Before We Vote: 15 Questions for Hillary Clinton

[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​

 

[Pete7469]

Too bad you're not a journalist Foxy,

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

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

 

[forkup]

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.

So answer me this. Only the left does partisan reporting? That's what your implying. Both NBC and FOX and countless other news outlets have a very clear partisan bias, so claiming it's just progressives is a clear falsehood. You are right ethics in journalism in the US has all but disappeared. You now when that happened? The moment, the news became required to become something that turned in a profit. It required the news to be something that entertained or failing that at least something that caught your attention. So it wasn't anymore what is socially relevant but what catches the eye.

 

[B. Kidd]

The only question I want to see asked before the election is, "Do you still want a no-fly zone over Syria?".

Because, if elected, the answer to that determines whether our new-found cold war with Russia goes hot, or not.

May have to elect 'pantsuit c^nt', tho', to find out; as she doesn't give news conferences..........

 

[B. Kidd]

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.

Don't count on it as we've had at the least, 40 years of a failed public education system in the U.S..

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

So answer me this. Only the left does partisan reporting? That's what your implying. Both NBC and FOX and countless other news outlets have a very clear partisan bias, so claiming it's just progressives is a clear falsehood. You are right ethics in journalism in the US has all but disappeared. You now when that happened? The moment, the news became required to become something that turned in a profit. It required the news to be something that entertained or failing that at least something that caught your attention. So it wasn't anymore what is socially relevant but what catches the eye.

At least Fox is asking the questions that should be asked. Can you point to any other major arm of the MSM that is? CNN? Nope. NBC? Nope. CBS? Nope. ABC? Nope. MSNBC? Nope.

If you think it is wrong to ask these questions of a potential next President of the United States, please explain why it is wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

And this thread is not about the sins or flipflops or any other negatives or positives of Donald Trump. There are an infinite number of threads out there to discuss that.

This thread is about 15 questions Hillary Clinton should have to answer before people go to the polls. Or if she shouldn't have to answer them, why not?

 

[RodISHI]

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​

Fuck the emails.

I want to talk about Trump's ties to Russia.

The half billion he owes China.

The employees he's stiffed.

His nephew's sick baby he cut medical care for.

His many affairs.

His bribing Florida's Attorney General.

The Trump charity money he illegally used to pay the bribe.

His Nov 28th Court Date.

His 3500 lawsuits.

His 169 federal lawsuits.

His racism.

His flip flops.

His lies.

Those are way more interesting than fucking emails.

With all those claims you should have at least one legitimate link in each one of them. Not that we would expect anything other than accusations and propaganda from you but you could at least put a little effort into that crap you spew.

 

[B. Kidd]

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​

Fuck the emails.

I want to talk about Trump's ties to Russia.

The half billion he owes China.

The employees he's stiffed.

His nephew's sick baby he cut medical care for.

His many affairs.

His bribing Florida's Attorney General.

The Trump charity money he illegally used to pay the bribe.

His Nov 28th Court Date.

His 3500 lawsuits.

His 169 federal lawsuits.

His racism.

His flip flops.

His lies.

Those are way more interesting than fucking emails.

Links........................or they're all partisan strawman talking points! And, besides, they're all for this thread.....(what else can one expect from 'Deanie'.....?)

Which ones do you want links to? I've talked about all of them and posted links on every one.
Give me the top four and I'll post links right away.

For this thread, it's still off-topic, dear idjit..........

 

[forkup]

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.

So answer me this. Only the left does partisan reporting? That's what your implying. Both NBC and FOX and countless other news outlets have a very clear partisan bias, so claiming it's just progressives is a clear falsehood. You are right ethics in journalism in the US has all but disappeared. You now when that happened? The moment, the news became required to become something that turned in a profit. It required the news to be something that entertained or failing that at least something that caught your attention. So it wasn't anymore what is socially relevant but what catches the eye.

At least Fox is asking the questions that should be asked. Can you point to any other major arm of the MSM that is? CNN? Nope. NBC? Nope. CBS? Nope. ABC? Nope. MSNBC? Nope.

If you think it is wrong to ask these questions of a potential next President of the United States, please explain why it is wrong.

And NBC is asking for Trumps tax returns, huffington is asking about him buying 50000 dollar worth of his own books at RETAIL prices. Or Trump university or literally dozens if not hundreds of other questions, all speak to morality and quite a few speak to legality just as much as Clinton's E-mails. The difference is the e-mails and Benghazi have been under scrutiny for way longer and at least from a judicial standpoint been deemed not worthy of pursuing. I don't like Clinton as a candidate, but I find people like you who comes over as intelligent, as being hypocritical, especially in light of a candidate who represents you at this time. And Fox has a right to ask its questions, just like NBC has but don't try to sell them as the guardians of journalistic integrity until they ask the questions the other outlets just posed to Trump.Donald Trump Used Campaign Donations to Buy $55,000 of His Own Book

 

[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.

 

[westwall]

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.

Yes indeed. I moved all of derps crap to the Rubber Room. Sorry for the intrusion.

 

[forkup]

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?

 

[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?

 

[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.

Yes indeed. I moved all of derps crap to the Rubber Room. Sorry for the intrusion.

Thank you kindly sir. It is much appreciated.

Now back to topic. Addressed to everybody: Should Hillary have to answer those 15 questions before we vote in November? Why or why not?

 

[forkup]

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.

 

[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.

 

[forkup]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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