Before We Vote: 15 Questions for Hillary Clinton

[Scorpion]

westwall I suppose there is no rule against deliberate derailing of a thread in this forum? Is it possible to move it to Politics or some area in which derailing is not allowed?

Some here would like to discuss the 15 questions. Obviously there is one person who is not going to allow that to happen.

It would be so good if all voting Americans cared about her answers to the following questions. Perhaps in the grand scheme of things, none of this really matters all that much. But it does speak to the kind of person we choose to personally endorse (i.e. vote for) in the upcoming election.

This is your beginning paragraph. So if I read your objections here correctly (you can correct me if I'm not). You feel Clinton's transgressions are the only ones worthy of scrutiny?

Certainly not. But if you are going to have a reasoned discussion, you have to narrow the scope a bit on a message board. So if you love or hate Trump or Johnson or Stein or anybody else, there are all sorts of opportunities that already exist or can be created in new threads out there to discuss whatever sins or transgressions anybody has. Or what there is to commend whomever.

In this thread I would like to discuss the 15 questions in the OP. Should Hillary have to answer those 15 questions before the voters go to the polls in November? Why or why not?

Firstly seems to me that the first question is kind of weird. I've never heard of E-mails having sentimental value. The second question is actually several. Your third question is leading. There's a couple of questions in there that call for hypothesizing and so on and so forth. I don't mind having her to answer questions under oath, they just need to be better questions lol. Anyways I'm still not clear on why only Clinton's legal problems are relevant to this post if you state. That the relevance is the question who deserves to get our vote, because the other candidate has quite a few legal problems of his own. I don't see how you get to have a reasoned discussions if you only discuss 1 candidate.

Re #1 It would not have occurred to me either, but I didn't have a computer or e-mails when my children married or our parents died. But if the planning had involved a lot of e-mailing, at least some of that could certainly have had some sentimental value. Especially those from children. So I think it is a logical question why she would have deleted all of that while leaving other non official e-mails in the system.

I don't see #3 as leading at all. It is a perfectly reasonable question giving her reasonable opportunity to state under oath why she preferred a private system to the one provided by the government.

And #2 is not several questions. It is one question.

And I think it is reasonable to have a discussion over a single issue and on a message board. It is certainly more efficient to focus on a single issue. It does not mean that other issues are not also important. But it is reasonable to focus on this one issue in one thread. If you wish to discuss other issues and other candidates, you can certainly offer them for discussion in a separate thread.

I'll admit I was curious if any Hillary supporters or Trump haters would be able to discuss the 15 questions as something Hillary should be required to answer before we vote. So far none have. Not that I think any opposed to Hillary should be barred from discussion either.

I see email correspondence no different from the snail mail of years past.
I've kept messages for years.
Sometimes it's nice to reflect on past circumstances and exchanges, especially if the party/parties involved in the exchange are no longer around.
I generally dump vendor type emails.
Personal? Not so much.
She's a cold hearted bitch.

 

[Foxfyre]

westwall I suppose there is no rule against deliberate derailing of a thread in this forum? Is it possible to move it to Politics or some area in which derailing is not allowed?

Some here would like to discuss the 15 questions. Obviously there is one person who is not going to allow that to happen.

It would be so good if all voting Americans cared about her answers to the following questions. Perhaps in the grand scheme of things, none of this really matters all that much. But it does speak to the kind of person we choose to personally endorse (i.e. vote for) in the upcoming election.

This is your beginning paragraph. So if I read your objections here correctly (you can correct me if I'm not). You feel Clinton's transgressions are the only ones worthy of scrutiny?

Certainly not. But if you are going to have a reasoned discussion, you have to narrow the scope a bit on a message board. So if you love or hate Trump or Johnson or Stein or anybody else, there are all sorts of opportunities that already exist or can be created in new threads out there to discuss whatever sins or transgressions anybody has. Or what there is to commend whomever.

In this thread I would like to discuss the 15 questions in the OP. Should Hillary have to answer those 15 questions before the voters go to the polls in November? Why or why not?

Firstly seems to me that the first question is kind of weird. I've never heard of E-mails having sentimental value. The second question is actually several. Your third question is leading. There's a couple of questions in there that call for hypothesizing and so on and so forth. I don't mind having her to answer questions under oath, they just need to be better questions lol. Anyways I'm still not clear on why only Clinton's legal problems are relevant to this post if you state. That the relevance is the question who deserves to get our vote, because the other candidate has quite a few legal problems of his own. I don't see how you get to have a reasoned discussions if you only discuss 1 candidate.

Re #1 It would not have occurred to me either, but I didn't have a computer or e-mails when my children married or our parents died. But if the planning had involved a lot of e-mailing, at least some of that could certainly have had some sentimental value. Especially those from children. So I think it is a logical question why she would have deleted all of that while leaving other non official e-mails in the system.

I don't see #3 as leading at all. It is a perfectly reasonable question giving her reasonable opportunity to state under oath why she preferred a private system to the one provided by the government.

And #2 is not several questions. It is one question.

And I think it is reasonable to have a discussion over a single issue and on a message board. It is certainly more efficient to focus on a single issue. It does not mean that other issues are not also important. But it is reasonable to focus on this one issue in one thread. If you wish to discuss other issues and other candidates, you can certainly offer them for discussion in a separate thread.

I'll admit I was curious if any Hillary supporters or Trump haters would be able to discuss the 15 questions as something Hillary should be required to answer before we vote. So far none have. Not that I think any opposed to Hillary should be barred from discussion either.

1.If I would be Clinton my answer to the first question would be. None of those E-mails had sentimental value. Actual condolence cards have sentimental value, E-mails don't.
2.

Why did you not hand over all of these e-mails as you said you did, and as was legally mandated? How many more such e-mails remain under wraps, and when will you surrender them?

I count 3 separate questions here.
3.

Did you believe that America’s secrets would be more secure on a computer server in the basement of your home than on one in the basement of the State Department?

