CDZ True or False about Clinton's private emails and server: Which is Which?

[320 Years of History]

For intent, I already reiterated to depotoo how that cannot be verified,
so I want to stick to points that can be.

Thanks again!

The verifiability was the aspect that has been made quite clear in several prior posts, post #13 being the first, and that is what I had in mind when I replied in post #57. That's why I asked if s/he'd been following the discussion. A "no" answer would have adequately explained why that pre-investigation video was offered at this point in the discussion. And frankly, that would have been just fine. When the answer to a question like that is "no," it just is, and "no" says all that need be said.

I'm a critical reader, there's no denying that, but I'm not an unreasonable or unegalitarian person. Honest and direct responses to my honest questions always work with me.

Not to worry 320 Years of History

The above notwithstanding, your magnanimity seems to eclipse my reasonableness. LOL

 

[depotoo]

We will just have to wait for the fbi report to know for certain, unless you were personally involved.
And she also said this-
Hillary Contradicts Bill’s Claim That He Has Never Used Email

But Hillary Clinton said during a press conference on Tuesday afternoon that she corresponded with her husband over email, and also claimed that the private email server she used was originally set up for her husband.

“The system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office,” said Hillary Clinton in response to a question from ABC’s Jon Karl. “It had numerous safeguards. It was on property, guarded by the secret service, and there were no security breaches.”



yet, she had actually turned over her server to a company out of Colorado-
All this because Platte River Networks won a contract in 2013 to provide information technology services to Bill and Hillary Clinton. It included taking possession of the e-mail server the Democratic presidential candidate had used when she was secretary of state.
For IT firm, Clinton server gives rough introduction to presidential politics

Relating to my last post


And her attorney stated it was wiped clean. Fortunately, sometimes an experienced IT specialist with special software can recover some emails on a cleaned hard drive. Can they recover all? Not always.
Clinton lawyer says her email server was wiped clean

Dear 320 Years of History
Do you agree with the assessment that:
1. Clinton knew that by using private email this can't be recorded or reported for Freedom of Information requested as emails that go through the govt system.
2. And that this WILL create the APPEARANCE of "skirting" that?
That by conducting ALL state business this way is going to give the wrong impression.

Again, to be perfectly honest, I have ethical issues with a govt leader
who either doesn't know 1 and 2 or doesn't care what impression and consequences this has.

I guess I am used to working with honest legal professionals who, the minute they sense
that something can even RISK APPEARING as a conflict and raise questions, they refuse
and refer it to someone else. Are my standards too high to expect govt officials to avoid risks like this?

Either the risk of a security breach "that will be blamed on them if they don't use the govt system
so the govt can take the blame not them"
or risk of appearing to skirt accountability and possibly be hiding private dealings by private server?

The FBI has said that all of her private/personal emails that she did not send to the govt archives to be archived, were NOT wiped off of her server and they have had them in their hands for review since last August, when her lawyer turned over her server to the FBI....if she was trying to hide something in her personal affairs, the govt has it all....

AND the gvt rules are that no gvt employee should ever send strictly personal emails to the govt archives, to only forward to them govt documents and govt involved emails...

Thanks, Care4all can you cite the official source of where the FBI said this?

Politics
FBI reportedly recovers deleted emails from Clinton server
Published September 23, 2015
FoxNews.com

Federal investigators reportedly have recovered work-related and personal emails from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state that the Democratic presidential front-runner claimed had been deleted from her personal server.

The recovery of the emails was first reported by Bloomberg News late Tuesday. The initial report, which cited a source familiar with the FBI investigation into Clinton's private email server, was corroborated by The New York Times, which cited two government officials.

The emails that were personal and that she did not forward to the govt archives and then deleted, were never wiped clean from her server, they were simply deleted after they had been gone through and determined they were not govt related emails.

clinton's lawyer was wrong if he used the actual term wiped in a technical sense....they simply were deleted from her email box. The tech firm who had her server said nothing was wiped on clinton's server.....all of it was there if they simply deleted them AND it was reported that the FBI easily found them with no difficulties when they got her server....

NO ONE took steps to erase them from the server.

 

[emilynghiem]

We will just have to wait for the fbi report to know for certain, unless you were personally involved.
And she also said this-
Hillary Contradicts Bill’s Claim That He Has Never Used Email

But Hillary Clinton said during a press conference on Tuesday afternoon that she corresponded with her husband over email, and also claimed that the private email server she used was originally set up for her husband.

