AMEN, Wanda. This wasn't a question about Hillary Clinton, this wasn't a question about Donald Trump. This was a question about the private server. I was also appalled that she had her lawyers going through her E-mails. What security clearances did they have. There were E-mails on that server that were so secret even some of the FBI agents were not allowed to see them! And yes, she destroyed evidence AFTER it was subpoenaed by Congress. That's obstruction of justice. Once she decided to use one server for both private business and state business, she had no right to destroy anything even private stuff. Those E-mails now belong to We the People! It wasn't just a mistake, it was a HUGE mistake! I watched the Congressional hearings with Director Comey and I watched that one Congressman who was a retired CIA agent. He had tears in his eyes as he thought about his fellow CIA agents still in Iraq and Afghanistan whose lives could be very much in danger due this carelessness. This is very serious business as far as I am concerned.

Oh, please. Just absurd, Georgysmom. Like Wanda's claiming an email from HRC caused the death of that scientist. Total bunk.

For everyone's edification:

Gregory, I agree. I didn't ask about Hillary or Trump. Personally I'm having a hard time learning more about where Hillary stands on issues because most of her time now revolves around this email issue.

I thought it was over when the Feds cleared her, but it just keeps going. She's constantly on the defensive.

She should refuse to respond to anymore questions about it. It's another "Benghazi", endless circling which will end with nothing....except possibly a Trump presidency, which IMO would be an actual disaster, v. a non-hacked email server.

Pawprint, in the meantime, you can go to her Web site to get her positions on issues and her policy proposals, as well as look up her voting record from when she was in Congress. She is much more impressive, balanced, etc., than she has deliberately been portrayed as being.

land sakes...is this an election year or sumpin?

My final comment and then as far as I am concerned, the subject is closed. If Hillary had used a Government server and it was hacked, the onus is on the Government. Using a private, unsecured server, if it was hacked, the onus is on her, The FBI cannot prove it was hacked, but suspect it probably was. Only time will tell. If nothing else, she has brought to the forefront how much more security is needed in this day and age of Cyber warfare.

The FBI cannot prove it was hacked, but suspect it probably was.

No, that's not what FBI Director Comey said. He said it was "possible" that her account was accessed.

This is my last comment on this election. I don't care for any one of them. I know that one of those idiots will be our next president and God help us all for the next 4 or more years, but neither one will get my vote. Yes, I will be voting but not for either one of them. I just can't do it. I do not listen to any of the debates, I mute all the commercials and I will not read anything more about either one of them. We all have no choice but to bear it for now. To me this is not an election, it's a disaster.

"he FBI cannot prove it was hacked, but suspect it probably was. "

That is FALSE.

"I do not listen to any of the debates, "

Wow.

I'm always amazed that people who admit they don't listen, get informed, etc., have such strong, definitive conclusions. Where do they come from if people don't listen and learn???

I have a small business client who uses a private email server. I don't know why. I assume a tech talked her into it. It can't be that expensive. Her data is not classified, just business proprietary and she has client information she may want to protect. I'm surprised that she felt the need for it, but like anything else, we shop for solutions and get talked into things.

For this reason, I think private email servers are common. A lot of businesses have private email servers. I could probably set one up on my server if I wanted to, possibly at no additional cost.

@tibbrix, I wished I felt as confident about the data as you seem to be. I do not believe ANY of them, not a one! You can manipulate data and surveys to say anything. I have little faith, how sad for me, no?

tibbrix, I edited my statement saying I will not listen to any more debates. I have listened in the past and they are not debates. All it is is mudslinging. So I guess the one that slings the most mud wins. Again, God help the USA. We're going to need it.

Wanda, I just want you to know that I value your opinion and your many years working for the government and your clearances. My husband had similar clearances and even now, 25 years after leaving the business, he is still being checked up on, the government is still concerned if he talks too much or if people around here know what he used to work on. He takes his clearances very seriously and is horrified by what is going on and what is being allowed to be gotten away with.

Please don't let one person's opinion shut you up. You have every right to voice your opinion.

Pawprint

Personally I'm having a
hard time learning more about where Hillary stands on issues because
most of her time now revolves around this email issue.

I thought it was over when the Feds cleared her, but it just keeps going. She's constantly on the defensive.

Like Tibb suggested, if you want to see where Hillary stands on the issues visit her website and while you're at it visit Trump's too. It's like night and day!

The reason Hillary seems constantly on the defensive about the emails is because the issue has passed, but some people can't let it go ... like a dog with a bone.

Just read an excellent set of posts that pretty much sums up why there's a lack of real substance in this campaign.

_______________________________________

6 hours ago

chase_gw

I
agree with Annie. I wish the focus would stay on policy rather than the
back and forth. The press makes me crazy. They spend all their time on
the carp and no time on the substance.

Trump gets away with things the American press should be all over.
This is not a bloody joke, it's not entertainment it is about some very,
very serious issues.