Comes very close to a rhetorical question, so a leading question.
4.1 server and mobile question at a time, so I wasn't lying I misunderstood the question. and btw Colin Powell had a private server to
5.
It was more convenient to have the capability to work from home and I have the financial means to move my operations at will.
6. I don't know how many question are posed here but quite a few more then 3
7. I'm not responsible for the security classifications of all my staffers. You have to ask these questions to the FBI.
8. Establish the relevance of this question.
9. You didn't specify E-mails on a private server so easy to dodge.
10. Calls for speculation.
11. Actually a good question
12. Not a bad question either.
13. Calls for speculation
14. It is not for Clinton to judge what her E-mail scandal was. And those who are decided not to prosecute. And again it's a leading question.
15. This calls for speculation but I think this is actually the most important question posed by this OP, so I'll answer.
-As of yet I'm still waiting for a single reliable instance where Clinton's carelessness actually hurt America's interests. And before you start by siting the Amiri case know that this is what factcheck had to say. The first news story on Amiri providing the U.S. with information on Iran’s nuclear program appeared in March 2010 — nearly four months before Clinton’s aides at the State Department referenced Amiri (without naming him) in emails. Trump’s Baseless Claim on Iranian Execution. So at the very best you can accuse her of being stupid and the FBI already said the case doesn't warrant prosecution. On the other hand, the opposing candidate has current and not yet decided legal issues. And the facts of these cases shows that he willingly and maliciously defrauded people (Trump university) being the most publicized. Now if you put a candidate who possibly did something illegal and for sure did something stupid, but also did it not maliciously, there is no personal gain here. And place it next to someone who PRIDES himself for being someone who tries to gain profits no matter who he hurts in the process and someone who throughout his public life has been constantly searching for legal gray areas and frequently even went for straight black,as quite a few of his lawsuits proof. And then ask the question who of these 2 people is morally more deserving of the presidency, And who is the most trustworthy I can say Trump is by far the most unsuited.

So your answer is that you would not require Hillary to answer those questions if you had the power to decide that she should or should not do that? And you would take that exact same position if it was a Republican Secretary of State in this situation?

 

[Foxfyre]

westwall I suppose there is no rule against deliberate derailing of a thread in this forum? Is it possible to move it to Politics or some area in which derailing is not allowed?

Some here would like to discuss the 15 questions. Obviously there is one person who is not going to allow that to happen.

It would be so good if all voting Americans cared about her answers to the following questions. Perhaps in the grand scheme of things, none of this really matters all that much. But it does speak to the kind of person we choose to personally endorse (i.e. vote for) in the upcoming election.

This is your beginning paragraph. So if I read your objections here correctly (you can correct me if I'm not). You feel Clinton's transgressions are the only ones worthy of scrutiny?

Certainly not. But if you are going to have a reasoned discussion, you have to narrow the scope a bit on a message board. So if you love or hate Trump or Johnson or Stein or anybody else, there are all sorts of opportunities that already exist or can be created in new threads out there to discuss whatever sins or transgressions anybody has. Or what there is to commend whomever.

In this thread I would like to discuss the 15 questions in the OP. Should Hillary have to answer those 15 questions before the voters go to the polls in November? Why or why not?

Firstly seems to me that the first question is kind of weird. I've never heard of E-mails having sentimental value. The second question is actually several. Your third question is leading. There's a couple of questions in there that call for hypothesizing and so on and so forth. I don't mind having her to answer questions under oath, they just need to be better questions lol. Anyways I'm still not clear on why only Clinton's legal problems are relevant to this post if you state. That the relevance is the question who deserves to get our vote, because the other candidate has quite a few legal problems of his own. I don't see how you get to have a reasoned discussions if you only discuss 1 candidate.

Re #1 It would not have occurred to me either, but I didn't have a computer or e-mails when my children married or our parents died. But if the planning had involved a lot of e-mailing, at least some of that could certainly have had some sentimental value. Especially those from children. So I think it is a logical question why she would have deleted all of that while leaving other non official e-mails in the system.

I don't see #3 as leading at all. It is a perfectly reasonable question giving her reasonable opportunity to state under oath why she preferred a private system to the one provided by the government.

And #2 is not several questions. It is one question.

And I think it is reasonable to have a discussion over a single issue and on a message board. It is certainly more efficient to focus on a single issue. It does not mean that other issues are not also important. But it is reasonable to focus on this one issue in one thread. If you wish to discuss other issues and other candidates, you can certainly offer them for discussion in a separate thread.

I'll admit I was curious if any Hillary supporters or Trump haters would be able to discuss the 15 questions as something Hillary should be required to answer before we vote. So far none have. Not that I think any opposed to Hillary should be barred from discussion either.

I see email correspondence no different from the snail mail of years past.
I've kept messages for years.
Sometimes it's nice to reflect on past circumstances and exchanges, especially if the party/parties involved in the exchange are no longer around.
I generally dump vendor type emails.
Personal? Not so much.
She's a cold hearted bitch.

That's my take on it too except for the cold hearted bitch part that I see as irrelevant to this discussion. But the question is far less rhetorical than it is calling into question her motive for the deletions and the fact that she should have retained ALL the e-mails that the law required her to retain as a government official doing state business. She gave strong reason to speculate that she deleted the most damning evidence of impropriety before allowing inspection of the e-mails received and sent on her private servers. And because she took deliberate pain to have the hard drive professionally scrubbed clean, we cannot ever know what was in those e-mails. That in itself should be considered obstruction of justice and therefore criminality.

I also believe her supporters are being disingenuous when they say move along, there is nothing to see here. I am 100% confident that if this had been a Republican Secretary of State doing what Hillary did re those e-mails, they would be demanding that person's head on a platter.

 

[Foxfyre]

It would be so good if all voting Americans cared about her answers to the following questions. Perhaps in the grand scheme of things, none of this really matters all that much. But it does speak to the kind of person we choose to personally endorse (i.e. vote for) in the upcoming election.

Mrs. Clinton:

1. Among your roughly 55,000 e-mails originally at issue, you claimed that some 30,000 were erased, on your orders, because they were personal. When this scandal first erupted, you said at your March 10, 2015, press conference that these were “e-mails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends,” and similar matters. Most people keep such e-mails as records of major family occasions, both joyous and sorrowful. Why would you erase such communications, given their highly sentimental value?