“The system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office,” said Hillary Clinton in response to a question from ABC’s Jon Karl. “It had numerous safeguards. It was on property, guarded by the secret service, and there were no security breaches.”



yet, she had actually turned over her server to a company out of Colorado-
All this because Platte River Networks won a contract in 2013 to provide information technology services to Bill and Hillary Clinton. It included taking possession of the e-mail server the Democratic presidential candidate had used when she was secretary of state.
For IT firm, Clinton server gives rough introduction to presidential politics

Relating to my last post


And her attorney stated it was wiped clean. Fortunately, sometimes an experienced IT specialist with special software can recover some emails on a cleaned hard drive. Can they recover all? Not always.
Clinton lawyer says her email server was wiped clean

The FBI has said that all of her private/personal emails that she did not send to the govt archives to be archived, were NOT wiped off of her server and they have had them in their hands for review since last August, when her lawyer turned over her server to the FBI....if she was trying to hide something in her personal affairs, the govt has it all....

AND the gvt rules are that no gvt employee should ever send strictly personal emails to the govt archives, to only forward to them govt documents and govt involved emails...

Thanks, Care4all can you cite the official source of where the FBI said this?

Politics
FBI reportedly recovers deleted emails from Clinton server
Published September 23, 2015
FoxNews.com

Federal investigators reportedly have recovered work-related and personal emails from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state that the Democratic presidential front-runner claimed had been deleted from her personal server.

The recovery of the emails was first reported by Bloomberg News late Tuesday. The initial report, which cited a source familiar with the FBI investigation into Clinton's private email server, was corroborated by The New York Times, which cited two government officials.

The emails that were personal and that she did not forward to the govt archives and then deleted, were never wiped clean from her server, they were simply deleted after they had been gone through and determined they were not govt related emails.

clinton's lawyer was wrong if he used the actual term wiped in a technical sense....they simply were deleted from her email box. The tech firm who had her server said nothing was wiped on clinton's server.....all of it was there if they simply deleted them AND it was reported that the FBI easily found them with no difficulties when they got her server....

NO ONE took steps to erase them from the server.

maybe she was emailing him but he was receiving and replying by text?

 

[depotoo]

Who knows? There have just been so many inconsistencies. I think the bigger issue in my last post is she stated the server was guarded by secret service, etc., yet they had turned it over to a company with no secret service. Her blatant disregard over national security bugs the heck out of me. This and the Benghazi affair just makes me not have any trust in her at all.

We will just have to wait for the fbi report to know for certain, unless you were personally involved.
And she also said this-
Hillary Contradicts Bill’s Claim That He Has Never Used Email

But Hillary Clinton said during a press conference on Tuesday afternoon that she corresponded with her husband over email, and also claimed that the private email server she used was originally set up for her husband.

“The system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office,” said Hillary Clinton in response to a question from ABC’s Jon Karl. “It had numerous safeguards. It was on property, guarded by the secret service, and there were no security breaches.”



yet, she had actually turned over her server to a company out of Colorado-
All this because Platte River Networks won a contract in 2013 to provide information technology services to Bill and Hillary Clinton. It included taking possession of the e-mail server the Democratic presidential candidate had used when she was secretary of state.
For IT firm, Clinton server gives rough introduction to presidential politics

Relating to my last post


And her attorney stated it was wiped clean. Fortunately, sometimes an experienced IT specialist with special software can recover some emails on a cleaned hard drive. Can they recover all? Not always.
Clinton lawyer says her email server was wiped clean

Thanks, Care4all can you cite the official source of where the FBI said this?

Politics
FBI reportedly recovers deleted emails from Clinton server
Published September 23, 2015
FoxNews.com

Federal investigators reportedly have recovered work-related and personal emails from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state that the Democratic presidential front-runner claimed had been deleted from her personal server.

The recovery of the emails was first reported by Bloomberg News late Tuesday. The initial report, which cited a source familiar with the FBI investigation into Clinton's private email server, was corroborated by The New York Times, which cited two government officials.

