Emailgate and the Dictator Within

tsuke

New member
https://www.trumplican.xyz/2016/06/12/emailgate-and-the-dictator-within/

17187194-standard.jpg

If you are politically active you will have an opinion about the private server of Hillary Clinton. It has been all over the news and I am not going to waste time summarizing it. I am guessing it mostly falls along party lines. If you are a Republican or lean that way you think she compromised vital national security information and if you are a Democrat, well you probably think the same thing but don't think that it is a big issue. Maybe you go so far as to say none of her documents were classified or it was not at the time. As always I am here to offer the red pill to those who want the truth.

THE RED PILL

Ready for today's dose? If you are discussing the classification of information and what rules where there at what specific time Clinton has already won. In reality the classification, convenience, and content of the emails do not matter. The fact that a private server maintained by her own technicians guarded by a law firm she employs is all you need to condemn her.

The official story is that she wanted to use the private server because she was technologically challenged and had difficulty changing devices. If you have difficulty using computers, smart phones, or things of that nature then you would use the things that come with the device itself. The last thing you want to do is to install new software and fiddle with settings. Suppose you have no idea how technology works and want to blog. Would you use Word Press, Blogger, or another site that is already configured? Or would you go to the trouble of making your own site?

What "unintended consequences" does the email server have? This may tell us what the primary motivation is for making the server. ALL INFORMATION IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF CLINTON. Let that sink in for a bit. Every piece of communication she has is under her control. Not under government control as in the case of most other government officials. Not under third party control as with the officials who unwisely decided to use yahoo accounts. But under her control.

We have a system of government which demands that the people hold officials accountable for what they do in office. Yet in this case Clinton has made it so that there is no way anyone could hold her accountable for her time in office. If FOIA requests were sent to the state department they would say they have no emails related to the subject, and rightly so. All the emails were with Clinton. If the FOIA request were given to Clinton herself, well then the emails would end up deleted. As a nation we already have very few ways to keep our elected officials in check, yet here we have one of the most powerful politicians in the country actively making sure that we have no way to hold her accountable. The classification and all those other details don't matter. That is a smokescreen to confuse you. The existence of the server itself is the most problematic thing. If you think this is acceptable ask yourself how our government would look if we allowed every single government official to have their own private servers.

DICTATOR

Throughout this campaign you have seen Trump described as a dictator. Whether it is comparisons to Hitler, Mussolini or any other strongman. Ask yourself what is the tie that binds all dictators? They want no accountability for their actions. They make sure that regular citizens cannot question their actions. They go about this in a variety of ways outright murder for some, co-opting the press for others, and rigging the entire political process for the rest. Whatever method they choose the end result is the same. They make it as hard as possible for the populace to question their actions and hold them accountable for them.

Let us take a look at the candidates. Trump has taken almost every available opportunity to meet with the press. From press conferences, to sit down interviews, to taking questions after his rallies. He has made sure that he is accessible to anyone who has any questions for him. It has not always been with friendly reporters either. He accidentally called into Charlie Sykes show, a prominent Never-Trumper. He could have just hung up when Sykes said he was Never Trump, yet he still chose to do the interview. In fact the few instances where he has not been transparent such as in the case of his tax returns, off the record interviews, or close door meetings with officials like Ryan are the exception not the rule. When was the last time you saw a dictator allow a member of the opposition press question him without having the questions prepared before hand?

Clinton as we have mentioned has her own private server to make sure that only she has access to crucial information about her time as secretary of state. She rarely does any interviews, has not had a press conference in six months, and in the rare occasion she does town halls or other interactive events the questions are all approved by her staff beforehand. She has made it a strategy to limit the number of opportunities anyone has to question her on her actions. The state department seems to be taking the same stance as her declaring that her emails regarding the TPP will only be released after the election and that all the information regarding her emails would take 75 years to release. I will not even get into her speeches. Any situation where she has actually invited people to question her, and I confess I cannot think of one now, are the exceptions rather than the rule.

One person discusses matters with the press all the time. Newspapers, websites, television media, and even allows interviews with opposition media. The other person restricts all contact with the fourth estate and sets up servers to hide her actions from the public. Which is the dictator?
 