2. You claimed on March 10, 2015, that you turned over to the State Department “all my emails that could possibly be work-related.” FBI Director Comey revealed on July 5 that, in fact, the Bureau discovered “several thousand” work-related e-mails that you did not deliver to the State Department, as you were required to do under the Federal Records Act. Moreover, on August 22, the FBI reported that 14,900 previously unknown e-mails have surfaced. Why did you not hand over all of these e-mails as you said you did, and as was legally mandated? How many more such e-mails remain under wraps, and when will you surrender them?
3. Did you believe that America’s secrets would be more secure on a computer server in the basement of your home than on one in the basement of the State Department? If so, why? If not, why did you rely on your private server?


4. In your public statements, you claimed to have had one server and one mobile device while secretary of state. FBI Director Comey indicated that, in fact, you “used several different servers” and “mobile devices to send and to read e-mail on that personal domain.” How many private servers did you use, and how many devices did you employ while secretary of state? Why did you lie to the American public about these simple facts?

5. You indicated in your early public statements that you used your private computer server for “convenience.” Please explain why it was so inconvenient to rely on the State Department’s standard operating procedures that you, instead, installed your own private server in the basement of your home in Chappaqua, N.Y., 267 miles northeast of your Washington, D.C. office, paid one or more people to maintain those servers, and then contracted with Denver-based Platte River Networks to remove them from your basement, ship them to a facility in New Jersey, and then erase them. How was this latter approach “convenient”?

6. Did State Department employee Bryan Pagliano maintain the clintonemail.com system? Who else did so, if anyone? Please detail the amounts of money and timing of any payments made to the person or persons who performed these services. What was the source or were the sources of money for these payments? Your personal bank account? President Clinton’s account? The Clinton Foundation? State Department or other federal funds? Other sources? Did Pagliano or any other federal employee(s) perform these or related services on your private system while on duty and serving the American people?

7. Did the staffers, consultants, vendors, attorneys, and others with access to your private servers and devices have security clearance high enough to allow them to see the e-mails that traversed this equipment? If not, why did you grant them such access?

8. You have said that you installed your private system based on the advice of State Department staffers. Who, precisely, provided you this counsel? Given that your private server was installed on the first day of your Senate confirmation hearings, did these State Department employees give you this advice before they had an opportunity to work for you?

9. You repeatedly have said that you never saw or received any e-mails “that were marked classified.” You spent six years as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Given that experience, how could you possibly not recognize classified documents without having to see them marked with the word “classified”?

10. When you received e-mails from U.S. ambassadors, the secretary of defense, the heads of the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, and other public servants involved in America’s most delicate diplomatic, military, and intelligence activities, how could you possibly think that their official, foreign-policy e-mails were anything but classified, even if they were not so marked?

11. Having seen such sensitive communications — including 113 e-mails that were classified at the time — why did you proceed to forward them via your unsecured, private server?

12. The State Department maintains a secure system through which classified messages pass. In order to transfer classified materials from that system onto a private server, e-mails and other documents must be migrated via thumb drives and similar hardware, or they must be transcribed by hand and then re-typed into non-secure e-mails, such as those found on your server. Did you or any members of your staff use such methods to transfer communications from State’s secure system to your unsecured server? If not, what methods were used to transfer these communications, and who employed them?

13. One or more e-mails on your private server called Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri “our friend,” apparently because he gave U.S. officials intelligence on Iran’s atomic-weapons program. The Iranian government eventually hanged Amiri for treason. Do you believe that the e-mails in your system that exposed Amiri as an American spy led to his execution? If so, would you take this opportunity to apologize to Mr. Amiri’s family for contributing to his death?

14. Do you now concede that your abuse of these state secrets constitutes felonious gross negligence under the Federal Espionage Act — 18 U.S. Code § 793? If not, why not?

15. Given your grossly negligent, or at least, as FBI Director Comey described it, “extremely careless” handling of classified data, why should the American people trust you to safeguard state secrets if you become president of the United States?

Read more at: Fifteen Questions Hillary Should Answer Under Oath​

Beating a dead horse

Investigated with no finding of criminality

And of course you give that same kind of consideration to those on the right, yes?

 

[forkup]

This is your beginning paragraph. So if I read your objections here correctly (you can correct me if I'm not). You feel Clinton's transgressions are the only ones worthy of scrutiny?

Certainly not. But if you are going to have a reasoned discussion, you have to narrow the scope a bit on a message board. So if you love or hate Trump or Johnson or Stein or anybody else, there are all sorts of opportunities that already exist or can be created in new threads out there to discuss whatever sins or transgressions anybody has. Or what there is to commend whomever.

In this thread I would like to discuss the 15 questions in the OP. Should Hillary have to answer those 15 questions before the voters go to the polls in November? Why or why not?

Firstly seems to me that the first question is kind of weird. I've never heard of E-mails having sentimental value. The second question is actually several. Your third question is leading. There's a couple of questions in there that call for hypothesizing and so on and so forth. I don't mind having her to answer questions under oath, they just need to be better questions lol. Anyways I'm still not clear on why only Clinton's legal problems are relevant to this post if you state. That the relevance is the question who deserves to get our vote, because the other candidate has quite a few legal problems of his own. I don't see how you get to have a reasoned discussions if you only discuss 1 candidate.

Re #1 It would not have occurred to me either, but I didn't have a computer or e-mails when my children married or our parents died. But if the planning had involved a lot of e-mailing, at least some of that could certainly have had some sentimental value. Especially those from children. So I think it is a logical question why she would have deleted all of that while leaving other non official e-mails in the system.

I don't see #3 as leading at all. It is a perfectly reasonable question giving her reasonable opportunity to state under oath why she preferred a private system to the one provided by the government.

And #2 is not several questions. It is one question.

And I think it is reasonable to have a discussion over a single issue and on a message board. It is certainly more efficient to focus on a single issue. It does not mean that other issues are not also important. But it is reasonable to focus on this one issue in one thread. If you wish to discuss other issues and other candidates, you can certainly offer them for discussion in a separate thread.

I'll admit I was curious if any Hillary supporters or Trump haters would be able to discuss the 15 questions as something Hillary should be required to answer before we vote. So far none have. Not that I think any opposed to Hillary should be barred from discussion either.

1.If I would be Clinton my answer to the first question would be. None of those E-mails had sentimental value. Actual condolence cards have sentimental value, E-mails don't.
2.

Why did you not hand over all of these e-mails as you said you did, and as was legally mandated? How many more such e-mails remain under wraps, and when will you surrender them?