_______________________________________

ojo_sigo

But that is where you are wrong Chase it is precisely that - entertainment

_________________________________

momj47(7A)

And that's the problem.

The media loves the entertainment that Trump is bringing to this election.

So much more fun than the policy wonks of past elections, talking
about serious boring issues. Nobody watches TV for serious boring
policy talk.

So they will keep looking for the entertainment in the Clinton campaign,

And, sadly, it all comes from the RWNJ's and their made up stories.

Like the RW forum members (look at their sources), the national media
doesn't even fact check their stories any more - after all, if it's on
the internet it must be true!

So expect more of the same, and worse.

"Please don't let one person's opinion shut you up."

Refuting what someone put out as fact when it is not fact is not "shutting someone up."

Why do you think falsehoods should go unchallenged or not corrected, Flamingo.

And saying that someone was killed because of an email is not a matter of opinion. It is matter of fact, and in this case there are no facts to back it up. So people are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to spread falsehoods, they are not allowed to call someone responsible for a death when they are in fact not so. In fact that is illegal and it is called slander.

I cannot fathom how anyone can defend someone saying something and as false as someone having been killed because of an email and being told it is okay and that they are entitled to their opinion and anyone who points out that it is not correct is "trying to shut them up." And Flamingo, it is not my opinion that it is false. It is a fact that it is, and I posted links for you and Wanda to LEARN that it is FALSE.

That is pretty incredible.

Linda, then don't engage or post here.

Just because you say you won't debate any longer doesn't mean no one else can and that no one can respond to your comments. It means YOU don't want to comment any longer ,so don't. That is your right.

This is not the Hot Topics Forum.

tibbrix, is it false that Bill Clinton met with AG Loretta Lynch on the tarmac? And you think that was coincidental?

This thread has been very interesting and it does prove that "touchy" subjects can be discussed without being a Hot Topic. Nice. It has been good reading and I, for one, feel like I have "heard" some of the arguments. My DH has had those very high clearances as well as others here and he holds things close to his chest...and we served our country in the security field overseas for many years. Admittedly, I have avoided watching most of the TV coverage, but have read much and done some background reading. It , IMO is time to put these "investigations" to rest. They are finished and we have only a small window to really look at these two candidates and measure their competence, their character, their willingness to be good citizens to all and to care for the lest among us. And maybe, be thoughtful about our counrtys' position in the human race on this planet. We need to think about how our President will consider all the repercussions that can and will take place, as a reaction to our actions. Our President can no longer be like Teddy Roosevelt and wield a 'big stick" WE, have to be "team players" on the big stage of World politics. Ambassadors and Leaders have to find ways bring common sense and compromise to the world table.

That is what the debate should be about. (IMO) We are a nation in as much trouble as some of our neighbors sharing this planet. We need to heal our divisiveness and and move forward peacefully.

Leaving my soapbox now.

Nanny, I "liked" your comment, but feel it really does deserve a bit more. Thank you!

Yes, I keep returning to, "Why was Bill Clinton with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac?" It seems very shady if not downright criminal. People seem to want to give a pass on that, but why?

Pawprint, a little more reading material for you if you're interested.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-email-story-is-out-of-control/2016/09/08/692947d0-75fc-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c351d6bcc69b

Re: the tarmac meeting.

It wasn't unusual in Bill Clinton's circle, as a former president, to socialize on the tarmac. The timing of his meeting with Loretta Lynch provided not-so-great optics, but the act of doing so was hardly unusual for him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/bill-clinton-tarmac-history.html?_r=0

I find in very telling that ALL five living presidents do not support Trump. These guys have been in the office and know the difficulties and decisions to be made. ALL five will not vote for Trump. Laura Bush will vote for Hillary. These five plus the list of hundreds of GOP leaders who will vote for Hillary is astonishing. Clinton is even being advised by former GOP president's chief of staff and security advisors. So does this tell us ordinary people are not privy to inside information how very dangerous Trump is? He's already leaking sensitive security briefing. Have any of you supporters of him read that he contributed 10000's of dollars to the Clinton foundation and to her and Bill's campaigns? On video he says she is one of the best SOS ever and Bill Clinton was a great president. Never mind Trump's shady past businesses leaving creditors owed millions, never paying bills to his little workers,His fraudulent Trump university, his three marriages , two to immigrants, and the current Mrs .Trump posing naked in lesbian shoots. Nice first lady , huh? Remember how the right was upset over Michelle baring her toned armns in a sleeveless dress? Try many full frontal pictires of your new first lady.

Trump was pro-choice, loved PP, was for partial birth abortions, and he was FOR the war in Iraq despite what he said the other night. He blabbed so much over the years but there are tons of videos and audios around Donnie boy. His kids are no better. Lawsuits on the first three and little Donny JR tweeted yesterday that Clinton was wearing an earpiece on CIC forum. A LIE perpetrated by the crack pot Alex Jones. Pure lies and fabrications from an unhinged campaign. Desperation sucks big time. .

tibbrix, I have made no accusations beyond that which is public information provided by the media. I have had no part in the investigations into Hillary's actions. As an American citizen and a taxpayer, I believe I have the right to express my opinions. I have, in this case as always, been cordial and not made accusations or unkind comments directed to any other member of the KT. I have been a member here since 1998, and consider this to be my "home"...and the people here are my friends...so I am comfortable sharing my views (for what they are worth--which is probably nothing). I am sorry that you decided to turn a polite and informative discussion into a more hostile one.

