Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #1 
H1 = Secretary of State Clinton with one email account.
R2 = Republican Secretary of State with one Government email acct and one private email acct



Mock Senate Hearing:

1)  Did you have a private email account while you were SOS?

  H1 - Yes
  R2 - Yes

2)  Did you partake in any Government activity on your private email account while you were SOS?

  H1 - Yes.
  R2 - No, I had a Government email account for Government activity.

3)  Did you submit emails covering all Government activity done on your private acct?

  H1 - Yes
  R2 - My Government activity is all on my Government email acct.

4)  How do we know there wasn't Government activity done on your private account that wasn't submitted to us?

  H1 - All Government activity was supplied to you but I suppose you cannot know
         for certain if I engaged in activity on my personal account that I chose
         not to supply.
  R2 - All Government activity was done on my Government account but I suppose
         you cannot know for certain if I engaged in activity on my personal
         account that I chose not to supply.

5)  Should we be allowed access to all your personal emails so we can know for certain you didn't use your private account for Government business or some other kind of unethical activity?

  H1 - No
  R2 - No

6)  Is it possible you did Government work, or engaged in nefarious activity, on your private email account and then deleted it so it wouldn't be seen by us?

  H1 - It's possible but it didn't happen.
  R2 - It's possible but it didn't happen.

7)  If the SOS were required to maintain both a Government and private email account, wouldn't we be able to catch any and all wrongdoing?

  H1 - If I were inclined to do wrongdoing, I wouldn't do it on my Government acct.
  R2 - If I were inclined to do wrongdoing, I wouldn't do it on my Government acct.

8)  Do you think it's easier to abuse your position, or partake in unethical practices, if you don't utilize a Government email account?

  H1 - It makes no difference.  As long as I have a private email account, I suppose anyone could
         make an accusation that I used that account for my nefarious activity.
  R2 - It makes no difference.  As long as I have a private email account, I suppose anyone
         could make an accusation that I used that account for my nefarious activity.

9)  Should we forbid Secretary of States from having private email accounts?

  H1 - No.
  R2 - No.

10)  Does requiring a Government email account be maintained, along with a private email account, prevent a SOS from using private email in an unethical manner?

  H1 - Of course not but your concern is unnecessary and insulting.
  R2 - Of course not but your concern is unnecessary and insulting.

11)  Once again, since we all know it's possible to use a private email account to do something inappropriate or unlawful, should we be allowed access to all your personal emails?

  H1 - Absolutely not unless you have evidence that warrants a court order from a judge.
  R2 - Absolutely not unless you have evidence that warrants a court order from a judge.


Secretary Clinton summary:  Senators, I simply chose the most convenient way to do my business and there is absolutely nothing two email accounts could possibly have done to prohibit the kind of unethical behavior many are trying to imply today.  Admittedly, I should have realized that folks could and would spin things in such a manner as to make it appear as if a SOS could be more mischievous by maintaining only one account, as opposed to two, but, hopefully, these questions today have put such a notion to rest.  As long as SOS is entitled to maintain a private email account, and they should be allowed, anyone can accuse them of using it for nefarious purposes.  Heck, it's possible many of you may be using your private email accounts for unethical purposes but, without probable cause, they should still remain private, in my opinion.

        






keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #2 
Goody just like your make believe mock high school debate team post.

What difference does it make?

Bluedog, my hero, says that the Hillary emails are just a diversion to keep us from the lawlessness that was the obama reign.

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #3 
Maybe the point that you missed is this:

The government owns her records.  She was bound by law to insure that all government records in her possession were returned when she left.

It is illegal to hide government records from the public or the record.

She
a) did not return the records upon departure - it was 2 years later - ILLEGAL
b) hid records from the public and the government by storing them on a personal server located at her house - ILLEGAL
c) wants the government to trust her that she turned everything over - UNETHICAL, IF NOT ILLEGAL

The government decides what records to keep.  Clinton turned that 180, and decided which to divulge.  Then, she destroyed all the others. This is unethical at best, and likely illegal.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #4 
She also created a huge security issue by conducting official government business on her own email server.  I don't if it's illegal, but it is certainly incompetent.
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 5,078
Reply with quote  #5 
And all those that corresponded with her via her private email, including Obama, knew what they were doing was illegal and did it anyway.
There is one, and only one reason for having not only a private email but actually owning the server that hosts it.