I count 3 separate questions here.
3.

Did you believe that America’s secrets would be more secure on a computer server in the basement of your home than on one in the basement of the State Department?

Comes very close to a rhetorical question, so a leading question.
4.1 server and mobile question at a time, so I wasn't lying I misunderstood the question. and btw Colin Powell had a private server to
5.
It was more convenient to have the capability to work from home and I have the financial means to move my operations at will.
6. I don't know how many question are posed here but quite a few more then 3
7. I'm not responsible for the security classifications of all my staffers. You have to ask these questions to the FBI.
8. Establish the relevance of this question.
9. You didn't specify E-mails on a private server so easy to dodge.
10. Calls for speculation.
11. Actually a good question
12. Not a bad question either.
13. Calls for speculation
14. It is not for Clinton to judge what her E-mail scandal was. And those who are decided not to prosecute. And again it's a leading question.
15. This calls for speculation but I think this is actually the most important question posed by this OP, so I'll answer.
-As of yet I'm still waiting for a single reliable instance where Clinton's carelessness actually hurt America's interests. And before you start by siting the Amiri case know that this is what factcheck had to say. The first news story on Amiri providing the U.S. with information on Iran’s nuclear program appeared in March 2010 — nearly four months before Clinton’s aides at the State Department referenced Amiri (without naming him) in emails. Trump’s Baseless Claim on Iranian Execution. So at the very best you can accuse her of being stupid and the FBI already said the case doesn't warrant prosecution. On the other hand, the opposing candidate has current and not yet decided legal issues. And the facts of these cases shows that he willingly and maliciously defrauded people (Trump university) being the most publicized. Now if you put a candidate who possibly did something illegal and for sure did something stupid, but also did it not maliciously, there is no personal gain here. And place it next to someone who PRIDES himself for being someone who tries to gain profits no matter who he hurts in the process and someone who throughout his public life has been constantly searching for legal gray areas and frequently even went for straight black,as quite a few of his lawsuits proof. And then ask the question who of these 2 people is morally more deserving of the presidency, And who is the most trustworthy I can say Trump is by far the most unsuited.

So your answer is that you would not require Hillary to answer those questions if you had the power to decide that she should or should not do that? And you would take that exact same position if it was a Republican Secretary of State in this situation?

I don't mind having her to answer questions under oath, they just need to be better questions lol.

I already answered your question. I just completely disagree with the premise that her answers should have any bearing on her suitability as president. For the simple reason that Trump faces more serious and more questionable allegations. Then Clinton doing something that the criminal justice system doesn't want to pursue.

 

[candycorn]

Too bad you're not a journalist Foxy,

of course I don't think you'd demean yourself.

LOL. Actually I was at one time. But that was back when those of us in the media lived by some pretty strong ethics. In those days the questions listed above would be asked just about everywhere in the media. I left that profession when those ethics began dissolving as America's progressivism began infiltrating the MSM.

But I do think everybody should see these questions. Diehard Hillary supporters will just dismiss them as right wing slander. I am hoping there are some who will think about them though.

Well, when it is right wing slander…it gets dismissed as right wing slander. Imagine that.

 

[candycorn]

This is your beginning paragraph. So if I read your objections here correctly (you can correct me if I'm not). You feel Clinton's transgressions are the only ones worthy of scrutiny?

Certainly not. But if you are going to have a reasoned discussion, you have to narrow the scope a bit on a message board. So if you love or hate Trump or Johnson or Stein or anybody else, there are all sorts of opportunities that already exist or can be created in new threads out there to discuss whatever sins or transgressions anybody has. Or what there is to commend whomever.

In this thread I would like to discuss the 15 questions in the OP. Should Hillary have to answer those 15 questions before the voters go to the polls in November? Why or why not?

Firstly seems to me that the first question is kind of weird. I've never heard of E-mails having sentimental value. The second question is actually several. Your third question is leading. There's a couple of questions in there that call for hypothesizing and so on and so forth. I don't mind having her to answer questions under oath, they just need to be better questions lol. Anyways I'm still not clear on why only Clinton's legal problems are relevant to this post if you state. That the relevance is the question who deserves to get our vote, because the other candidate has quite a few legal problems of his own. I don't see how you get to have a reasoned discussions if you only discuss 1 candidate.

Re #1 It would not have occurred to me either, but I didn't have a computer or e-mails when my children married or our parents died. But if the planning had involved a lot of e-mailing, at least some of that could certainly have had some sentimental value. Especially those from children. So I think it is a logical question why she would have deleted all of that while leaving other non official e-mails in the system.

I don't see #3 as leading at all. It is a perfectly reasonable question giving her reasonable opportunity to state under oath why she preferred a private system to the one provided by the government.

And #2 is not several questions. It is one question.

And I think it is reasonable to have a discussion over a single issue and on a message board. It is certainly more efficient to focus on a single issue. It does not mean that other issues are not also important. But it is reasonable to focus on this one issue in one thread. If you wish to discuss other issues and other candidates, you can certainly offer them for discussion in a separate thread.

I'll admit I was curious if any Hillary supporters or Trump haters would be able to discuss the 15 questions as something Hillary should be required to answer before we vote. So far none have. Not that I think any opposed to Hillary should be barred from discussion either.

I see email correspondence no different from the snail mail of years past.
I've kept messages for years.
Sometimes it's nice to reflect on past circumstances and exchanges, especially if the party/parties involved in the exchange are no longer around.
I generally dump vendor type emails.
Personal? Not so much.
She's a cold hearted bitch.

That's my take on it too except for the cold hearted bitch part that I see as irrelevant to this discussion. But the question is far less rhetorical than it is calling into question her motive for the deletions and the fact that she should have retained ALL the e-mails that the law required her to retain as a government official doing state business. She gave strong reason to speculate that she deleted the most damning evidence of impropriety before allowing inspection of the e-mails received and sent on her private servers. And because she took deliberate pain to have the hard drive professionally scrubbed clean, we cannot ever know what was in those e-mails. That in itself should be considered obstruction of justice and therefore criminality.

I also believe her supporters are being disingenuous when they say move along, there is nothing to see here. I am 100% confident that if this had been a Republican Secretary of State doing what Hillary did re those e-mails, they would be demanding that person's head on a platter.

