Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:
@dusa
i noticed this as well. Now they are criticizing Clinton because she didn't use personal email for official business.

These people are confused.

This is great comment. Because it appears to be damning of the republicans, right up until you put 10 seconds of thought into it.

Clinton isn't supposed to use a private e-mail server for confidential material or for Dept of State info, but she did.
Clinton says she has a deep personal relationship with the ambassador
Ambassador officially requested security support on numerous occasions
Clinton claims to have no idea about it
and then the Republicans asked her that if he was such a good and close personal friend did he have her e-mail address for her private server. Which if he didn't then it would imply that she is lying about her deep personal relationship with the ambassador and if she says he did then she is guilty of withholding important e-mails from her private e-mail server by claiming they are personal and not business related.

Please keep this on topic and keep your party bias out


PS I will never vote for clinton because she doesn't know how to handle classified information, but I would vote for Bernie if the Repubs put Trump as Candidate.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
GOP: Obama/Hillary lied about Benghazi...

Democrats/Media: No... they were just confused... fog of war stuff ya know.

GOP: Here's the evidence that they lied.

Democrats/Media: This is nothing more a partisan effort to derail Clinton's Presidential run...

Me:

You know what?

Sure, let's keep talking about it being "lies". Never mind that one of the fething planners of the attack said that the video that you and the Republicans love to point to as the administration "lying" about?

It was part of the drives for them to launch the attack on the Benghazi compound.

So yeah. Keep at it. Let the sheeple know they're being lied to!

Um... wat. When the attacker was being interviewed they had no idea about that video.

Also, Jim Jordan released a new email showing that HRC knew the attack wasn't caused by the video.

She even called the President of Egypt the next day that, and I quote, "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest."

A few days later, she blamed the youtube director over that attack while standing next to the fething coffins of those 4 dead Americans:


Her and the rest of the Obama administration kept that lie going, because it was politically convenient in the heat of the '12 re-election season.

So, yea, I'm calling her a pants on fire liar in the worst ways.

And I'm going to call you ill-informed, because quite frankly?

If you even watched any part of this hearing it would have been BLATANTLY obvious that this was nothing more than a political witch hunt.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@dusa
i noticed this as well. Now they are criticizing Clinton because she didn't use personal email for official business.

These people are confused.

This is great comment. Because it appears to be damning of the republicans, right up until you put 10 seconds of thought into it.

Clinton isn't supposed to use a private e-mail server for confidential material or for Dept of State info, but she did.
Clinton says she has a deep personal relationship with the ambassador
Ambassador officially requested security support on numerous occasions
Clinton claims to have no idea about it
and then the Republicans asked her that if he was such a good and close personal friend did he have her e-mail address for her private server. Which if he didn't then it would imply that she is lying about her deep personal relationship with the ambassador and if she says he did then she is guilty of withholding important e-mails from her private e-mail server by claiming they are personal and not business related.

Please keep this on topic and keep your party bias out


PS I will never vote for clinton because she doesn't know how to handle classified information, but I would vote for Bernie if the Repubs put Trump as Candidate.

Let that sink in...

Not ONLY she did NOT have an actual .gov states email account...

A private non-advisory citizen (Sid) had her email address... and yet, the State Depts actual Diplomats did not.

Please run with this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And I'm going to call you ill-informed, because quite frankly?

So, no retort?

Care to provide anything that discounts what I just posted?

If you even watched any part of this hearing it would have been BLATANTLY obvious that this was nothing more than a political witch hunt.

People will look at this any way that want unfortunately.

We've learned quite a few things today from this hearing.

 whembly wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@dusa
i noticed this as well. Now they are criticizing Clinton because she didn't use personal email for official business.

These people are confused.

This is great comment. Because it appears to be damning of the republicans, right up until you put 10 seconds of thought into it.

Clinton isn't supposed to use a private e-mail server for confidential material or for Dept of State info, but she did.
Clinton says she has a deep personal relationship with the ambassador
Ambassador officially requested security support on numerous occasions
Clinton claims to have no idea about it
and then the Republicans asked her that if he was such a good and close personal friend did he have her e-mail address for her private server. Which if he didn't then it would imply that she is lying about her deep personal relationship with the ambassador and if she says he did then she is guilty of withholding important e-mails from her private e-mail server by claiming they are personal and not business related.