We have a system of government which demands that the people hold officials accountable for what they do in office. Yet in this case Clinton has made it so that there is no way anyone could hold her accountable for her time in office. If FOIA requests were sent to the state department they would say they have no emails related to the subject, and rightly so. All the emails were with Clinton. If the FOIA request were given to Clinton herself, well then the emails would end up deleted. As a nation we already have very few ways to keep our elected officials in check, yet here we have one of the most powerful politicians in the country actively making sure that we have no way to hold her accountable. The classification and all those other details don't matter. That is a smokescreen to confuse you. The existence of the server itself is the most problematic thing. If you think this is acceptable ask yourself how our government would look if we allowed every single government official to have their own private servers.
bingo. and that's exactly what happened, she almost got away with it until a FOIA request di reveal the server.
She only turned over the remaining emails after wards.

Disgusting abuse of power = Clintonism
 
was another week of news poking fresh holes in Hillary Clinton’s tattered e-mail defense. At this point, the only cover she has left are all the ongoing stonewalls.

One landmark event came Wednesday, when presidential spokesman Josh Earnest for the first time referred to the FBI’s probe of the e-mails as a “criminal investigation.”

Then came a Wall Street Journal scoop: One thing making it criminal is that top State Department aides sent her e-mails on “born classified” discussions of drone strikes in Pakistan.

The record already shows that Secretary Clinton’s inner circle knew full well that her private account was run off a home-brewed server — their e-discussions are full of notices that she’s “off e-mail” while the server gets restarted, and even that it’s been taken down because of possible hacker attacks.

Yet they all colluded in her continued use of it — and in e-mailing her info that everyone at that level of government knows is supposed to be kept to secure networks.

Meanwhile, ongoing depositions show Team Hillary continuing its “amnesia” stonewall. None of her ex-aides can recall a thing about the private server. For example, Clinton’s former executive secretary, Stephen Mull, was asked: “Do you know how you learned” about the server? “I can’t recall,” he replied.

Funny: In a 2011 exchange, Mull made specific reference to “her personal e-mail server,” then on the fritz, and offered to get Clinton two Blackberrys, one of them to serve a “State Department e-mail account.”

She rejected that idea, as she did every effort to help her get serious about basic e-mail security.

Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at State and now her private attorney, also has memory issues. She said “I can’t recall” 40 times at her deposition — and “I don’t know” 182 times.

Mills, Clinton, Huma Abedin and other top Hillaryites all refused to cooperate with the State inspector general’s probe. Clinton claims there was no point, since she’s already answered every possible question. Right.

But the coverup goes beyond Team Hillary. Marie Harf, State’s top spokeswoman under John Kerry, started lying the day the scandal broke: “There’s no prohibition on using this kind of e-mail account,” she said.

That backs Clinton’s repeated claims that “It was allowed.” Yeah — by her. As the IG report notes, Hillary never sought an OK for her e-mail setup from State’s legal professionals — who never would’ve given one.

“Harf is implying that State approved this practice,” John Bellinger wrote his successors at State’s legal department. He urged them “to defend the credibility” of the legal staff and not let Harf give them “a bad name.” State ignored him.

The department’s still running interference. In yet another case, Republicans have sued to get e-mails from four Clinton aides; State claims it’ll take 75 years to provide the documents.

Will anyone hold Clinton to account? We strongly doubt the Obama Justice Department will indict the woman the president just endorsed to be his successor. Any “law enforcement” action is up to the voters.
http://nypost.com/2016/06/11/team-hillarys-final-e-mail-defense-mass-amnesia/
 
bingo. and that's exactly what happened, she almost got away with it until a FOIA request di reveal the server.
She only turned over the remaining emails after wards.

Disgusting abuse of power = Clintonism

yup. I have no idea why they even discuss classification of emails. Like it was important lol.
 
yup. I have no idea why they even discuss classification of emails. Like it was important lol.
well she specifically used that dodge while being Sec of State who had to know wtf innately (born) classified is.
Yesterday that storyline was blown to bits when marked classified Email was shown to have gone thru her server.

The piece above shows collusion/mass amnesia by her aides,and the guy who installed the thing took the 5th.

Her storyline keeps falling apart while the Dems continuously run around like ..

41127oJRzZL.jpg
 
https://www.trumplican.xyz/2016/06/12/emailgate-and-the-dictator-within/

View attachment 2985

If you are politically active you will have an opinion about the private server of Hillary Clinton. It has been all over the news and I am not going to waste time summarizing it. I am guessing it mostly falls along party lines. If you are a Republican or lean that way you think she compromised vital national security information and if you are a Democrat, well you probably think the same thing but don't think that it is a big issue. Maybe you go so far as to say none of her documents were classified or it was not at the time. As always I am here to offer the red pill to those who want the truth.