Colin Powell basically lied us into Iraq.
When was the last time you saw anyone call for his head?

Sheesh…a little honesty from you would be a welcome change.

 

[Foxfyre]

The topic of this thread is not Colin Powell, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, George Bush, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or little green men from mars, etc. or any issues involving Hillary other than her e-mails. And it is not about my or any other member's honesty. If anybody would like to discuss the sins or perceived sins or virtues of any others, there are countless other threads to do that or anybody can start a thread on just about any subject they wish.

The topic of this thread is 15 questions for Hillary and I would like to restrict all opinions to that and only that. Thank you for your consideration.

I hope westwall or other mods are reading in.

 

[Foxfyre]

Certainly not. But if you are going to have a reasoned discussion, you have to narrow the scope a bit on a message board. So if you love or hate Trump or Johnson or Stein or anybody else, there are all sorts of opportunities that already exist or can be created in new threads out there to discuss whatever sins or transgressions anybody has. Or what there is to commend whomever.

In this thread I would like to discuss the 15 questions in the OP. Should Hillary have to answer those 15 questions before the voters go to the polls in November? Why or why not?

Firstly seems to me that the first question is kind of weird. I've never heard of E-mails having sentimental value. The second question is actually several. Your third question is leading. There's a couple of questions in there that call for hypothesizing and so on and so forth. I don't mind having her to answer questions under oath, they just need to be better questions lol. Anyways I'm still not clear on why only Clinton's legal problems are relevant to this post if you state. That the relevance is the question who deserves to get our vote, because the other candidate has quite a few legal problems of his own. I don't see how you get to have a reasoned discussions if you only discuss 1 candidate.

Re #1 It would not have occurred to me either, but I didn't have a computer or e-mails when my children married or our parents died. But if the planning had involved a lot of e-mailing, at least some of that could certainly have had some sentimental value. Especially those from children. So I think it is a logical question why she would have deleted all of that while leaving other non official e-mails in the system.

I don't see #3 as leading at all. It is a perfectly reasonable question giving her reasonable opportunity to state under oath why she preferred a private system to the one provided by the government.

And #2 is not several questions. It is one question.

And I think it is reasonable to have a discussion over a single issue and on a message board. It is certainly more efficient to focus on a single issue. It does not mean that other issues are not also important. But it is reasonable to focus on this one issue in one thread. If you wish to discuss other issues and other candidates, you can certainly offer them for discussion in a separate thread.

I'll admit I was curious if any Hillary supporters or Trump haters would be able to discuss the 15 questions as something Hillary should be required to answer before we vote. So far none have. Not that I think any opposed to Hillary should be barred from discussion either.

1.If I would be Clinton my answer to the first question would be. None of those E-mails had sentimental value. Actual condolence cards have sentimental value, E-mails don't.
2.

Why did you not hand over all of these e-mails as you said you did, and as was legally mandated? How many more such e-mails remain under wraps, and when will you surrender them?

I count 3 separate questions here.
3.

Did you believe that America’s secrets would be more secure on a computer server in the basement of your home than on one in the basement of the State Department?

Comes very close to a rhetorical question, so a leading question.
4.1 server and mobile question at a time, so I wasn't lying I misunderstood the question. and btw Colin Powell had a private server to
5.
It was more convenient to have the capability to work from home and I have the financial means to move my operations at will.
6. I don't know how many question are posed here but quite a few more then 3
7. I'm not responsible for the security classifications of all my staffers. You have to ask these questions to the FBI.
8. Establish the relevance of this question.
9. You didn't specify E-mails on a private server so easy to dodge.
10. Calls for speculation.
11. Actually a good question
12. Not a bad question either.
13. Calls for speculation
14. It is not for Clinton to judge what her E-mail scandal was. And those who are decided not to prosecute. And again it's a leading question.
15. This calls for speculation but I think this is actually the most important question posed by this OP, so I'll answer.
-As of yet I'm still waiting for a single reliable instance where Clinton's carelessness actually hurt America's interests. And before you start by siting the Amiri case know that this is what factcheck had to say. The first news story on Amiri providing the U.S. with information on Iran’s nuclear program appeared in March 2010 — nearly four months before Clinton’s aides at the State Department referenced Amiri (without naming him) in emails. Trump’s Baseless Claim on Iranian Execution. So at the very best you can accuse her of being stupid and the FBI already said the case doesn't warrant prosecution. On the other hand, the opposing candidate has current and not yet decided legal issues. And the facts of these cases shows that he willingly and maliciously defrauded people (Trump university) being the most publicized. Now if you put a candidate who possibly did something illegal and for sure did something stupid, but also did it not maliciously, there is no personal gain here. And place it next to someone who PRIDES himself for being someone who tries to gain profits no matter who he hurts in the process and someone who throughout his public life has been constantly searching for legal gray areas and frequently even went for straight black,as quite a few of his lawsuits proof. And then ask the question who of these 2 people is morally more deserving of the presidency, And who is the most trustworthy I can say Trump is by far the most unsuited.

So your answer is that you would not require Hillary to answer those questions if you had the power to decide that she should or should not do that? And you would take that exact same position if it was a Republican Secretary of State in this situation?

I don't mind having her to answer questions under oath, they just need to be better questions lol.

I already answered your question. I just completely disagree with the premise that her answers should have any bearing on her suitability as president. For the simple reason that Trump faces more serious and more questionable allegations. Then Clinton doing something that the criminal justice system doesn't want to pursue.

I understand though I don't think you did answer whether Hillary should or should not be required to answer those questions. But whatever sins you perceive Trump committed, or whatever questions you think he should answer, are not the focus of this thread. It is curious that you would use that as justification for excusing Hillary from being questioned though.

(A thread devoted to questions you think Trump should answer would probably attract a lot of interest though.)

 

[candycorn]

The topic of this thread is not Colin Powell, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, George Bush, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or little green men from mars, etc. or any issues involving Hillary other than her e-mails. And it is not about my or any other member's honesty. If anybody would like to discuss the sins or perceived sins or virtues of any others, there are countless other threads to do that or anybody can start a thread on just about any subject they wish.

The topic of this thread is 15 questions for Hillary and I would like to restrict all opinions to that and only that. Thank you for your consideration.

I hope westwall or other mods are reading in.