Please keep this on topic and keep your party bias out


PS I will never vote for clinton because she doesn't know how to handle classified information, but I would vote for Bernie if the Repubs put Trump as Candidate.

Let that sink in...

Not ONLY she did NOT have an actual .gov states email account...

A private non-advisory citizen (Sid) had her email address... and yet, the State Depts actual Diplomats did not.

Please run with this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And I'm going to call you ill-informed, because quite frankly?

So, no retort?

Care to provide anything that discounts what I just posted?

If you even watched any part of this hearing it would have been BLATANTLY obvious that this was nothing more than a political witch hunt.

People will look at this any way that want unfortunately.

We've learned quite a few things today from this hearing.

To add to this though, I do think she is partially responsible for the benghazi affair, but I am under no delusions that this isn't also a way for the republicans to smash the hell out of Clinton's presidential hopes. But at the same time shouldn't everyone be happy about that? She is kind of the devil. I think Bernie is a far better candidate.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

and then the Republicans asked her that if he was such a good and close personal friend did he have her e-mail address for her private server

The server didn't have a private email address. If you spend more than 10 seconds looking into something you would know that.

If you spend more than 10 seconds of thought into it you realize two things:

Outside the hearing they are making a big case out of using a private server for her official email, but at the hearing they are telling her that they would have emailed her confidential information at HillaryHasBillsNuts@gmail.com if they would have been in the same situation and if they would have known her personal email instead of her work email.

At this point we know the mishandling of confidential information by the committee has resulted in more classified information being released to the public than anything Hillary has done.

Has anyone actually asked her about who pushed Libya war policy? That is what should be of interest.

Else she should just do the big F U dance coming in and going to them.

 d-usa wrote:

At this point we know the mishandling of confidential information by the committee has resulted in more classified information being released to the public than anything Hillary has done.

That has been proven false. The CIA did not object to publically releasing that name... that asset was know in 2013.

If you want a political angle to all this... fine, here's mine:
The presumptive 2016 Democratic nominee for the President of the United States was shown, by her own emails, testimony, memos, etc, to have LIED to the American people in 2012 about the true cause of the attack in Benghazi.

If she would lie to us over a terrorist attack that claimed American lives, what wouldn’t she lie about?...

Why was she trying to deflect blame to an unknown filmmaker from actual terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda?

 whembly wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@dusa
i noticed this as well. Now they are criticizing Clinton because she didn't use personal email for official business.

These people are confused.

This is great comment. Because it appears to be damning of the republicans, right up until you put 10 seconds of thought into it.

Clinton isn't supposed to use a private e-mail server for confidential material or for Dept of State info, but she did.
Clinton says she has a deep personal relationship with the ambassador
Ambassador officially requested security support on numerous occasions
Clinton claims to have no idea about it
and then the Republicans asked her that if he was such a good and close personal friend did he have her e-mail address for her private server. Which if he didn't then it would imply that she is lying about her deep personal relationship with the ambassador and if she says he did then she is guilty of withholding important e-mails from her private e-mail server by claiming they are personal and not business related.

Please keep this on topic and keep your party bias out


PS I will never vote for clinton because she doesn't know how to handle classified information, but I would vote for Bernie if the Repubs put Trump as Candidate.

Let that sink in...

Not ONLY she did NOT have an actual .gov states email account...

A private non-advisory citizen (Sid) had her email address... and yet, the State Depts actual Diplomats did not.

Please run with this.

Run where with it?

Seriously Whembly. I really suggest you have paid attention to this hearing. It's been quite amusing hearing Blumenthal's name come up as much as it has, release his emails...yet god forbid the testimony be entered into records!

Oh, and by the by? Do you have the private email address for the CEO of your company if you wanted to go outside of the normal chain to contact them?
Yes or No question. This isn't hard.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And I'm going to call you ill-informed, because quite frankly?

So, no retort?

Care to provide anything that discounts what I just posted?

Why bother? It's not like you would ever acknowledge anything anyways. You're the perfect little party lapdog.

If you even watched any part of this hearing it would have been BLATANTLY obvious that this was nothing more than a political witch hunt.

People will look at this any way that want unfortunately.

We've learned quite a few things today from this hearing.

Yes. That the Republicans who whined about "scoring political points on the bodies of Americans" are absolutely okay with it when not an election year.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

and then the Republicans asked her that if he was such a good and close personal friend did he have her e-mail address for her private server

The server didn't have a private email address. If you spend more than 10 seconds looking into something you would know that.

