Hillary Clinton

[TulsaMoon]

I have been waiting to see who will post anything concerning the recent events involving the FBI directors announcement and subsequent appearance before the House Oversight Committee. No one has, so I will.

The Facts are: (or the lies are)

1. She didn't send or receive any e-mails that were classified "at the time." Clinton told this to reporters at a press conference March 10, 2015. She repeated it at an Iowa Democratic fundraiser July 25 and at a               Democratic debate February 4,

    Comey said that the FBI found at least 110 e-mails that were classified at the time Clinton sent or received them — 52 e-mail chains in all, including eight Top Secret (the highest classification level) chains.

2. She didn't send or receive any e-mails "marked classified" at the time. Clinton made this claim most recently July 3, 2016, on Meet the Press. She first made the claim August 26, 2015, at an Iowa news conference. She repeated it at Fox News town hall March 7, 2016; at a Democratic debate March 9; at a New York news conference March 1; and on Face the Nation May 8.

    Comey confirmed suspicions about Clinton's claim by noting that a "small number" of the e-mails were, in fact, marked classified. Moreover, he added: "Even if information is not marked 'classified' in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

3. She turned over all of her work-related e-mails. Clinton said this on MSNBC September 4, 2015; at a Fox News town hall March 7, 2016; and at a New York press conference March 10.

     The FBI found "thousands" of work-related e-mails other than those Clinton had provided; they were in various officials' mailboxes and in the server's slack space.

4. She wanted to use a personal e-mail account for convenience and simplicity, streamlining to one device. Clinton said she used one device on CNN July 7, 2015, and at a New York press conference March 10.

     Clinton used multiple servers, administrators, and mobile devices, including an iPad and a Blackberry, to access her e-mail on her personal domain.

5. Clinton's use of a private server and e-mail domain was permitted by law and regulation.

     No: A May report issued by the State Department's inspector general found that it has been department policy since 2005 that work communication be restricted to government servers. While the IG allowed for occasional use of personal e-mail in emergencies, Clinton used her personal e-mail exclusively for all work communication.

6. All of Clinton's e-mails were immediately captured by @.gov addresses. Clinton made this claim at a New York press conference May 10, 2015.

     The State Department did not begin automatically capturing and preserving e-mails until February 2015, two years after Clinton left the State Department.

7. There were numerous safeguards against security breaches and "no evidence" of hacking. Clinton made the "safeguards" claim at a New York press conference March 10, 2015, and her former tech aide made the "no evidence" claim March 3, 2016.

     There is some evidence of a possible breach. Comey said:

8. Clinton was never served a subpoena on her e-mail use.

     The next day, July 8, the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Trey Gowdy, accused Clinton of lying about not receiving a subpoena. Gowdy said in a statement: "The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public. I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy."

This is about Hillary and the statements she has said over and over.
   

[AquaMan]

No offense meant but is this the best use of this forum? Since there is no chance in hell that more than a handful of Tulsans will vote for her, how does it have any bearing on issues in Tulsa? We don't talk police beatings, we can't talk guns, and we don't dare criticize conservatives so why would this be germane?

This type conversation is available all over the internet and in the past has ravaged this forum at the expense of local issues.

[cannon_fodder]

If you are going to plagiarize the National Review, you should at least change it up a little.

[Townsend]

If you are going to plagiarize the National Review, you should at least change it up a little.

Well my stars

[BKDotCom]

No offense meant but is this the best use of this forum?

If talking about the "presumptive" Democratic presidential nominee doesn't belong in the "National & International Politics" category, what does?

Policy discussion only?

Why does TulsaNow need a "National & International Politics" category?

[Hoss]

If you are going to plagiarize the National Review, you should at least change it up a little.

[Ed W]

[AquaMan]

If talking about the "presumptive" Democratic presidential nominee doesn't belong in the "National & International Politics" category, what does?

Policy discussion only?

Why does TulsaNow need a "National & International Politics" category?

I'm not challenging the placement in this category, but yes, why do we need this if our mission is much narrower. If she had made policy statements that related to our state or city then, ok. Otherwise it seems folly.

[Townsend]

I'm not challenging the placement in this category, but yes, why do we need this if our mission is much narrower. If she had made policy statements that related to our state or city then, ok. Otherwise it seems folly.

I'm going to assume the category was added due to a number of subjects for international and national politics opened on the forum.  They needed a place to be instead of a non-related category.

Do you remember how busy this place used to be with national politics when some of the other contributors were active?  Many of us just ignored that category all together due to the jackasses that would come on and get nasty about it.

[AquaMan]

Ah, yes. I remember it well. Lots of funny, tasteless pics and name calling. Nothing I care to return to though.

[TulsaMoon]

If you are going to plagiarize the National Review, you should at least change it up a little.

Let me apologize for not referring back to the article I copied all these from. Were any of these items not correct?

Second, CF and Aqua BOTH posted in the TRUMP thread with no problem at all doing so, but when it comes to a Hillary thread its not appropriate?

This is exactly the responses I expected, which is why I stirred the pot.

I will drop it here.

[davideinstein]

Has my vote.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

I'm going to assume the category was added due to a number of subjects for international and national politics opened on the forum.  They needed a place to be instead of a non-related category.

Do you remember how busy this place used to be with national politics when some of the other contributors were active?  Many of us just ignored that category all together due to the jackasses that would come on and get nasty about it.

And it has become quiet because people that have conservative views were labeled as "Right Wing Religious Extremist Terrorists Tea Party Lovers, Angry White Male Idiots whose intelligence is lower than pond scum" who are to be beaten and crucified as not being worthy of being members of the human race.

[AquaMan]

Both of you should review the posts I made on the Trump thread before your make such assertions. I actually defended the guy. It is one thing to comment on such a larger than life figure like the Don in one of the most interesting Republican primaries ever. Its quite another to mount a decades long crusade against a Clinton by continually posting conservative organization missives.

[Conan71]

I can see where some people would be more comfortable with HRC since other than her husband's personal peccadilloes his administration is generally viewed as successful.  

For uncommitted or independent voters, this is going to boil down to whether people are comfortable with establishment politics or someone with different ideas who hasn't been sucking at the teat of government and making government policy for most of their professional life when choosing between Clinton or Trump.  

And before someone interjects that Trump's empire sucks off the government teat, that is not the point.  He's not been a political appointee, Senator, spouse of an elected official, nor a policy-maker.  He's as much an outsider to Washington as you could find these days.

I personally think the Trump V. Clinton election is a shitsandwich as both have very detestable qualities.  I could never vote or HRC and didn't in the Oklahoma primary.  Since there are no serious independents I may end up voting for Gary Johnson.  Trump will carry Oklahoma anyhow with or without my vote.