He was a republican Secretary of State. You brought up “If a republican secretary of state…..”

Perhaps you should re-read your own posts….

 

[forkup]

Firstly seems to me that the first question is kind of weird. I've never heard of E-mails having sentimental value. The second question is actually several. Your third question is leading. There's a couple of questions in there that call for hypothesizing and so on and so forth. I don't mind having her to answer questions under oath, they just need to be better questions lol. Anyways I'm still not clear on why only Clinton's legal problems are relevant to this post if you state. That the relevance is the question who deserves to get our vote, because the other candidate has quite a few legal problems of his own. I don't see how you get to have a reasoned discussions if you only discuss 1 candidate.

Re #1 It would not have occurred to me either, but I didn't have a computer or e-mails when my children married or our parents died. But if the planning had involved a lot of e-mailing, at least some of that could certainly have had some sentimental value. Especially those from children. So I think it is a logical question why she would have deleted all of that while leaving other non official e-mails in the system.

I don't see #3 as leading at all. It is a perfectly reasonable question giving her reasonable opportunity to state under oath why she preferred a private system to the one provided by the government.

And #2 is not several questions. It is one question.

And I think it is reasonable to have a discussion over a single issue and on a message board. It is certainly more efficient to focus on a single issue. It does not mean that other issues are not also important. But it is reasonable to focus on this one issue in one thread. If you wish to discuss other issues and other candidates, you can certainly offer them for discussion in a separate thread.

I'll admit I was curious if any Hillary supporters or Trump haters would be able to discuss the 15 questions as something Hillary should be required to answer before we vote. So far none have. Not that I think any opposed to Hillary should be barred from discussion either.

1.If I would be Clinton my answer to the first question would be. None of those E-mails had sentimental value. Actual condolence cards have sentimental value, E-mails don't.
2.

Why did you not hand over all of these e-mails as you said you did, and as was legally mandated? How many more such e-mails remain under wraps, and when will you surrender them?

I count 3 separate questions here.
3.

Did you believe that America’s secrets would be more secure on a computer server in the basement of your home than on one in the basement of the State Department?

Comes very close to a rhetorical question, so a leading question.
4.1 server and mobile question at a time, so I wasn't lying I misunderstood the question. and btw Colin Powell had a private server to
5.
It was more convenient to have the capability to work from home and I have the financial means to move my operations at will.
6. I don't know how many question are posed here but quite a few more then 3
7. I'm not responsible for the security classifications of all my staffers. You have to ask these questions to the FBI.
8. Establish the relevance of this question.
9. You didn't specify E-mails on a private server so easy to dodge.
10. Calls for speculation.
11. Actually a good question
12. Not a bad question either.
13. Calls for speculation
14. It is not for Clinton to judge what her E-mail scandal was. And those who are decided not to prosecute. And again it's a leading question.
15. This calls for speculation but I think this is actually the most important question posed by this OP, so I'll answer.
-As of yet I'm still waiting for a single reliable instance where Clinton's carelessness actually hurt America's interests. And before you start by siting the Amiri case know that this is what factcheck had to say. The first news story on Amiri providing the U.S. with information on Iran’s nuclear program appeared in March 2010 — nearly four months before Clinton’s aides at the State Department referenced Amiri (without naming him) in emails. Trump’s Baseless Claim on Iranian Execution. So at the very best you can accuse her of being stupid and the FBI already said the case doesn't warrant prosecution. On the other hand, the opposing candidate has current and not yet decided legal issues. And the facts of these cases shows that he willingly and maliciously defrauded people (Trump university) being the most publicized. Now if you put a candidate who possibly did something illegal and for sure did something stupid, but also did it not maliciously, there is no personal gain here. And place it next to someone who PRIDES himself for being someone who tries to gain profits no matter who he hurts in the process and someone who throughout his public life has been constantly searching for legal gray areas and frequently even went for straight black,as quite a few of his lawsuits proof. And then ask the question who of these 2 people is morally more deserving of the presidency, And who is the most trustworthy I can say Trump is by far the most unsuited.

So your answer is that you would not require Hillary to answer those questions if you had the power to decide that she should or should not do that? And you would take that exact same position if it was a Republican Secretary of State in this situation?

I don't mind having her to answer questions under oath, they just need to be better questions lol.

I already answered your question. I just completely disagree with the premise that her answers should have any bearing on her suitability as president. For the simple reason that Trump faces more serious and more questionable allegations. Then Clinton doing something that the criminal justice system doesn't want to pursue.

I understand though I don't think you did answer whether Hillary should or should not be required to answer those questions. But whatever sins you perceive Trump committed, or whatever questions you think he should answer, are not the focus of this thread. It is curious that you would use that as justification for excusing Hillary from being questioned though.

(A thread devoted to questions you think Trump should answer would probably attract a lot of interest though.)

To be honest I'm not a very big fan of doing 1 thread to undermine the premise of another, for 1 I feel it splits the attention either thread would get. I'll be more precise in the answering of the question. Yes she should answer under oath. I'm pretty sure that the senate will get around to do just that. After all they did so with Benghazi. The thing is, the FBI already questioned Clinton, and Comely was put under oath in a senate hearing, and you know he unequivocally said that they don't have a case. So it would be under the understanding that the whole hearing would be purely political theater. Hence my original point. The e-mail scandal has absolutely no bearing on the question of suitability.

 

[Foxfyre]

Re #1 It would not have occurred to me either, but I didn't have a computer or e-mails when my children married or our parents died. But if the planning had involved a lot of e-mailing, at least some of that could certainly have had some sentimental value. Especially those from children. So I think it is a logical question why she would have deleted all of that while leaving other non official e-mails in the system.

I don't see #3 as leading at all. It is a perfectly reasonable question giving her reasonable opportunity to state under oath why she preferred a private system to the one provided by the government.

And #2 is not several questions. It is one question.

And I think it is reasonable to have a discussion over a single issue and on a message board. It is certainly more efficient to focus on a single issue. It does not mean that other issues are not also important. But it is reasonable to focus on this one issue in one thread. If you wish to discuss other issues and other candidates, you can certainly offer them for discussion in a separate thread.

I'll admit I was curious if any Hillary supporters or Trump haters would be able to discuss the 15 questions as something Hillary should be required to answer before we vote. So far none have. Not that I think any opposed to Hillary should be barred from discussion either.