__________________
#SCOTUS
YAY!!is GAF
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,581
Reply with quote  #6 

I could go into detail regarding the legality Hillary's actions. However, I will instead choose to call her hypocrite:

"When I am president, the era of Bush/Cheney secrecy will be over," said Sen. Hillary Clinton in a speech to the Newspaper Association of America on April 15, 2008.  "I will empower the federal government to operate from a presumption of openness, not secrecy... I will direct my administration to prevent needless classification of information that ought to be shared with the public." http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2008/04/clinton041508.html

Then again, Hillary did not win that election. She did say, 'when' she was elected. I get it now. So, Dewey you are correct in defending her. She's not a hypocrite. Her time has yet to come.

As people may have forgotten...

To accept the position of Head of the State Department, Hillary had to resign her senate seat. Legality issues.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/clinton.eligible/index.html

Massive discrepancy in budget of State Department during Hillary's tenure. Where did it go? Secreted behind redacted pages.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/04/watchdog-state-department-cant-fully-account-for-6b-worth-contracts/

Follow the rules? Ha! Don't need to wear one to skirt.

 


__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 9,979
Reply with quote  #7 
Bill, at least you didn't send us that in an e-mail!    [smile]

Everything for a politician is, "when I get elected,  ___________!....As well as in other fairy tales!
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,581
Reply with quote  #8 
Secretary Clinton summary:  Senators, I simply chose the most convenient (for who?) way to do my business and there is absolutely nothing two email accounts could possibly have done to prohibit the kind of unethical behavior many are trying to imply today.(Other than skirt the freedom of information act...see above.)  Admittedly, I should have realized(admission of guilt or stupidity?) that folks could and would spin things(to be clear, this is spin, not the simple act of saying. WTF were you doing privatizing your SoS email) in such a manner as to make it appear as if a SOS could be more mischievous by maintaining only one account, as opposed to two, but, hopefully, these questions today have put such a notion to rest.(Umm, no. Actually rumor and innuendo should run rampant.)  As long as SOS is entitled to maintain a private email account,(When I signed a paper giving up much of my freedom as a private citizen, you did too. Honor it. Or be called...LIAR.) and they should be allowed, anyone can accuse them of using it for nefarious purposes.(And they are. Rightfully. Using your own words against you...again, see above.)  Heck, it's possible many of you may be using your private email accounts for unethical purposes(Not guilty, but charged by your broad sweeping attempt to lump me with you.) but, without probable cause, they should still remain private, in my opinion(As has been often the case for someone named Clinto, your opinion is not valid. And...you know it.)

Of course, this is just Dewey speaking for Ms. Clinton. She'd never spin this far. Right?

__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 4,698
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spazsdad
And all those that corresponded with her via her private email, including Obama, knew what they were doing was illegal and did it anyway. There is one, and only one reason for having not only a private email but actually owning the server that hosts it.


Bingo.

__________________
"Oh yeah and the 8 agency heaDS THAT SPLIT THE uRANIUM oNE MONEY WITH THE cLINTONS. yOU ARE A NEVER ENDING SOURCE OF WISHFUL THINKING. wISHING THINGS HAPPEN THE WAY YOU NEED THEM TO TO BACK UP YOUR RIDICULOUS CONCLUSIONS."
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #10 
End of discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Here you go, relevant US Code:

Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation of Records
(18 U.S.C. § 2071)

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.


What questions remain as to whether or not she broke the law?

Note in (b): "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #11 
"I am formally requesting Secretary Clinton make her server available to a neutral, detached and independent third-party for immediate inspection and review," - Trey Gowdy.
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #12 
Looks like the server has been wiped clean.  I just don't know how we can go through 4 or 8 years with this woman.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gowdy-clinton-wiped-her-server-clean-116472.html


mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #13 
I can't believe that is a surprise to anyone.