The emails that were personal and that she did not forward to the govt archives and then deleted, were never wiped clean from her server, they were simply deleted after they had been gone through and determined they were not govt related emails.

clinton's lawyer was wrong if he used the actual term wiped in a technical sense....they simply were deleted from her email box. The tech firm who had her server said nothing was wiped on clinton's server.....all of it was there if they simply deleted them AND it was reported that the FBI easily found them with no difficulties when they got her server....

NO ONE took steps to erase them from the server.

maybe she was emailing him but he was receiving and replying by text?

 

[Markle]

I pick the truth E

Clinton was a stuck bitch who was to good to go by protocol.

She didn't want to give up her BlackBerry, hillary didn't send any classified material but received it.

She also sent emails with classified documents. You are 100% correct that Hillary and the entire Clinton cabal, believes they are ABOVE having to follow protocol. Surely us peasants should understand.

I believe that the FBI has so much evidence that their recommendation would be for charges all the way up to and including espionage. That would be a bombshell. They are checking, rechecking and checking again to make certain that they have all the "i's" dotted and the "t's" crossed.

Hillary seems intent on antagonizing FBI Director James Comey. He has a sterling reputation and, were I under investigation by his bureau, not someone I would want to poke.

Thanks Markle what sources can be used to verify that classified information
was found there, and also can it be confirmed that when Clinton was confronted
with this "she changed her story from denying it to saying yes there was classified information"
or did she always say there was some mixed in? Where are sources on this, links anything?
Thank you!

I have never heard her admit there was any wrongdoing.

You have NOT seen all the news surrounding the top secret documents plus 22 designated above top secret? Documents so secret that even the redacted versions cannot be seen by anyone without special clearance.

 

[Markle]

I read the article. The central question in my mind is this...Did any of those supervisors send or receive emails to/from the "clintonemail.com" address? If they did, they knew damn well the server was there and that it wasn't a "state.gov" sever. Who set up the "clintonemail.com" server is irrelevant; whether any of Pagliano's supervisors knew of Pagliano's role in setting up the server is irrelevant to whether anyone knew the server existed; all of those details are nothing but red herrings.

Hillary Clinton’s Off-the-Books Mail Server Was in Her House, Registered to a Non-Existent Man
by JOHN HAYWARD 4 Mar 2015
Associated Press’ discovery that Clinton’s mail server was located in her house (her estate in Chappaqua, to be exact — the one she had to settle for because she was “dead broke” after Bill left office) and was registered under the name of a man who does not appear to exist.

To their credit, liberal media figures quickly realized this wasn’t a story that could be waved away with a laugh, some standard Obama Administration pabulum about how much this furtive crew values transparency, and a few whiny stories about how Republicans were known to use private email, too. (ABC News didn’t get the message, so they launched an abortive attempt to protect Hillary by taking a poorly-researched swing at the Gmail address on the business card of Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, completely missing the point that Hillary routed all of her correspondence through her personal email address, and Chaffetz isn’t subject to the Freedom of Information Act laws that govern the Secretary of State. Five minutes of Google time would have saved these Democrat-operatives-with-bylines a ton of embarrassment.)

Read more:
Hillary Clinton's Off-the-Books Mail Server Was in Her House, Registered to a Non-Existent Man - Breitbart

 

[320 Years of History]

I read the article. The central question in my mind is this...Did any of those supervisors send or receive emails to/from the "clintonemail.com" address? If they did, they knew damn well the server was there and that it wasn't a "state.gov" sever. Who set up the "clintonemail.com" server is irrelevant; whether any of Pagliano's supervisors knew of Pagliano's role in setting up the server is irrelevant to whether anyone knew the server existed; all of those details are nothing but red herrings.

Hillary Clinton’s Off-the-Books Mail Server Was in Her House, Registered to a Non-Existent Man
by JOHN HAYWARD 4 Mar 2015
Associated Press’ discovery that Clinton’s mail server was located in her house (her estate in Chappaqua, to be exact — the one she had to settle for because she was “dead broke” after Bill left office) and was registered under the name of a man who does not appear to exist.

To their credit, liberal media figures quickly realized this wasn’t a story that could be waved away with a laugh, some standard Obama Administration pabulum about how much this furtive crew values transparency, and a few whiny stories about how Republicans were known to use private email, too. (ABC News didn’t get the message, so they launched an abortive attempt to protect Hillary by taking a poorly-researched swing at the Gmail address on the business card of Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, completely missing the point that Hillary routed all of her correspondence through her personal email address, and Chaffetz isn’t subject to the Freedom of Information Act laws that govern the Secretary of State. Five minutes of Google time would have saved these Democrat-operatives-with-bylines a ton of embarrassment.)