1.If I would be Clinton my answer to the first question would be. None of those E-mails had sentimental value. Actual condolence cards have sentimental value, E-mails don't.
2.

Why did you not hand over all of these e-mails as you said you did, and as was legally mandated? How many more such e-mails remain under wraps, and when will you surrender them?

I count 3 separate questions here.
3.

Did you believe that America’s secrets would be more secure on a computer server in the basement of your home than on one in the basement of the State Department?

Comes very close to a rhetorical question, so a leading question.
4.1 server and mobile question at a time, so I wasn't lying I misunderstood the question. and btw Colin Powell had a private server to
5.
It was more convenient to have the capability to work from home and I have the financial means to move my operations at will.
6. I don't know how many question are posed here but quite a few more then 3
7. I'm not responsible for the security classifications of all my staffers. You have to ask these questions to the FBI.
8. Establish the relevance of this question.
9. You didn't specify E-mails on a private server so easy to dodge.
10. Calls for speculation.
11. Actually a good question
12. Not a bad question either.
13. Calls for speculation
14. It is not for Clinton to judge what her E-mail scandal was. And those who are decided not to prosecute. And again it's a leading question.
15. This calls for speculation but I think this is actually the most important question posed by this OP, so I'll answer.
-As of yet I'm still waiting for a single reliable instance where Clinton's carelessness actually hurt America's interests. And before you start by siting the Amiri case know that this is what factcheck had to say. The first news story on Amiri providing the U.S. with information on Iran’s nuclear program appeared in March 2010 — nearly four months before Clinton’s aides at the State Department referenced Amiri (without naming him) in emails. Trump’s Baseless Claim on Iranian Execution. So at the very best you can accuse her of being stupid and the FBI already said the case doesn't warrant prosecution. On the other hand, the opposing candidate has current and not yet decided legal issues. And the facts of these cases shows that he willingly and maliciously defrauded people (Trump university) being the most publicized. Now if you put a candidate who possibly did something illegal and for sure did something stupid, but also did it not maliciously, there is no personal gain here. And place it next to someone who PRIDES himself for being someone who tries to gain profits no matter who he hurts in the process and someone who throughout his public life has been constantly searching for legal gray areas and frequently even went for straight black,as quite a few of his lawsuits proof. And then ask the question who of these 2 people is morally more deserving of the presidency, And who is the most trustworthy I can say Trump is by far the most unsuited.

So your answer is that you would not require Hillary to answer those questions if you had the power to decide that she should or should not do that? And you would take that exact same position if it was a Republican Secretary of State in this situation?

I don't mind having her to answer questions under oath, they just need to be better questions lol.

I already answered your question. I just completely disagree with the premise that her answers should have any bearing on her suitability as president. For the simple reason that Trump faces more serious and more questionable allegations. Then Clinton doing something that the criminal justice system doesn't want to pursue.

I understand though I don't think you did answer whether Hillary should or should not be required to answer those questions. But whatever sins you perceive Trump committed, or whatever questions you think he should answer, are not the focus of this thread. It is curious that you would use that as justification for excusing Hillary from being questioned though.

(A thread devoted to questions you think Trump should answer would probably attract a lot of interest though.)

To be honest I'm not a very big fan of doing 1 thread to undermine the premise of another, for 1 I feel it splits the attention either thread would get. I'll be more precise in the answering of the question. Yes she should answer under oath. I'm pretty sure that the senate will get around to do just that. After all they did so with Benghazi. The thing is, the FBI already questioned Clinton, and Comely was put under oath in a senate hearing, and you know he unequivocally said that they don't have a case. So it would be under the understanding that the whole hearing would be purely political theater. Hence my original point. The e-mail scandal has absolutely no bearing on the question of suitability.

Actually he did not say there was no case. He said in his opinion no prosecutor would take on a case like that. He also equivocated on whether she had committed perjury in her congressional testimony 'because he had not been asked to evaluate that.' He also was answering to a Justice Department and President who has no intention of prosecuting or charging Hillary Clinton with anything.

So the e-mail issues are left hanging just like everything else. And the questions remain unanswered which is what prompted Judicial Watch's suit to force a public official to do what the public official ethically and legally should do.

So thank you for answering the question. I agree she should answer those questions. I think the only ones who would not want her to answer those questions are those who want to believe she has been above board and honest about it all.

 

[forkup]

1.If I would be Clinton my answer to the first question would be. None of those E-mails had sentimental value. Actual condolence cards have sentimental value, E-mails don't.
2.
I count 3 separate questions here.
3.
Comes very close to a rhetorical question, so a leading question.
4.1 server and mobile question at a time, so I wasn't lying I misunderstood the question. and btw Colin Powell had a private server to
5.
It was more convenient to have the capability to work from home and I have the financial means to move my operations at will.
6. I don't know how many question are posed here but quite a few more then 3
7. I'm not responsible for the security classifications of all my staffers. You have to ask these questions to the FBI.
8. Establish the relevance of this question.
9. You didn't specify E-mails on a private server so easy to dodge.
10. Calls for speculation.
11. Actually a good question
12. Not a bad question either.
13. Calls for speculation
14. It is not for Clinton to judge what her E-mail scandal was. And those who are decided not to prosecute. And again it's a leading question.
15. This calls for speculation but I think this is actually the most important question posed by this OP, so I'll answer.
-As of yet I'm still waiting for a single reliable instance where Clinton's carelessness actually hurt America's interests. And before you start by siting the Amiri case know that this is what factcheck had to say. The first news story on Amiri providing the U.S. with information on Iran’s nuclear program appeared in March 2010 — nearly four months before Clinton’s aides at the State Department referenced Amiri (without naming him) in emails. Trump’s Baseless Claim on Iranian Execution. So at the very best you can accuse her of being stupid and the FBI already said the case doesn't warrant prosecution. On the other hand, the opposing candidate has current and not yet decided legal issues. And the facts of these cases shows that he willingly and maliciously defrauded people (Trump university) being the most publicized. Now if you put a candidate who possibly did something illegal and for sure did something stupid, but also did it not maliciously, there is no personal gain here. And place it next to someone who PRIDES himself for being someone who tries to gain profits no matter who he hurts in the process and someone who throughout his public life has been constantly searching for legal gray areas and frequently even went for straight black,as quite a few of his lawsuits proof. And then ask the question who of these 2 people is morally more deserving of the presidency, And who is the most trustworthy I can say Trump is by far the most unsuited.