If you spend more than 10 seconds of thought into it you realize two things:

Outside the hearing they are making a big case out of using a private server for her official email, but at the hearing they are telling her that they would have emailed her confidential information at HillaryHasBillsNuts@gmail.com if they would have been in the same situation and if they would have known her personal email instead of her work email.

At this point we know the mishandling of confidential information by the committee has resulted in more classified information being released to the public than anything Hillary has done.

D-USA I don't care who wins the next election so long as its not clinton or Trump. Keep that in mind

But with that said IT IS A BIG FETHING DEAL that she used a private e-mail server. She has willingly violated so many rules for the handling of classified material that the fact that she still has a security clearance is beyond me.

And she did have an e-mail address on her private server I don't know how you can dispute that.....

 Frazzled wrote:
Has anyone actually asked her about who pushed Libya war policy? That is what should be of interest.

Else she should just do the big F U dance coming in and going to them.

According to email evidence... Sid Blumental really pushed for it because of his business opportunites there.

Ya know... war profiteering and all that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh, and by the by? Do you have the private email address for the CEO of your company if you wanted to go outside of the normal chain to contact them?
Yes or No question. This isn't hard.

Yes. I have direct access to the President of my company, even though I have 5 different executives between him and me.

I can still email him at any time.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh, and by the by? Do you have the private email address for the CEO of your company if you wanted to go outside of the normal chain to contact them?
Yes or No question. This isn't hard.

Yes. I have direct access to the President of my company, even though I have 5 different executives between him and me.

I can still email him at any time.

And if you were to go to the President of your company for something that should be handled by your manager, do you think that the president would appreciate it?

Yes or No Whembly. You don't need to consult your notes here.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh, and by the by? Do you have the private email address for the CEO of your company if you wanted to go outside of the normal chain to contact them?
Yes or No question. This isn't hard.

Yes. I have direct access to the President of my company, even though I have 5 different executives between him and me.

I can still email him at any time.

And if you were to go to the President of your company for something that should be handled by your manager, do you think that the president would appreciate it?

Yes or No Whembly. You don't need to consult your notes here.

Yes, he would and I'm not bullgakking you on this.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

and then the Republicans asked her that if he was such a good and close personal friend did he have her e-mail address for her private server

The server didn't have a private email address. If you spend more than 10 seconds looking into something you would know that.

If you spend more than 10 seconds of thought into it you realize two things:

Outside the hearing they are making a big case out of using a private server for her official email, but at the hearing they are telling her that they would have emailed her confidential information at HillaryHasBillsNuts@gmail.com if they would have been in the same situation and if they would have known her personal email instead of her work email.

At this point we know the mishandling of confidential information by the committee has resulted in more classified information being released to the public than anything Hillary has done.

D-USA I don't care who wins the next election so long as its not clinton or Trump. Keep that in mind

But with that said IT IS A BIG FETHING DEAL that she used a private e-mail server. She has willingly violated so many rules for the handling of classified material that the fact that she still has a security clearance is beyond me.

And it has jack gak to do with Benghazi. And what makes the issue even more meaningless to the Benghazi deal is that the committee is now on record saying he should have used private unsecured email to send classified information to her.

And she did have an e-mail address on her private server I don't know how you can dispute that.....

I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that they managed to release more information to the public than she ever did. And that they said he should have emailed her at [whatever]@[whatever].[whatever] without even mentioning the server. They can now try to go and make a case that she shouldn't use a private server, but they already said that he should have send her sensitive private information on a private email.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh, and by the by? Do you have the private email address for the CEO of your company if you wanted to go outside of the normal chain to contact them?
Yes or No question. This isn't hard.

Yes. I have direct access to the President of my company, even though I have 5 different executives between him and me.

I can still email him at any time.

And if you were to go to the President of your company for something that should be handled by your manager, do you think that the president would appreciate it?

Yes or No Whembly. You don't need to consult your notes here.

When I was in the USMC I had a direct line to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. His e-mail was publicly listed as was the phone number for his office. If at any point I had a matter arise that I felt was so intense that it warranted the attention of the Commandant I could have informed him easily.

And in this case its a matter of this man being refused extra protection by the state department several times over, if that happened and the managers weren't listening, you bet your butt I would jump the chain of command and go over their head. Especially if lives were at stake.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh, and by the by? Do you have the private email address for the CEO of your company if you wanted to go outside of the normal chain to contact them?
Yes or No question. This isn't hard.