Read more:
Hillary Clinton's Off-the-Books Mail Server Was in Her House, Registered to a Non-Existent Man - Breitbart

Clearly it escaped you that the aim of the thread is to isolate what is known and factually so from conjecture. You are now the second person who has here cited "stuff" from 2015 that, were you to have actually read the full flow of the discussion here, has been shown to contain gross inaccuracies. In addition to being outdated and wrong, youj've cited an editorial, rather than a "hard facts" article.

• CDZ - True or False about Clinton's private emails and server: Which is Which?
  
• CDZ - True or False about Clinton's private emails and server: Which is Which?

 

[Wilbur Right]

I'm a critical reader, there's no denying that, but I'm not an unreasonable or unegalitarian person.

Oh yea?? But you have the best vocabulary and use syntax correctly. What's that make you? Educated? You in the wrong place guy.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm a critical reader, there's no denying that, but I'm not an unreasonable or unegalitarian person.

Oh yea?? But you have the best vocabulary and use syntax correctly. What's that make you? Educated? You in the wrong place guy.

??? I'm sorry. I don't understand; thus I don't quite know how to or whether I should respond to your comment or questions....

• Do you not think me reasonable or egalitarian?
• Do you think I am not a critical reader?

As for my grammar skills, well, I suspect I was taught the same ones everyone else was/is. I just happen to remember and generally apply what I was taught. I think that's illustrative of nothing more nor less than just that. Make no mistake, however, there are plenty of grammatical errors in my posts; I rarely proofread my posts before submitting them. Lazy and callous, yes, but given the venue and casualness of most remarks shared on USMB, I just don't bother because I am willing to own my mistakes if someone notes them and/or indicates somehow that my flawed writing led them to misunderstand my ideas and intent. (I don't recall in what threads that happened, but I do recall its having happened at least twice.)

 

[Staidhup]

Simple, it was wrong and against policy. Apparently there are those that believe its acceptable if there is a D following her name, however if it were an R there would be hell to pay. So why lie? whats up with that? Is this the new acceptable norm?

 

[Wilbur Right]

? I'm sorry. I don't understand; thus I don't quite know how to or whether I should respond to your comment or questions....

• Do you not think me reasonable or egalitarian?
• Do you think I am not a critical reader?

It was just a compliment. Don't worry about it.
I have found that some people who come from affluent backgrounds (you maybe?) tend to be more egalitarian than others.

What is your experience?

 

[320 Years of History]

? I'm sorry. I don't understand; thus I don't quite know how to or whether I should respond to your comment or questions....

• Do you not think me reasonable or egalitarian?
• Do you think I am not a critical reader?

It was just a compliment. Don't worry about it.
I have found that some people who come from affluent backgrounds (you maybe?) tend to be more egalitarian than others.

What is your experience?

TY for the compliment.

My experience is that egalitarianism is found and not found among all economic strata with about the same degree of infrequency. Likewise, neither selfishness nor magnanimity allow the circumstance of financial success, mediocrity or failure to constrict their dispersal through society. From what I can tell, "there but for the grace of God go I" isn't often enough, IMO, recognized at any given level of economic sufficiency/insufficiency.

About the only I've noticed that somewhat pertains to egalitarianism and that seems more prevalent among affluent folks than among non-affluent folks is disinterest in appearances and with comparing one's own position with that of others. Among affluent folks whom I observe a psyche that asks, "How am I doing? Am I doing the best I can or could do?" Among less affluent folks, the mentality seems more often to be, "How am I doing relative to others? Am I doing well enough to keep up or stay a bit ahead of 'someone' else?" Who be that "someone else" varies with the situation, but the comparative measurement nature of the self analysis remains.

 

[Markle]

I read the article. The central question in my mind is this...Did any of those supervisors send or receive emails to/from the "clintonemail.com" address? If they did, they knew damn well the server was there and that it wasn't a "state.gov" sever. Who set up the "clintonemail.com" server is irrelevant; whether any of Pagliano's supervisors knew of Pagliano's role in setting up the server is irrelevant to whether anyone knew the server existed; all of those details are nothing but red herrings.

