Hillary Clinton’s email story continues to get harder and harder to believe

anatta

100% recycled karma
by Chris Cillizza - WaPo :whoa: ( I know...right?)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ontinues-to-get-harder-and-harder-to-believe/

On Monday night, the Associated Press published a piece noting the release of an additional 165 pages of emails Hillary Clinton sent from her private email address while serving as secretary of state. These were emails that had never been previously released and only were made public because of a court order in response to a request from a conservative group.

And yet again, the emails poke holes in Clinton's initial explanation for why she decided to exclusively use a private email server for her electronic correspondence while serving as the nation's top diplomat.

Let's start with this from the AP story: "The emails were not among the 55,000 pages of work-related messages that Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence."

Remember that Clinton and a small group of people working for her reviewed all of the emails she sent from her private server and made the decision about what was solely personal and what was work-related. She handed over the work-related email and permanently deleted those that she and her team decided were purely personal. She wound up deleting more emails than she turned over to State.

imrs.php


The latest batch of emails suggest that Clinton's filter to decide between the personal and the professional was far from foolproof. That these emails never saw the light of day before Monday — or before a conservative legal advocacy group petitioned for their release — opens up the possibility that there are plenty more like them that Clinton chose to delete but shouldn't have. And it provides more fodder for the Republican argument that Clinton appointing herself as judge, jury and executioner for her emails was, at best, a very, very bad decision and, at worst, something more nefarious than just bad judgment.

Then there's this quote from a newly released March 2009 email between Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin about the email setup
:
"I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State. Who manages both my personal and official files? ... I think we need to get on this asap to be sure we know and design the system we want."
Remember that Clinton said that her main/only reason for using a private email server while at State was "convenience." She didn't want to carry around multiple devices for email, she explained.

But this email to Abedin — which came at the start of her four-year term in office — suggests a bit more active agency than Clinton has previously let on. "I think we need to get on this asap to be sure we know and design the system we want," doesn't strike me as Clinton simply wanting convenience and following the instructions of her IT people on how to make that happen. It reads to me as though Clinton is both far more aware of the email setup and far more engaged in how it should look than she generally lets on publicly.

There's nothing in these emails that changes the basic political dynamic of the email controversy as Clinton seeks to win the White House this fall. Everything still depends on whether the Justice Department decides to indict Clinton or those close to her for purposely keeping information that the public had a right to know away from them. We've been waiting on the results of that FBI investigation for months now and, in truth, no one really knows when they will finally come.

But revelations like Monday's — a chunk of previously undisclosed emails that are clearly professional in nature — lend further doubt to the story Clinton had told about why she set up a private server and how she handled it after leaving office. For a candidate already struggling to convince voters she is honest and trustworthy enough to be president, stories like this one are deeply problematic.
 
And remember you have to understand Clinton speak. They constantly say they released "50,000 pages of emails". Most people assume that it is 50,000 emails. It is not the same. Anyone who has ever printed an email knows that just one email string could be 10 pages depending on how many replies are on it. My guess is there are thousands upon thousands of emails that Crooked Hillary is hiding.
 
by Chris Cillizza - WaPo :whoa: ( I know...right?)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ontinues-to-get-harder-and-harder-to-believe/

On Monday night, the Associated Press published a piece noting the release of an additional 165 pages of emails Hillary Clinton sent from her private email address while serving as secretary of state. These were emails that had never been previously released and only were made public because of a court order in response to a request from a conservative group.

And yet again, the emails poke holes in Clinton's initial explanation for why she decided to exclusively use a private email server for her electronic correspondence while serving as the nation's top diplomat.

Let's start with this from the AP story: "The emails were not among the 55,000 pages of work-related messages that Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence."

Remember that Clinton and a small group of people working for her reviewed all of the emails she sent from her private server and made the decision about what was solely personal and what was work-related. She handed over the work-related email and permanently deleted those that she and her team decided were purely personal. She wound up deleting more emails than she turned over to State.

imrs.php


The latest batch of emails suggest that Clinton's filter to decide between the personal and the professional was far from foolproof. That these emails never saw the light of day before Monday — or before a conservative legal advocacy group petitioned for their release — opens up the possibility that there are plenty more like them that Clinton chose to delete but shouldn't have. And it provides more fodder for the Republican argument that Clinton appointing herself as judge, jury and executioner for her emails was, at best, a very, very bad decision and, at worst, something more nefarious than just bad judgment.

Then there's this quote from a newly released March 2009 email between Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin about the email setup
:
Remember that Clinton said that her main/only reason for using a private email server while at State was "convenience." She didn't want to carry around multiple devices for email, she explained.

But this email to Abedin — which came at the start of her four-year term in office — suggests a bit more active agency than Clinton has previously let on. "I think we need to get on this asap to be sure we know and design the system we want," doesn't strike me as Clinton simply wanting convenience and following the instructions of her IT people on how to make that happen. It reads to me as though Clinton is both far more aware of the email setup and far more engaged in how it should look than she generally lets on publicly.

There's nothing in these emails that changes the basic political dynamic of the email controversy as Clinton seeks to win the White House this fall. Everything still depends on whether the Justice Department decides to indict Clinton or those close to her for purposely keeping information that the public had a right to know away from them. We've been waiting on the results of that FBI investigation for months now and, in truth, no one really knows when they will finally come.

But revelations like Monday's — a chunk of previously undisclosed emails that are clearly professional in nature — lend further doubt to the story Clinton had told about why she set up a private server and how she handled it after leaving office. For a candidate already struggling to convince voters she is honest and trustworthy enough to be president, stories like this one are deeply problematic.

Believe, Believe, Believe!
myths-about-hypnosis.jpg
 
Another thread by spammaster.
Note it is just copy pasta, not even a comment from the OP.