Dems will flock to her in droves.  The question is - does this sway Independents?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #14 
I suspect every Government official or employee has a private email account and I also suspect almost every one of these individuals has at one time or another used it for official capacity.  I would suggest these people never tell a soul they've done so or all of their private emails may have to be exposed.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
I can't believe that is a surprise to anyone.

Dems will flock to her in droves.  The question is - does this sway Independents?


Dems have no choice. They're stuck with her. More likely they'll stay home like they did in the recent midterms.

Independents will likely question the legitimacy of Clinton's claims for obstructing justice, and moreso question what she has to hide.

The strawman excuses you see here are absurd and laughable. It would be interesting to hear from other Democrats if even they buy the "every official" canard.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #16 
Mikec - new CBS Poll, note independents who view Clinton favorably is half of what is was 18 months ago.

Naturally, CBS story here attempts to downplay the negatives here for Clinton, they can't totally obscure that she's trending pretty strongly in the wrong direction. This email problem is only getting started, and won't be going away anytime soon.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/views-on-hillary-clinton-and-the-email-controversy/

Ex
Negative views of Clinton have risen among Republicans. Seventy-two percent hold an unfavorable view of her today, compared to 60 percent almost two years ago. Also, the percentage of independents who view Clinton favorably is now half of what it was in the fall of 2013. Many independents now say they are undecided or don't know enough about Clinton to have an opinion. Most Democrats (55 percent) continue to hold favorable views of Clinton but that percentage has dropped eight points since November 2013.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
Looks like the server has been wiped clean.  I just don't know how we can go through 4 or 8 years with this woman.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gowdy-clinton-wiped-her-server-clean-116472.html




People wonder why I speak rudely of this piece of Schitt. 16 years of Obama and Hillary, we'll never recover. 2 biggest lawbreakers since Bonnie and Clyde. I am starting to feel the anger and hate that libtards felt about gw.

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #18 
So, Clinton wiped her server clean after being told that they had to preserve their documents.

Obstruction of justice?
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #19 
Yes, definitely.  


Even a biased person such as joisey could see the legal requirement she would have had to follow the request.  He may want to throw a Richard Nixon or Dick Cheney zinger at us or.....just not answer.  

[waiting on dewy's spin on your question though mike]

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #20 
She's a politician folks, currently in damage control.  What was that about Watergate???  [rofl] If what Mrs. Clinton did was illegal, immoraL, or fattening, I'm sure the loyal opposition will demand that she be charged.  Hey, it's election time and she's vulnerable here. Think the Dems will go after Jeb's e-mails??   
                                                                                                                                                                         PS - Did I ever tell you that I had the pleasure of conversation with then Veep Dick Nixon on the steps of the House of Congress when I was in the service - nice enough guy for a politician. He asked me if I liked the Army.  

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
So, Clinton wiped her server clean after being told that they had to preserve their documents.

Obstruction of justice?


Here it is again. Pretty clear she violated this particular code.

Obstruction of justice? Maybe that too. Seems likely. Let's see what Gowdy and Boehner come back with.


Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Here you go, relevant US Code:

Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation of Records
(18 U.S.C. § 2071)

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.


What questions remain as to whether or not she broke the law?

Note in (b): "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #22 
JG, people went to the Federal Pen in the aftermath of Watergate. Perjury was prosecuted, and the people that lied to a special prosecutor, and obstructed justice, went to jail. A President was forced to resign. I suppose that since it is Hillary, and Democrats, that you in some way see no problem with destroying evidence, and lying to Congressional Committees?  

Oh, here is the obligatory emoticon. [wave]

__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #23 
Embedded image permalink
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #24 
Seems like the IG report didn't agree with dewy's dumbass make believe exercise in silliness. Now we'll wait on the FBI to conclude crimes were committed
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #25 
Red team blue team
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.