Hillary Clinton’s Off-the-Books Mail Server Was in Her House, Registered to a Non-Existent Man
by JOHN HAYWARD 4 Mar 2015
Associated Press’ discovery that Clinton’s mail server was located in her house (her estate in Chappaqua, to be exact — the one she had to settle for because she was “dead broke” after Bill left office) and was registered under the name of a man who does not appear to exist.

To their credit, liberal media figures quickly realized this wasn’t a story that could be waved away with a laugh, some standard Obama Administration pabulum about how much this furtive crew values transparency, and a few whiny stories about how Republicans were known to use private email, too. (ABC News didn’t get the message, so they launched an abortive attempt to protect Hillary by taking a poorly-researched swing at the Gmail address on the business card of Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, completely missing the point that Hillary routed all of her correspondence through her personal email address, and Chaffetz isn’t subject to the Freedom of Information Act laws that govern the Secretary of State. Five minutes of Google time would have saved these Democrat-operatives-with-bylines a ton of embarrassment.)

Read more:
Hillary Clinton's Off-the-Books Mail Server Was in Her House, Registered to a Non-Existent Man - Breitbart

Clearly it escaped you that the aim of the thread is to isolate what is known and factually so from conjecture. You are now the second person who has here cited "stuff" from 2015 that, were you to have actually read the full flow of the discussion here, has been shown to contain gross inaccuracies. In addition to being outdated and wrong, youj've cited an editorial, rather than a "hard facts" article.

• CDZ - True or False about Clinton's private emails and server: Which is Which?
  
• CDZ - True or False about Clinton's private emails and server: Which is Which?

Did the Clinton cabal have a server, for their own private use in order to keep their emails secret for the government?

Yes, or no? Simple question.

Were confidential documents and even above top secret documents kept on that unsecured server and transmitted to various people whose security status is unknown?

Yes or no? Again, simple question.

 

[Markle]

TY for the compliment.

My experience is that egalitarianism is found and not found among all economic strata with about the same degree of infrequency. Likewise, neither selfishness nor magnanimity allow the circumstance of financial success, mediocrity or failure to constrict their dispersal through society. From what I can tell, "there but for the grace of God go I" isn't often enough, IMO, recognized at any given level of economic sufficiency/insufficiency.

About the only I've noticed that somewhat pertains to egalitarianism and that seems more prevalent among affluent folks than among non-affluent folks is disinterest in appearances and with comparing one's own position with that of others. Among affluent folks whom I observe a psyche that asks, "How am I doing? Am I doing the best I can or could do?" Among less affluent folks, the mentality seems more often to be, "How am I doing relative to others? Am I doing well enough to keep up or stay a bit ahead of 'someone' else?" Who be that "someone else" varies with the situation, but the comparative measurement nature of the self analysis remains.

Your pet word:

e·gal·i·tar·i·an
[iˌɡaləˈterēən]
ADJECTIVE

1. of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities:
   "a fairer, more egalitarian society"

NOUN

1. a person who advocates or supports egalitarian principles.

Using the definition of the word, I say you are wrong.

All people are CREATED equal but the outcome is largely the result of their good or bad decisions greatly influenced by whether or not they have a husband and wife who raised them lovingly or not.

 

[320 Years of History]

I read the article. The central question in my mind is this...Did any of those supervisors send or receive emails to/from the "clintonemail.com" address? If they did, they knew damn well the server was there and that it wasn't a "state.gov" sever. Who set up the "clintonemail.com" server is irrelevant; whether any of Pagliano's supervisors knew of Pagliano's role in setting up the server is irrelevant to whether anyone knew the server existed; all of those details are nothing but red herrings.

Hillary Clinton’s Off-the-Books Mail Server Was in Her House, Registered to a Non-Existent Man
by JOHN HAYWARD 4 Mar 2015
Associated Press’ discovery that Clinton’s mail server was located in her house (her estate in Chappaqua, to be exact — the one she had to settle for because she was “dead broke” after Bill left office) and was registered under the name of a man who does not appear to exist.

To their credit, liberal media figures quickly realized this wasn’t a story that could be waved away with a laugh, some standard Obama Administration pabulum about how much this furtive crew values transparency, and a few whiny stories about how Republicans were known to use private email, too. (ABC News didn’t get the message, so they launched an abortive attempt to protect Hillary by taking a poorly-researched swing at the Gmail address on the business card of Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, completely missing the point that Hillary routed all of her correspondence through her personal email address, and Chaffetz isn’t subject to the Freedom of Information Act laws that govern the Secretary of State. Five minutes of Google time would have saved these Democrat-operatives-with-bylines a ton of embarrassment.)