THE RED PILL

Ready for today's dose? If you are discussing the classification of information and what rules where there at what specific time Clinton has already won. In reality the classification, convenience, and content of the emails do not matter. The fact that a private server maintained by her own technicians guarded by a law firm she employs is all you need to condemn her.

The official story is that she wanted to use the private server because she was technologically challenged and had difficulty changing devices. If you have difficulty using computers, smart phones, or things of that nature then you would use the things that come with the device itself. The last thing you want to do is to install new software and fiddle with settings. Suppose you have no idea how technology works and want to blog. Would you use Word Press, Blogger, or another site that is already configured? Or would you go to the trouble of making your own site?

What "unintended consequences" does the email server have? This may tell us what the primary motivation is for making the server. ALL INFORMATION IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF CLINTON. Let that sink in for a bit. Every piece of communication she has is under her control. Not under government control as in the case of most other government officials. Not under third party control as with the officials who unwisely decided to use yahoo accounts. But under her control.

We have a system of government which demands that the people hold officials accountable for what they do in office. Yet in this case Clinton has made it so that there is no way anyone could hold her accountable for her time in office. If FOIA requests were sent to the state department they would say they have no emails related to the subject, and rightly so. All the emails were with Clinton. If the FOIA request were given to Clinton herself, well then the emails would end up deleted. As a nation we already have very few ways to keep our elected officials in check, yet here we have one of the most powerful politicians in the country actively making sure that we have no way to hold her accountable. The classification and all those other details don't matter. That is a smokescreen to confuse you. The existence of the server itself is the most problematic thing. If you think this is acceptable ask yourself how our government would look if we allowed every single government official to have their own private servers.

DICTATOR

Throughout this campaign you have seen Trump described as a dictator. Whether it is comparisons to Hitler, Mussolini or any other strongman. Ask yourself what is the tie that binds all dictators? They want no accountability for their actions. They make sure that regular citizens cannot question their actions. They go about this in a variety of ways outright murder for some, co-opting the press for others, and rigging the entire political process for the rest. Whatever method they choose the end result is the same. They make it as hard as possible for the populace to question their actions and hold them accountable for them.

Let us take a look at the candidates. Trump has taken almost every available opportunity to meet with the press. From press conferences, to sit down interviews, to taking questions after his rallies. He has made sure that he is accessible to anyone who has any questions for him. It has not always been with friendly reporters either. He accidentally called into Charlie Sykes show, a prominent Never-Trumper. He could have just hung up when Sykes said he was Never Trump, yet he still chose to do the interview. In fact the few instances where he has not been transparent such as in the case of his tax returns, off the record interviews, or close door meetings with officials like Ryan are the exception not the rule. When was the last time you saw a dictator allow a member of the opposition press question him without having the questions prepared before hand?

Clinton as we have mentioned has her own private server to make sure that only she has access to crucial information about her time as secretary of state. She rarely does any interviews, has not had a press conference in six months, and in the rare occasion she does town halls or other interactive events the questions are all approved by her staff beforehand. She has made it a strategy to limit the number of opportunities anyone has to question her on her actions. The state department seems to be taking the same stance as her declaring that her emails regarding the TPP will only be released after the election and that all the information regarding her emails would take 75 years to release. I will not even get into her speeches. Any situation where she has actually invited people to question her, and I confess I cannot think of one now, are the exceptions rather than the rule.

One person discusses matters with the press all the time. Newspapers, websites, television media, and even allows interviews with opposition media. The other person restricts all contact with the fourth estate and sets up servers to hide her actions from the public. Which is the dictator?

Why not condem Condi Rice and Collin Powel who also used private servers?
Oh, right, they were righties.
 
bingo. and that's exactly what happened, she almost got away with it until a FOIA request di reveal the server.
She only turned over the remaining emails after wards.

Disgusting abuse of power = Clintonism

Did you mean to say allegedlly?
 
was another week of news poking fresh holes in Hillary Clinton’s tattered e-mail defense. At this point, the only cover she has left are all the ongoing stonewalls.

One landmark event came Wednesday, when presidential spokesman Josh Earnest for the first time referred to the FBI’s probe of the e-mails as a “criminal investigation.”

Then came a Wall Street Journal scoop: One thing making it criminal is that top State Department aides sent her e-mails on “born classified” discussions of drone strikes in Pakistan.

