It's not about servers
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:28:02 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

So what would you like to find on HRC's State Dept emails?

===

Your question is kind of naive in my opinion. The only reason to take
your EMAIL private is to hide something. My guess is that she was
playing politics and managing her personal business on company time
among other things.

If she wanted "to hide something" she could simply use her personal
email for politics and personal business. I'm sure she did so in most
cases, under a different email handle.
That she posted gov business on her personal server - probably making it
subject to subpoena - if anything shows she wasn't hiding anything.
I think she made a bad decision, but it was allowed at the time.
Perhaps she knows as a lawyer she can keep her personal emails separate.
I expect she'll have a clear explanation in time.
Of course she won't be believed by those who oppose her.
Others will have no problem with her explanation.
I suspect she keeps possession of her emails for the purpose of memoirs.
The gov has anything with a gov address, but since she was at the center
of the State Dept, it would be more manageable if she used the gov
servers. This is all for historical purposes.
She's probably already sent her gov emails to the gov, or CC'd them as a
manner of practice.
It'll all come out, but it won't stop the Clinton haters.
Nobody pays much attention to them anyway, but for sport.

It's not about servers
 

On 3/5/2015 9:28 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Sounds to me like you are searching for justification. The answers to
your questions are easily obtained by watching any of the news media
outlets ... pro Clinton or not pro Clinton. All have acknowledged that
her methods were ... unusual.

Presidential candidates are typically "unusual" persons.
I don't need justification to see the writing on the wall.
You still haven't said what you expect to find in HRC's emails.
Whitewater? Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi?
Sorry, but that's the upshot of it all.
The rules for emails have been changed now, but don't expect that to
hamper personal relationships.
Most "official" State Dept emails are exceedingly dry.
The juicy stuff is off the record. And it will continue to be so.
So what would you like to find on HRC's State Dept emails?



I guess you just don't get it. It doesn't matter what is in the emails.
The issue at hand is the arrogance of Hillary Clinton, her disregard for
regulation, her sneaky methods of operation and general dishonesty.

I am usually not so critical of a potential candidate for the highest
office in this country but Hillary really gets to me. Seems I am not
alone. Even her own party rejected her in favor of a relative unknown
back in 2008.

It's not about servers
 

On 3/5/2015 10:24 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:28:02 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

So what would you like to find on HRC's State Dept emails?

===

Your question is kind of naive in my opinion. The only reason to take
your EMAIL private is to hide something. My guess is that she was
playing politics and managing her personal business on company time
among other things.



At this point, what difference does it make? :-)

BOA is missing the point. It matters not what is contained in the
emails. What matters is her continued demonstration of arrogance and
dishonesty.

It's not about servers
 

In article ,
says...

On 3/5/2015 9:28 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Sounds to me like you are searching for justification. The answers to
your questions are easily obtained by watching any of the news media
outlets ... pro Clinton or not pro Clinton. All have acknowledged that
her methods were ... unusual.

Presidential candidates are typically "unusual" persons.
I don't need justification to see the writing on the wall.
You still haven't said what you expect to find in HRC's emails.
Whitewater? Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi?
Sorry, but that's the upshot of it all.
The rules for emails have been changed now, but don't expect that to
hamper personal relationships.
Most "official" State Dept emails are exceedingly dry.
The juicy stuff is off the record. And it will continue to be so.
So what would you like to find on HRC's State Dept emails?



I guess you just don't get it. It doesn't matter what is in the emails.
The issue at hand is the arrogance of Hillary Clinton, her disregard for
regulation, her sneaky methods of operation and general dishonesty.

I am usually not so critical of a potential candidate for the highest
office in this country but Hillary really gets to me. Seems I am not
alone. Even her own party rejected her in favor of a relative unknown
back in 2008.

You're right. With some exceptions, I don't get hate. But it's your
right to hate her.

It's not about servers
 

In article ,
says...


One question I would like answered is, when did the US figure out that
the coup they were supporting was going to install a muslim terrorist
organization as the closest thing to a government they have.

That's probably classified as Top Secret information.

It's not about servers
 

On 3/5/2015 11:55 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/5/2015 9:28 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Sounds to me like you are searching for justification. The answers to
your questions are easily obtained by watching any of the news media
outlets ... pro Clinton or not pro Clinton. All have acknowledged that
her methods were ... unusual.

Presidential candidates are typically "unusual" persons.
I don't need justification to see the writing on the wall.
You still haven't said what you expect to find in HRC's emails.
Whitewater? Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi?
Sorry, but that's the upshot of it all.
The rules for emails have been changed now, but don't expect that to
hamper personal relationships.
Most "official" State Dept emails are exceedingly dry.
The juicy stuff is off the record. And it will continue to be so.
So what would you like to find on HRC's State Dept emails?



I guess you just don't get it. It doesn't matter what is in the emails.
The issue at hand is the arrogance of Hillary Clinton, her disregard for
regulation, her sneaky methods of operation and general dishonesty.

I am usually not so critical of a potential candidate for the highest
office in this country but Hillary really gets to me. Seems I am not
alone. Even her own party rejected her in favor of a relative unknown
back in 2008.


You're right. With some exceptions, I don't get hate. But it's your
right to hate her.


Now *you* are being dishonest. Who said anything about "hate"?
I mentioned to Harry that I *disliked* Hillary to about the same degree
that he dislikes GWB and Dick Cheney. Never said I hated her.

Please try to keep your accusations accurate, huh?

It's not about servers
 

In article ,
says...


Now *you* are being dishonest. Who said anything about "hate"?
I mentioned to Harry that I *disliked* Hillary to about the same degree
that he dislikes GWB and Dick Cheney. Never said I hated her.

Please try to keep your accusations accurate, huh?

OK. I recall Harry wanting GWB and Cheney hung by the balls and
eviscerated. Along those lines anyway.

It's not about servers
 

Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Sounds to me like you are searching for justification. The answers to
your questions are easily obtained by watching any of the news media
outlets ... pro Clinton or not pro Clinton. All have acknowledged that
her methods were ... unusual.

Presidential candidates are typically "unusual" persons.
I don't need justification to see the writing on the wall.
You still haven't said what you expect to find in HRC's emails.
Whitewater? Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi?
Sorry, but that's the upshot of it all.
The rules for emails have been changed now, but don't expect that to
hamper personal relationships.
Most "official" State Dept emails are exceedingly dry.
The juicy stuff is off the record. And it will continue to be so.
So what would you like to find on HRC's State Dept emails?

Every email that should have gone to a government server per the law.
Makes her a criminal for breaking the law of the land.

It's not about servers
 

On 3/6/2015 1:00 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Now *you* are being dishonest. Who said anything about "hate"?
I mentioned to Harry that I *disliked* Hillary to about the same degree
that he dislikes GWB and Dick Cheney. Never said I hated her.

Please try to keep your accusations accurate, huh?

OK. I recall Harry wanting GWB and Cheney hung by the balls and
eviscerated. Along those lines anyway.




There's a joke there regarding Hillary but I won't go there.

It's not about servers
 

On 3/6/15 1:00 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Now *you* are being dishonest. Who said anything about "hate"?
I mentioned to Harry that I *disliked* Hillary to about the same degree
that he dislikes GWB and Dick Cheney. Never said I hated her.

Please try to keep your accusations accurate, huh?

OK. I recall Harry wanting GWB and Cheney hung by the balls and
eviscerated. Along those lines anyway.



If I said that about Bush, I retract it. He was too stupid and naive to
know what the hell he was doing. Cheney, however, should have been
hanged a long time ago.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.