Read more:
Hillary Clinton's Off-the-Books Mail Server Was in Her House, Registered to a Non-Existent Man - Breitbart

Clearly it escaped you that the aim of the thread is to isolate what is known and factually so from conjecture. You are now the second person who has here cited "stuff" from 2015 that, were you to have actually read the full flow of the discussion here, has been shown to contain gross inaccuracies. In addition to being outdated and wrong, youj've cited an editorial, rather than a "hard facts" article.

• CDZ - True or False about Clinton's private emails and server: Which is Which?
  
• CDZ - True or False about Clinton's private emails and server: Which is Which?

Did the Clinton cabal have a server, for their own private use in order to keep their emails secret for the government?

Yes, or no? Simple question.

Were confidential documents and even above top secret documents kept on that unsecured server and transmitted to various people whose security status is unknown?

Yes or no? Again, simple question.

I have already addressed in prior posts the topics of your questions with the exception of whether or not Mrs. Clinton's server was purposed upon "keeping [her] emails secret for the government." I don't know whether that was her purpose.

 

[320 Years of History]

TY for the compliment.

My experience is that egalitarianism is found and not found among all economic strata with about the same degree of infrequency. Likewise, neither selfishness nor magnanimity allow the circumstance of financial success, mediocrity or failure to constrict their dispersal through society. From what I can tell, "there but for the grace of God go I" isn't often enough, IMO, recognized at any given level of economic sufficiency/insufficiency.

About the only [thing] I've noticed that somewhat pertains to egalitarianism and that seems more prevalent among affluent folks than among non-affluent folks is disinterest in appearances and with comparing one's own position with that of others. Among affluent folks whom I observe a psyche that asks, "How am I doing? Am I doing the best I can or could do?" Among less affluent folks, the mentality seems more often to be, "How am I doing relative to others? Am I doing well enough to keep up or stay a bit ahead of 'someone' else?" Who be that "someone else" varies with the situation, but the comparative measurement nature of the self analysis remains.

Your pet word:

e·gal·i·tar·i·an
[iˌɡaləˈterēən]
ADJECTIVE

1. of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities:
   "a fairer, more egalitarian society"

NOUN

1. a person who advocates or supports egalitarian principles.

Using the definition of the word, I say you are wrong.

All people are CREATED equal but the outcome is largely the result of their good or bad decisions greatly influenced by whether or not they have a husband and wife who raised them lovingly or not.

Red:
How the hell would you know? Have you been surveilling me for the majority of my adult life that allows you to see those things I've experienced and observed thereby giving you evidence that I've misrepresented what I've asserted above as what my experience is and what I've observed?

Indeed even if you were to have done, it's not clear, at least not from your demonstrated incomprehension of what I wrote, and that you quoted, in two simple paragraphs above, it'd be quite a leap of faith for one to think you could accurately record and interpret any events you would have seen and heard as a consequence of having done so.

Look at my remarks that you quoted and that are found at the start of this post, and in particular the bits in red italicized text. Do you see indications that my comments were offered in any context other than their being a subset of my own firsthand observations and experiences? You don't need to answer that question because I and everyone else can see clearly that subtle difference between one's relating their personal observations and experiences and one's making an assertion about a general reality is lost on you. I don't know why that escaped your comprehension, and I don't know how often subtlety of similarity and difference and meaning, nature and scope do so, but that it did this time is incontrovertible.

Moreover, that you have allowed that lapse to inspire you to all but call me a liar is no less evident. I absolutely do not appreciate that! If you or anyone is going to call me a liar, you need to know what you are talking about and you need to be right. That you have for all intents and purposes called me a liar is why I've rebuked you as I have in this post. You deserve it.

 

[320 Years of History]

? I'm sorry. I don't understand; thus I don't quite know how to or whether I should respond to your comment or questions....

• Do you not think me reasonable or egalitarian?
• Do you think I am not a critical reader?

It was just a compliment. Don't worry about it.
I have found that some people who come from affluent backgrounds (you maybe?) tend to be more egalitarian than others.