Yes. I have direct access to the President of my company, even though I have 5 different executives between him and me.

I can still email him at any time.

And if you were to go to the President of your company for something that should be handled by your manager, do you think that the president would appreciate it?

Yes or No Whembly. You don't need to consult your notes here.

When I was in the USMC I had a direct line to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. His e-mail was publicly listed as was the phone number for his office. If at any point I had a matter arise that I felt was so intense that it warranted the attention of the Commandant I could have informed him easily.

And in this case its a matter of this man being refused extra protection by the state department several times over, if that happened and the managers weren't listening, you bet your butt I would jump the chain of command and go over their head. Especially if lives were at stake.

And pretty much everybody had her official email as well, it would be listed and they would have the information.

What they wouldn't have would be any random private BillsBallAndChain@yahoo.com email addresses, none of which should be used for this kind of business anyway.

Did they just make Hillary sit through a video of the incident? Thats what CNN looks to show. If so, thats when I'd stand up, tell them "you disgust me, how dare you do this to make your cheap political points!" and walk out.


Jeez they are making me want to vote Clinton.

And D-usa

And it has jack gak to do with Benghazi. And what makes the issue even more meaningless to the Benghazi deal is that the committee is now on record saying he should have used private unsecured email to send classified information to her.

No, what you have is the committee on record saying that if he felt threatened enough to request additional security and was refused several times by her office then he should have used her e-mail server to send a letter asking for more assistance. There are millions of ways to send that message without it being classified. "Hillary I have requested something from your office and was turned down by Secretary Smuckatelly, please advise". LOL simple


They are basically trying to say that she is hiding more e-mails in her "personal" e-mails that her lawyers refused to release.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And D-usa

And it has jack gak to do with Benghazi. And what makes the issue even more meaningless to the Benghazi deal is that the committee is now on record saying he should have used private unsecured email to send classified information to her.

No, what you have is the committee on record saying that if he felt threatened enough to request additional security and was refused several times by her office then he should have used her e-mail server to send a letter asking for more assistance. There are millions of ways to send that message without it being classified. "Hillary I have requested something from your office and was turned down by Secretary Smuckatelly, please advise". LOL simple

What's the private email of the Marine Corps leadership in DC?

He had her official email address and could have send a message to her at any time.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And D-usa

And it has jack gak to do with Benghazi. And what makes the issue even more meaningless to the Benghazi deal is that the committee is now on record saying he should have used private unsecured email to send classified information to her.

No, what you have is the committee on record saying that if he felt threatened enough to request additional security and was refused several times by her office then he should have used her e-mail server to send a letter asking for more assistance. There are millions of ways to send that message without it being classified. "Hillary I have requested something from your office and was turned down by Secretary Smuckatelly, please advise". LOL simple

What's the private email of the Marine Corps leadership in DC?

He had her official email address and could have send a message to her at any time.

your forgetting that she is on record saying she never used that e-mail for business and instead used her private e-mail account on her private e-mail server.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And D-usa

And it has jack gak to do with Benghazi. And what makes the issue even more meaningless to the Benghazi deal is that the committee is now on record saying he should have used private unsecured email to send classified information to her.

No, what you have is the committee on record saying that if he felt threatened enough to request additional security and was refused several times by her office then he should have used her e-mail server to send a letter asking for more assistance. There are millions of ways to send that message without it being classified. "Hillary I have requested something from your office and was turned down by Secretary Smuckatelly, please advise". LOL simple

What's the private email of the Marine Corps leadership in DC?

He had her official email address and could have send a message to her at any time.

your forgetting that she is on record saying she never used that e-mail for business and instead used her private e-mail account on her private e-mail server.

Fair enough.

I think that they were not talking about her "official" private email in that particular question though, at least that is not how I took it.

So the idea that a personal friend had Clintons private email address, but her employee did not, is somehow supposed to be damning?

If so, I'm in alot of trouble, as I imagine is everyone in this country with employees.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And D-usa

And it has jack gak to do with Benghazi. And what makes the issue even more meaningless to the Benghazi deal is that the committee is now on record saying he should have used private unsecured email to send classified information to her.