The record already shows that Secretary Clinton’s inner circle knew full well that her private account was run off a home-brewed server — their e-discussions are full of notices that she’s “off e-mail” while the server gets restarted, and even that it’s been taken down because of possible hacker attacks.

Yet they all colluded in her continued use of it — and in e-mailing her info that everyone at that level of government knows is supposed to be kept to secure networks.

Meanwhile, ongoing depositions show Team Hillary continuing its “amnesia” stonewall. None of her ex-aides can recall a thing about the private server. For example, Clinton’s former executive secretary, Stephen Mull, was asked: “Do you know how you learned” about the server? “I can’t recall,” he replied.

Funny: In a 2011 exchange, Mull made specific reference to “her personal e-mail server,” then on the fritz, and offered to get Clinton two Blackberrys, one of them to serve a “State Department e-mail account.”

She rejected that idea, as she did every effort to help her get serious about basic e-mail security.

Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at State and now her private attorney, also has memory issues. She said “I can’t recall” 40 times at her deposition — and “I don’t know” 182 times.

Mills, Clinton, Huma Abedin and other top Hillaryites all refused to cooperate with the State inspector general’s probe. Clinton claims there was no point, since she’s already answered every possible question. Right.

But the coverup goes beyond Team Hillary. Marie Harf, State’s top spokeswoman under John Kerry, started lying the day the scandal broke: “There’s no prohibition on using this kind of e-mail account,” she said.

That backs Clinton’s repeated claims that “It was allowed.” Yeah — by her. As the IG report notes, Hillary never sought an OK for her e-mail setup from State’s legal professionals — who never would’ve given one.

“Harf is implying that State approved this practice,” John Bellinger wrote his successors at State’s legal department. He urged them “to defend the credibility” of the legal staff and not let Harf give them “a bad name.” State ignored him.

The department’s still running interference. In yet another case, Republicans have sued to get e-mails from four Clinton aides; State claims it’ll take 75 years to provide the documents.

Will anyone hold Clinton to account? We strongly doubt the Obama Justice Department will indict the woman the president just endorsed to be his successor. Any “law enforcement” action is up to the voters.
http://nypost.com/2016/06/11/team-hillarys-final-e-mail-defense-mass-amnesia/

At least you got one part right; it was allowed by her.
It was her choice seeing that she was in charge.
Fucking idiot.
 
Why not condem Condi Rice and Collin Powel who also used private servers?
Oh, right, they were righties.

Not under government control as in the case of most other government officials. Not under third party control as with the officials who unwisely decided to use yahoo accounts. But under her control.

this is the difference. When you set up a server maintained by your own IT and guarded by a law firm you retain you go from someone wanting convienince to someone who wants no accountability for her actions.

If i send a FOIA request to yahoo they give me the emails. If i send one to clinton she deletes them all. Again control of the info.
 
Rice did not use Email. Powell did, but limited -and the regs are much more restrictive then during Powells.

Private server wasn't "allowed" as Clinton was saying
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/why-...use-is-deemed-more-serious-than-predecessors/
.....ROSALIND HELDERMAN: They have said that they didn’t know that they were in violation.

And one interesting thing is, she and her aides have said that she wants to cooperate with all these inquiries, but, in fact, she didn’t sit with an interview with the State Department’s inspector general, and a number of the top aides didn’t respond to questionnaires



ROSALIND HELDERMAN: The main point of the report was to look at record-keeping and the federal records law. And so it specifically says that it wasn’t intended to look at the security of the system.

However, it does say two interesting things about security. One is that it just notes that she didn’t provide a full briefing to cyber-security officials within the department about what kind of encryption and other safeguards were in place on the system, and it’s critical of that.

And then the other is that it notes that there were several times where people expressed fears that the system might have been hacked, not necessarily that it was hacked, and her people have said that it wasn’t. But they expressed fear that it might have been hacked and that those potential breaches were not reported to cyber-security officials, which is another violation of department policy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Roz Helderman, just quickly, am I right that the report says that Hillary Clinton, the people around her took her e-mails with them when she left office, didn’t provide a copy of them until a delayed period of time?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: Yes, that’s right.

It’s quite critical of that, noting that she could have — even though she was using private e-mail, which is discouraged, she could have ensured that the record was kept by either printing e-mails at the time of her sending them and saving them, obviously having staff do that, or leaving behind all of her work-related e-mails when she left the department in February 2013......
 