What is your experience?

? I'm sorry. I don't understand; thus I don't quite know how to or whether I should respond to your comment or questions....

• Do you not think me reasonable or egalitarian?
• Do you think I am not a critical reader?

It was just a compliment. Don't worry about it.
I have found that some people who come from affluent backgrounds (you maybe?) tend to be more egalitarian than others.

What is your experience?

TY for the compliment.

My experience is that egalitarianism is found and not found among all economic strata with about the same degree of infrequency. Likewise, neither selfishness nor magnanimity allow the circumstance of financial success, mediocrity or failure to constrict their dispersal through society. From what I can tell, "there but for the grace of God go I" isn't often enough, IMO, recognized at any given level of economic sufficiency/insufficiency.

About the only I've noticed that somewhat pertains to egalitarianism and that seems more prevalent among affluent folks than among non-affluent folks is disinterest in appearances and with comparing one's own position with that of others. Among affluent folks whom I observe a psyche that asks, "How am I doing? Am I doing the best I can or could do?" Among less affluent folks, the mentality seems more often to be, "How am I doing relative to others? Am I doing well enough to keep up or stay a bit ahead of 'someone' else?" Who be that "someone else" varies with the situation, but the comparative measurement nature of the self analysis remains.

As any mildly careful reader can tell, I answered your question as best I could based on my own sense of the folks whom I know well enough to know what they think about people and humanity in general. Obviously, I cannot know all or most folks who are affluent. Indeed, there are only two well off people whom I know well enough to know how their views on the topic have changed over the course of their adult life. I knew a few other wealthy types well enough to accurately expect I can gauge their degrees of egalitarian sentiment, but I don't know them well enough to know how they differ in that regard now in contrast with/to the earlier years of their majority.

When I read your question, a concept that came to mind as I thought about what I might write in reply to your question was "noblesse oblige," and I wondered whether and to what extent my peers and countrymen, as a class, genuinely espouse it. I truly had no idea whether any researcher had asked the question you did, but knew of at least for whom the general topic/theme is one on which he focuses. Out of curiosity, I checked Google Scholar to see if there were any studies that might provide a more credible answer to your question than my anecdotal observations, or if there were a set of studies from which one could make plausibly valid inferences in that regard.

I found and read the conclusions and discussion in the following documentation. I'll leave you to read them and arrive at your own conclusions:

• Noblesse Oblige? Social Status and Economic Inequality Maintenance among Politicians
  • Dr. Kraus' CV -- Given your question, you may find this guy's other writings of interest. I found this one rather intriguing.
• An Introduction to Equality of Opportunity | Equality of Opportunity and Education
• Social Epigenetics and Equality of Opportunity (Epigenetics: Fundamentals | What is Epigenetics?)
  
• The undervalued self: social class and self-evaluation (This is another of Dr. Kraus' studies.)
  
• Public Values, Health Inequality, and Alternative Notions of a "Fair" Response
  
• “Fair” Inequality? Attitudes toward Pay Differentials: The United States in Comparative Perspective

Perhaps in the coming weeks or so you'll have found the time to read the articles above, and having done so entreat further discussion on the matter. If so, I'd be happy to participate in the discussion. (Of course, I have no expectation one way or the other. The choice is yours.)

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Okay, once and for all, which description of events is true and which is false:

A. Clinton used private email for classified govt communications.
This account was hacked, and that's how the wrong people got information on Christopher Stevens which cost him his life.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

B. Clinton only used private email for personal use and did not mix in any classified or security-sensitive exchanges or matters that concern public duty and accountability as govt business.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

C. Bonus 1: Clinton used private emails and server in order to conduct illicit business that was in conflict
with govt duty, principles or laws.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

D. Bonus 2 - Clinton deliberately lied and/or changed stories after being confronted.

Where when what was said -- please cite exact sources NOT hearsay or one person repeating what another media source reported where conjectures go in circular arguments with no foundation in established agreed accounts.

Please do not repeat anything unverified or repeated from other sources "on the internet"

What was really said, changed, proven, documented, and established.