So your answer is that you would not require Hillary to answer those questions if you had the power to decide that she should or should not do that? And you would take that exact same position if it was a Republican Secretary of State in this situation?

I don't mind having her to answer questions under oath, they just need to be better questions lol.

I already answered your question. I just completely disagree with the premise that her answers should have any bearing on her suitability as president. For the simple reason that Trump faces more serious and more questionable allegations. Then Clinton doing something that the criminal justice system doesn't want to pursue.

I understand though I don't think you did answer whether Hillary should or should not be required to answer those questions. But whatever sins you perceive Trump committed, or whatever questions you think he should answer, are not the focus of this thread. It is curious that you would use that as justification for excusing Hillary from being questioned though.

(A thread devoted to questions you think Trump should answer would probably attract a lot of interest though.)

To be honest I'm not a very big fan of doing 1 thread to undermine the premise of another, for 1 I feel it splits the attention either thread would get. I'll be more precise in the answering of the question. Yes she should answer under oath. I'm pretty sure that the senate will get around to do just that. After all they did so with Benghazi. The thing is, the FBI already questioned Clinton, and Comely was put under oath in a senate hearing, and you know he unequivocally said that they don't have a case. So it would be under the understanding that the whole hearing would be purely political theater. Hence my original point. The e-mail scandal has absolutely no bearing on the question of suitability.

Actually he did not say there was no case. He said in his opinion no prosecutor would take on a case like that. He also equivocated on whether she had committed perjury in her congressional testimony 'because he had not been asked to evaluate that.' He also was answering to a Justice Department and President who has no intention of prosecuting or charging Hillary Clinton with anything.

So the e-mail issues are left hanging just like everything else. And the questions remain unanswered which is what prompted Judicial Watch's suit to force a public official to do what the public official ethically and legally should do.

So thank you for answering the question. I agree she should answer those questions. I think the only ones who would not want her to answer those questions are those who want to believe she has been above board and honest about it all.

I thank you. I'm glad it is possible on a board like this to have a discussion that doesn't devolve in a shouting match, although we don't agree on what the premise means, at least there was an actual discussion. I want to leave you with this taught though. The fact is, in an election year, the senate isn't trying to schedule hearings around the e-mails if there was actually something the senate could really nail her on, don't you think they would have done it by now? The fact that she's leading Trump in all polls, drags all down ticket races down, so they have plenty of incentive to try to at least embarrass her, why aren't they officially going after her. Is it maybe because they don't have anything and the moment they depose her they can't deny it any longer?

 

[Foxfyre]

So your answer is that you would not require Hillary to answer those questions if you had the power to decide that she should or should not do that? And you would take that exact same position if it was a Republican Secretary of State in this situation?

I don't mind having her to answer questions under oath, they just need to be better questions lol.

I already answered your question. I just completely disagree with the premise that her answers should have any bearing on her suitability as president. For the simple reason that Trump faces more serious and more questionable allegations. Then Clinton doing something that the criminal justice system doesn't want to pursue.

I understand though I don't think you did answer whether Hillary should or should not be required to answer those questions. But whatever sins you perceive Trump committed, or whatever questions you think he should answer, are not the focus of this thread. It is curious that you would use that as justification for excusing Hillary from being questioned though.

(A thread devoted to questions you think Trump should answer would probably attract a lot of interest though.)

To be honest I'm not a very big fan of doing 1 thread to undermine the premise of another, for 1 I feel it splits the attention either thread would get. I'll be more precise in the answering of the question. Yes she should answer under oath. I'm pretty sure that the senate will get around to do just that. After all they did so with Benghazi. The thing is, the FBI already questioned Clinton, and Comely was put under oath in a senate hearing, and you know he unequivocally said that they don't have a case. So it would be under the understanding that the whole hearing would be purely political theater. Hence my original point. The e-mail scandal has absolutely no bearing on the question of suitability.

Actually he did not say there was no case. He said in his opinion no prosecutor would take on a case like that. He also equivocated on whether she had committed perjury in her congressional testimony 'because he had not been asked to evaluate that.' He also was answering to a Justice Department and President who has no intention of prosecuting or charging Hillary Clinton with anything.

So the e-mail issues are left hanging just like everything else. And the questions remain unanswered which is what prompted Judicial Watch's suit to force a public official to do what the public official ethically and legally should do.

So thank you for answering the question. I agree she should answer those questions. I think the only ones who would not want her to answer those questions are those who want to believe she has been above board and honest about it all.

I thank you. I'm glad it is possible on a board like this to have a discussion that doesn't devolve in a shouting match, although we don't agree on what the premise means, at least there was an actual discussion. I want to leave you with this taught though. The fact is, in an election year, the senate isn't trying to schedule hearings around the e-mails if there was actually something the senate could really nail her on, don't you think they would have done it by now? The fact that she's leading Trump in all polls, drags all down ticket races down, so they have plenty of incentive to try to at least embarrass her, why aren't they officially going after her. Is it maybe because they don't have anything and the moment they depose her they can't deny it any longer?

And thank you. Civility is so easily accomplished amidst disagreement. If there was more of it, there would probably be a greater chance of winning hearts and minds to a better or more productive understanding or point of view. I doubt anybody's mind has ever been changed by insults or disrespect.

The Senate and House have held hearings re Hillary's e-mails that consisted mostly of a few serious questions from the Republicans and otherwise consisted mostly of speechifying on both sides of the aisle followed by the usual obfusication by Hillary Clinton. But she did give some direct answers and the fact that her testimony under oath in those hearings so conflicted with FBI Director Comey's report of what she testified to him leaves open a strong case for perjury, a felony offense. It is very obvious that she lied to the FBI or she lied to Congress. But those seeking re-election this November or who otherwise need public favor and support are highly unlikely to push this too emphatically as it will be portrayed by the opposition and their surrogate media as witch hunting and bullying.

It is good that Judicial Watch is pushing it as they have absolutely nothing to lose. And that list of questions looks like an excellent list for them to have answered.