Didn't you get banned for doing that Signalman Kenneth?
 
Another thread by spammaster.
Note it is just copy pasta, not even a comment from the OP.

Didn't you get banned for doing that Signalman Kenneth?
what's to comment on?
It's an informative OP ( for those who care to stay informed) where by I bolded some key point.

The really, really interesting aspect is this came from political commentary section of WaPo!
That alone is earth-shattering news.
There's your comment, unlike your doggish raggings of empty griping
 
I dunno if anyone is interested any more..??

The tea party spent millions of my dollars & can't knock her out... I am sure they will move on to something more exciting..

This will likely be the nastiest mudslinging in our life time....

Let the games begin!!!
 
I dunno if anyone is interested any more..??

The tea party spent millions of my dollars & can't knock her out... I am sure they will move on to something more exciting..

This will likely be the nastiest mudslinging in our life time....

Let the games begin!!!
there is an FBI investigation going on- the tea party has nothing to do with the Emails.
Judicial Watch has some FOIA going on..but this isn't some Congressional tea party hacks, like !Bengazi!

There are a lot of interesting stories -her whole defense of "nothing marked classified" has fallen apart too-
which was a minimalist worthless explanation, as she can and should have done her own classifications.
There was in fact actual classifications on at least a couplel as well as the "top secret" that were classified that way later.
did you see the State dept IG report?

State Dept. inspector general report sharply criticizes Clinton’s email practices
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6f8ebc-2275-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html
 
Do you understand that no one gives a fuck?
That this is not news, certainly not newsworthy?
Finally, for your edification, Signalman Kenneth was indeef banned for posting copy-pasta without comment.
 
a few more odds & ends..I'm not even using daily caller or RW sites, although they frequently do better jobs of dot connecting

New analysis shows 160 emails missing from Clinton’s disclosure to State (WaPo again)
2010 Clinton email, which was disclosed last month by the State Department’s inspector general but had not been submitted by the former secretary, appears to show that she was concerned about ensuring privacy for her personal emails if she was given an official government account.

“Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible,” Clinton wrote.

The newly disclosed gaps in Clinton’s correspondence raise questions about the process used by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and her lawyers to determine which emails she turned over to the department.

Clinton has said she deleted nearly 32,000 emails from her time as secretary because they were purely personal, dealing with such matters as arrangements for her daughter’s wedding and her yoga routine. But Republicans have said there is no way to know whether Clinton also deleted potentially embarrassing work-related emails.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...78b0bc-3d3c-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html

In a statement Monday night, the Trump campaign cited new emails released by Judicial Watch as a sign that Clinton had “lied” about turning over all her work-related correspondence. “We now know that Clinton’s repeated assertion that she turned over everything work-related from her time at the State Department is not true,” the campaign said.

In a report issued last month about Clinton’s email practices, the State Department inspector general’s office formally concluded that Clinton’s production of emails had been “incomplete
 
Do you understand that no one gives a fuck?
That this is not news, certainly not newsworthy?
Finally, for your edification, Signalman Kenneth was indeef banned for posting copy
there was a comment at the top of the OP by myself on the source, if not the article.
Thanks for the heads up on that.

Democrats don't care..I don't care about Democrats; only Clintonian arrogance of power and corruption.
These are all recent Washington Post articles, and links to WaPo articles.
 
Do you understand that no one gives a fuck?
That this is not news, certainly not newsworthy?
Finally, for your edification, Signalman Kenneth was indeef banned for posting copy-pasta without comment.
Be honest, is there a love triangle here? There are two different boards where you literally stalk this guy. Either someone has offered you money to tell him to F off after every post he makes or there is something of the heart in play here.
 
Be honest, is there a love triangle here? There are two different boards where you literally stalk this guy. Either someone has offered you money to tell him to F off after every post he makes or there is something of the heart in play here.

He is a wolf in sheeps's clothing.
I merely point that out.
 
there are plenty of stories -the problem is they come out in batches, while the press only covers a small segment of the total
releases ,and the political back and forth.

Nobody does a comprehensive explanation/timelineof events as well as the politics - so readers are not all on the same page
when they see an article..


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...78b0bc-3d3c-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html
One series of documents requested by Citizens United and then published by ABC News and other news organizations appears to show that Clinton’s top staff intervened to appoint a Democratic donor to a sensitive arms control advisory panel even though the donor, a Chicago securities trader, had no experience in the field.
 
there are plenty of stories -the problem is they come out in batches, while the press only covers a small segment of the total
releases ,and the political back and forth.

Nobody does a comprehensive explanation/timelineof events as well as the politics - so readers are not all on the same page
when they see an article..


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...78b0bc-3d3c-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html
One series of documents requested by Citizens United and then published by ABC News and other news organizations appears to show that Clinton’s top staff intervened to appoint a Democratic donor to a sensitive arms control advisory panel even though the donor, a Chicago securities trader, had no experience in the field.

No one cares.
 
more's the pity. This is a lying rogue candidate, who used influence peddling to promote a campaign contributor to a national security advisory post he is utterly unqualified for..and that's all you can say??

Partisan gonna partisan.
 
more's the pity. This is a lying rogue candidate, who used influence peddling to promote a campaign contributor to a national security advisory post he is utterly unqualified for..and that's all you can say??

It would not effect the outcome of any election, even if it were true.
 
It would not effect the outcome of any election, even if it were true.
it's true. it's a straightforward quid pro quo. are Americans so brain dead now we are blasé about corruption in our face?

Clinton donor received top spot on State Department intel board
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor-rajiv-fernando/

A major political donor to the Clintons and other top Democrats was selected by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to serve on a key State Department intelligence board in 2011, despite having no clear background in the area, according to emails released this week..
 
Back
Top