TRUE or FALSE for A and B (and 1 and 2 if this can even be done at all) Thanks

A. I have not heard of this, and I doubt it or any correlation can be made so I will say FALSE.

B. False: It was not strictly for personal use, she used it for her civic duties which is the cause of this whole investigation. The reason for the law is to make sure national info is secure, and for transparency to the public/congress/justice dept. if needed. The reason for going out of her way and setting up this private server as opposed to just using a govt. address is conjecture, but it's fairly obvious where that arrow points. And yes classified all the way to top secret emails were found, the real question is, if this were anyone else who did this, what would happen to them?

Colin Powell did it ! What, if anything happened to him for doing the same thing Hillary did.

This is a lie.

THere is not one single instance of Colin Powell using his private email address to SEND classified material. There were NUMEROUS examples of Hillary doing so.

 

[francoHFW]

Okay, once and for all, which description of events is true and which is false:

A. Clinton used private email for classified govt communications.
This account was hacked, and that's how the wrong people got information on Christopher Stevens which cost him his life.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

B. Clinton only used private email for personal use and did not mix in any classified or security-sensitive exchanges or matters that concern public duty and accountability as govt business.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

C. Bonus 1: Clinton used private emails and server in order to conduct illicit business that was in conflict
with govt duty, principles or laws.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

D. Bonus 2 - Clinton deliberately lied and/or changed stories after being confronted.

Where when what was said -- please cite exact sources NOT hearsay or one person repeating what another media source reported where conjectures go in circular arguments with no foundation in established agreed accounts.

Please do not repeat anything unverified or repeated from other sources "on the internet"

What was really said, changed, proven, documented, and established.

TRUE or FALSE for A and B (and 1 and 2 if this can even be done at all) Thanks

A. I have not heard of this, and I doubt it or any correlation can be made so I will say FALSE.

B. False: It was not strictly for personal use, she used it for her civic duties which is the cause of this whole investigation. The reason for the law is to make sure national info is secure, and for transparency to the public/congress/justice dept. if needed. The reason for going out of her way and setting up this private server as opposed to just using a govt. address is conjecture, but it's fairly obvious where that arrow points. And yes classified all the way to top secret emails were found, the real question is, if this were anyone else who did this, what would happen to them?

Colin Powell did it ! What, if anything happened to him for doing the same thing Hillary did.

This is a lie.

THere is not one single instance of Colin Powell using his private email address to SEND classified material. There were NUMEROUS examples of Hillary doing so.

They haven't looked. or link.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Okay, once and for all, which description of events is true and which is false:

A. Clinton used private email for classified govt communications.
This account was hacked, and that's how the wrong people got information on Christopher Stevens which cost him his life.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

B. Clinton only used private email for personal use and did not mix in any classified or security-sensitive exchanges or matters that concern public duty and accountability as govt business.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

C. Bonus 1: Clinton used private emails and server in order to conduct illicit business that was in conflict
with govt duty, principles or laws.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

D. Bonus 2 - Clinton deliberately lied and/or changed stories after being confronted.

Where when what was said -- please cite exact sources NOT hearsay or one person repeating what another media source reported where conjectures go in circular arguments with no foundation in established agreed accounts.

Please do not repeat anything unverified or repeated from other sources "on the internet"

What was really said, changed, proven, documented, and established.

TRUE or FALSE for A and B (and 1 and 2 if this can even be done at all) Thanks

A. I have not heard of this, and I doubt it or any correlation can be made so I will say FALSE.

B. False: It was not strictly for personal use, she used it for her civic duties which is the cause of this whole investigation. The reason for the law is to make sure national info is secure, and for transparency to the public/congress/justice dept. if needed. The reason for going out of her way and setting up this private server as opposed to just using a govt. address is conjecture, but it's fairly obvious where that arrow points. And yes classified all the way to top secret emails were found, the real question is, if this were anyone else who did this, what would happen to them?

Colin Powell did it ! What, if anything happened to him for doing the same thing Hillary did.

This is a lie.

THere is not one single instance of Colin Powell using his private email address to SEND classified material. There were NUMEROUS examples of Hillary doing so.

They haven't looked. or link.

I'm not providing a link that you would just ignore anyway. And understand, I NEVER expected Hillary to be indicted over the email thing. That isn't the usual recourse for something like that. I'm simply saying it is factually incorrect to say Powell did the same thing Hilary did. The State Department's IG performed an EXHAUSTIVE review and what they found was that Powell had RECEIVED a few emails on his private email that contained classified material, but that he hadn't sent any, unlike Hillary who both sent AND received classified material from a private email server.