Do you even know who was responsible for deciding which emsils are classified?

the entire point im making is it doesnt matter whether they are classified or not. Citizens should be able to submit FOIA requests to hold you accountable for your actions.
 
was another week of news poking fresh holes in Hillary Clinton’s tattered e-mail defense. At this point, the only cover she has left are all the ongoing stonewalls.

One landmark event came Wednesday, when presidential spokesman Josh Earnest for the first time referred to the FBI’s probe of the e-mails as a “criminal investigation.”

Then came a Wall Street Journal scoop: One thing making it criminal is that top State Department aides sent her e-mails on “born classified” discussions of drone strikes in Pakistan.

The record already shows that Secretary Clinton’s inner circle knew full well that her private account was run off a home-brewed server — their e-discussions are full of notices that she’s “off e-mail” while the server gets restarted, and even that it’s been taken down because of possible hacker attacks.

Yet they all colluded in her continued use of it — and in e-mailing her info that everyone at that level of government knows is supposed to be kept to secure networks.

Meanwhile, ongoing depositions show Team Hillary continuing its “amnesia” stonewall. None of her ex-aides can recall a thing about the private server. For example, Clinton’s former executive secretary, Stephen Mull, was asked: “Do you know how you learned” about the server? “I can’t recall,” he replied.

Funny: In a 2011 exchange, Mull made specific reference to “her personal e-mail server,” then on the fritz, and offered to get Clinton two Blackberrys, one of them to serve a “State Department e-mail account.”

She rejected that idea, as she did every effort to help her get serious about basic e-mail security.

Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at State and now her private attorney, also has memory issues. She said “I can’t recall” 40 times at her deposition — and “I don’t know” 182 times.

Mills, Clinton, Huma Abedin and other top Hillaryites all refused to cooperate with the State inspector general’s probe. Clinton claims there was no point, since she’s already answered every possible question. Right.

But the coverup goes beyond Team Hillary. Marie Harf, State’s top spokeswoman under John Kerry, started lying the day the scandal broke: “There’s no prohibition on using this kind of e-mail account,” she said.

That backs Clinton’s repeated claims that “It was allowed.” Yeah — by her. As the IG report notes, Hillary never sought an OK for her e-mail setup from State’s legal professionals — who never would’ve given one.

“Harf is implying that State approved this practice,” John Bellinger wrote his successors at State’s legal department. He urged them “to defend the credibility” of the legal staff and not let Harf give them “a bad name.” State ignored him.

The department’s still running interference. In yet another case, Republicans have sued to get e-mails from four Clinton aides; State claims it’ll take 75 years to provide the documents.

Will anyone hold Clinton to account? We strongly doubt the Obama Justice Department will indict the woman the president just endorsed to be his successor. Any “law enforcement” action is up to the voters.
http://nypost.com/2016/06/11/team-hillarys-final-e-mail-defense-mass-amnesia/

You fucking idiot.
The F.B.I. ONLY conducts criminal investigations.
Again, for the nearly illiterate among us,
ONE IS PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW.

Second you ignoant child; sorry but the Pentagon released a two part report on the process of drone tageting and approval.
The Sec./State IS NOT a signatory to the approval process.
You are so blinded by your misogynistic hatred of Hillary that you may as well post articles by the Onion you fucking idiot.
F.Y.I. as a self descibed expert your actual knowledge is severely lacking.
 
You fucking idiot.
The F.B.I. ONLY conducts criminal investigations.
Again, for the nearly illiterate among us,
ONE IS PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW.

Second you ignoant child; sorry but the Pentagon released a two part report on the process of drone tageting and approval.
The Sec./State IS NOT a signatory to the approval process.
You are so blinded by your misogynistic hatred of Hillary that you may as well post articles by the Onion you fucking idiot.
F.Y.I. as a self descibed expert your actual knowledge is severely lacking.

she is not guilty of anything. What she did is use a legal way to subvert the process to hide her emails from the public to avoid all accountability.

Dictators use legal proceedings to get what they need done. Its what Hitler did. Im sure according to german law at the time what he did to the jews was 100% legal.

If you want to call somebody a dictator Clinton fits the bill more than trump.
 
she is not guilty of anything. What she did is use a legal way to subvert the process to hide her emails from the public to avoid all accountability.

Dictators use legal proceedings to get what they need done. Its what Hitler did. Im sure according to german law at the time what he did to the jews was 100% legal.

If you want to call somebody a dictator Clinton fits the bill more than trump.

Am I addressing you, insignificunt?
I didn't think so.
Shut the fuck up retard.
 
Back
Top