No, what you have is the committee on record saying that if he felt threatened enough to request additional security and was refused several times by her office then he should have used her e-mail server to send a letter asking for more assistance. There are millions of ways to send that message without it being classified. "Hillary I have requested something from your office and was turned down by Secretary Smuckatelly, please advise". LOL simple

What's the private email of the Marine Corps leadership in DC?

He had her official email address and could have send a message to her at any time.

your forgetting that she is on record saying she never used that e-mail for business and instead used her private e-mail account on her private e-mail server.

Fair enough.

I think that they were not talking about her "official" private email in that particular question though, at least that is not how I took it.

As I said, I do believe that she is responsible, if for no other reason then she was Sec State at the time of the incident and there was a request for reinforcement that got turned down (My unit btw was mobilized to go, 2nd Rad Bn A-co 2nd Platoon 3rd Squad, those guys had to give up their weekend to get ready for a movement that never happened). But beyond that this is in fact a way to destroy her presidential aspirations which as I have said several times Is a great things because she is an incompetent moron. I really hope the FBI nails her for gross negligence in handling classified material.

 jasper76 wrote:
So the idea that a personal friend had Clintons private email address, but her employee did not, is somehow supposed to be damning?

If so, I'm in alot of trouble, as I imagine is everyone in this country with employees.

When she was doing *all* her official work on said private email system... then, yeah... that's a problem.

 jasper76 wrote:
So the idea that a personal friend had Clintons private email address, but her employee did not, is somehow supposed to be damning?

If so, I'm in alot of trouble, as I imagine is everyone in this country with employees.

Jasper the point they are making is that Hillary refused to release a huge number of her e-mails saying that they were personal and had nothing to do with business. And the Committee is saying BS to this. They are trying to force her to release ALL her e-mails or at least have a neutral party look over the remainder and see if they are truly personal and not incriminating.

 jasper76 wrote:
So the idea that a personal friend had Clintons private email address, but her employee did not, is somehow supposed to be damning?

If so, I'm in alot of trouble, as I imagine is everyone in this country with employees.

Well, she did claim the ambassador was a close personal friend, too....

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So the idea that a personal friend had Clintons private email address, but her employee did not, is somehow supposed to be damning?

If so, I'm in alot of trouble, as I imagine is everyone in this country with employees.

Well, she did claim the ambassador was a close personal friend, too....

I have close personal friends who don't have me personal email, too.

 jasper76 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So the idea that a personal friend had Clintons private email address, but her employee did not, is somehow supposed to be damning?

If so, I'm in alot of trouble, as I imagine is everyone in this country with employees.

Well, she did claim the ambassador was a close personal friend, too....

I have close personal friends who don't have me personal email, too.

Jasper, Clinton admitted that she did all her work through this private e-mail server, so everyone who would need access to her e-mail address had access to it, or they could get access easily enough by contacting her office if nothing else. The point as I said above is that she is hiding information by saying the e-mails in question are "personal" and not of a business nature. Everyone who believes that to be true is living in a fantasy world

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So the idea that a personal friend had Clintons private email address, but her employee did not, is somehow supposed to be damning?

If so, I'm in alot of trouble, as I imagine is everyone in this country with employees.

When she was doing *all* her official work on said private email system... then, yeah... that's a problem.

You need to watch the hearing. She said repeatedly that she did not use email at all to conduct most of her business.

Whether you buy that or not. whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So the idea that a personal friend had Clintons private email address, but her employee did not, is somehow supposed to be damning?

If so, I'm in alot of trouble, as I imagine is everyone in this country with employees.

Well, she did claim the ambassador was a close personal friend, too....

I have close personal friends who don't have me personal email, too.

Jasper, Clinton admitted that she did all her work through this private e-mail server, so everyone who would need access to her e-mail address had access to it, or they could get access easily enough by contacting her office if nothing else. The point as I said above is that she is hiding information by saying the e-mails in question are "personal" and not of a business nature. Everyone who believes that to be true is living in a fantasy world

See post directly above.

 jasper76 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So the idea that a personal friend had Clintons private email address, but her employee did not, is somehow supposed to be damning?

If so, I'm in alot of trouble, as I imagine is everyone in this country with employees.

Well, she did claim the ambassador was a close personal friend, too....

I have close personal friends who don't have me personal email, too.

I can honestly say that pretty much zero of my close personal friends have my email. There may be one, but I can't think of anyone.

The only family member that emails me is my grandmother, and the rest of my family likely doesn't have my personal email either.

Business gets handled via my email, friends text or message me through Facebook.