08:28:59 2015. Her hubby cheated on her and left her alone to raise a son. She's bitter.I did a couple of those in the very distant past. Bad news as dating material, much worse as relationship material. |
|
|
| (1269680) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Tue Mar 3 12:11:13 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 11:10:08 2015. +100 |
|
|
| (1269710) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 3 13:55:50 2015, in response to E-mail gate?, posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 07:57:51 2015. Nice way to start off Women's History Month. |
|
|
| (1269716) | |
Re: E-mailghazi? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Mar 3 14:01:42 2015, in response to E-mail gate?, posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 07:57:51 2015. Not really related to the topic, but I'm sick of the gate suffix. It wouldn't be so bad if it were only used for government scandals (which this is), but they use it for trivial shit like "deflategate." It's lost all meaning. |
|
|
| (1269718) | |
Re: E-mailghazi? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 14:07:17 2015, in response to Re: E-mailghazi?, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Mar 3 14:01:42 2015. That's just because you fear the breaking Spidergate story.I wonder how many still know that the original "Watergate" was the name of the hotel where it occurred. If it happened there now it would probably be called "Watergategate." |
|
|
| (1269783) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Mar 3 16:54:36 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by AlM on Tue Mar 3 09:54:10 2015. The Times even wanted Bill to resign in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal. |
|
|
| (1269799) | |
Re: E-mailghazi? |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 18:20:35 2015, in response to Re: E-mailghazi?, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Mar 3 14:01:42 2015. I agree, and plead guilty as charged. |
|
|
| (1269810) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 3 18:55:15 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 11:14:35 2015. I did a couple of those in the very distant past. Bad news as dating material, much worse as relationship material.They are a sizable demographic. One which solidifies the Democrat voting base. |
|
|
| (1269896) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 3 22:15:34 2015, in response to E-mail gate?, posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 07:57:51 2015. story ain't even trending anymore.no one cares. not a campaign issue should Hillary decide to run. |
|
|
| (1269900) | |
Re: E-mailghazi? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Mar 3 22:55:17 2015, in response to Re: E-mailghazi?, posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 14:07:17 2015. And to think. If only the plumbers were smart enough to remove the duct tape off the door latches, nobody would have ever known. :) |
|
|
| (1269965) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Mar 4 04:16:00 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 3 22:15:34 2015. Serious people care. The more silence you hear on this, the bigger an issue it really is. |
|
|
| (1269982) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 4 07:15:01 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by Charles G on Wed Mar 4 04:16:00 2015. Count the serious people here. |
|
|
| (1269983) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 4 07:16:31 2015, in response to Re: E-mail gate?, posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 11:05:33 2015. Neofeudalism. |
|
|
| (1270141) | |
Re: E-mailghazi? |
|
|
Posted by TERRApin Station on Wed Mar 4 15:02:07 2015, in response to Re: E-mailghazi?, posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 3 14:07:17 2015. I wonder how many still know that the original "Watergate" was the name of the hotel where it occurred.I've stayed there. |
|
|
| (1270220) | |
Re: E-mailghazi? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 4 17:37:20 2015, in response to Re: E-mailghazi?, posted by TERRApin Station on Wed Mar 4 15:02:07 2015. Cool. Any special plaques for the parts that got broken into?your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (1270288) | |
Re: E-mailghazi? |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Mar 4 21:09:18 2015, in response to Re: E-mailghazi?, posted by TERRApin Station on Wed Mar 4 15:02:07 2015. I've participated in a couple of silent auctions there. |
|
|
| (1270289) | |
Re: E-mailghazi? |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Wed Mar 4 21:11:08 2015, in response to Re: E-mailghazi?, posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 4 17:37:20 2015. LOLROFL |
|
|
| (1270390) | |
Oops Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Mar 5 11:59:02 2015, in response to E-mail gate?, posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 3 07:57:51 2015. It looks like almost every Republican candidate also has email skeletons.That doesn't make Clinton's actions any less irresponsible. It just means it's very unlikely to affect her candidacy. |
|
|
| (1270394) | |
Re: Oops Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Thu Mar 5 12:23:59 2015, in response to Oops Re: E-mail gate?, posted by AlM on Thu Mar 5 11:59:02 2015. Lol!Your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (1270400) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 5 12:41:11 2015, in response to Oops Re: E-mail gate?, posted by AlM on Thu Mar 5 11:59:02 2015. "Oops" over leftist hearsay?? |
|
|
| (1270405) | |
Re: Oops Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Mar 5 12:43:25 2015, in response to Oops Re: E-mail gate?, posted by AlM on Thu Mar 5 11:59:02 2015. That's a real stretch. |
|
|
| (1270408) | |
Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 5 12:44:20 2015, in response to Re: Oops Re: E-mail gate?, posted by Easy on Thu Mar 5 12:43:25 2015. The left thinks they're Mr. Fantastic. Or is that Plastic Man? or Elongated Man? or Monkey D. Luffy, or Madame Rouge . . . ? |
|
|
| (1270428) | |
Re: Oops Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 5 14:02:42 2015, in response to Oops Re: E-mail gate?, posted by AlM on Thu Mar 5 11:59:02 2015. LOL.I love your passion for Hillary. I must ask, why does it seem to me that Democrat white females are less attractive than Republicans? Not talking about elected officials or public figures but in general. I have some theories. |
|
|
| (1270429) | |
Re: Oops Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Mar 5 14:13:41 2015, in response to Re: Oops Re: E-mail gate?, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 5 14:02:42 2015. 
|
|
|
| (1270431) | |
Re: Oops Re: E-mail gate? |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Mar 5 14:25:18 2015, in response to Re: Oops Re: E-mail gate?, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 5 14:02:42 2015.
|
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|