For the record, I worked for Bill Clinton early in his presidency, so my opinions of him and his wife are based, in large part, on personal experiences with their governing style.

Hold it a second, Wanda. You came in here saying an email from Hillary Clinton caused the execution of another human being. For one thing, I am not sure how saying such a thing is not hostile. To me it is a very hostile accusation against another human being.

Second, again, that was not an opinion. You cannot say, I"t my opinion that an email caused a person to be executed. It either did or it didn't. Your working for Bill Clinton early on in his presidency would have no bearing on whether an email from Hillary Clinton caused another person to be executed.

As well, it is not hostile to correct the record, which is all I did, including providing evidence for you so that you would stand corrected. It IS in fact reckless and dangerous to repeat falsehoods, especially when they are meant to destroy another person, as that one was by whomever started it. It is, in fact, the responsible thing to do, and that is what I did.

What would be not hostile and responsible would have been for you to respond by saying, "I stand corrected", but instead your last comment suggests that, somehow because you had some connection to the Clinton Admin., you know she sent an email with his name and that it caused him to be executed, even though you say you are simply repeating what you heard in the media.

so again, I linked you to responsible media with the actual story. This matter was never a matter of opinion. It was a matter of fact, and you spread a terrible reckless, and slanderous story and accusation against another persons. I merely corrected it.

"olliesmom

tibbrix, is it false that Bill Clinton met with AG Loretta Lynch on the tarmac? And you think that was coincidental?"

No, and neither has denied doing so.

So bad analogy.

but the "HRC email caused a scientist to be executed IS false."

What people are likening the tarmac meeting to is the Bondi matter, but it is not the same. Show us where the Clintons donated 25,000 dollars to Lynch followed by a dropping of a case.

In addition, it was NOT Lynch's decision to make, whether to bring charges against HRC or not. It was Comey's, and Comey said no charges would be brought. Lynch had his decision before this meeting.

Whereas, it WAS Pam Bondi's decision to join the suit against Trump U. or not.

Bad analogy all the way around. It doesn't surprise me at all that a president had a conversation with a past close colleague.

This is not the Hot Topics Forum.

How about at least respecting the OP and their intent for this thread instead of degrading the discussion:

'First, I don't want this to be a hot topic nor a political debate. Just a question.

Does anyone know why Hillary used her own private email server (regarding all this email scandal)?

Were there alternatives she should have been using or was it never a big deal before now?

...

I will “not” entertain any political debate here or bashing of either presidential candidate, let’s reserve that for the real “hot topic” forum.'

This should continue over at HT. Believe me, there are enough threads going.

I changed my statement regarding the Iranian scientist, to make peace.

I'm not very political. I can't understand why this country couldn't find better candidates than the ones we have. For me it boils down to: do I want to vote for a crook, or a crook who is also an idiot.

Pick the smarter one. A no brainer.

Mare- I suggest looking at Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. There is no rule that states you must vote for one of the two major candidates.

If more people would be willing to actually vote for a third party candidate, we might be able to finally break away from this 2 party system and choosing "the less of two evils" which, by the way, is still evil.

There will always be a two party system. Always. Which parties might change, but the system we have promotes and protects the two party way

Gary Johnson bumbled a question yesterday which will make his campaign very difficult. It's throwing your vote away. Believe me I did it once and always regretted it.

Mare- I suggest looking at Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. There is no rule that states you must vote for one of the two major candidates.

IMO, this election is no time for a protest vote. A vote for Stein or Johnson is a vote for Trump.

The only votes thrown away are those not cast.

I sincerely believe that the people who argue against a third party are either committed to a candidate and are afraid that vote will equate to a vote for the opposition or they truly don't feel that change is possible and have consigned themselves to a "lesser evil" stand point.

Alisande- it is not a protest vote, it's a conscientious one and from everything the media and most others say, Hillary is basically guaranteed so why should my vote matter to you anyway? Isn't HRC at a 82% likelihood of being elected?

I won't be swayed by that and, moreover, it really isn't the point. I will NEVER and have never voted for someone as a means of voting against another and I'm not about to start now.

I agree with Alisande. Voting for the 3rd party may be great and fine for your conscience, but it's essentially a 'give away' vote, because not enough people are going to vote for them to get them into office. I don't like either Hillary or Trump, but I'm thinking about the Supreme Court justices they are going to put on the bench. Will those justices be people whose decisions I will agree with and respect? Trump or Hillary may only be president for 4 years, but their Supreme Court choices will last for years.

I agree that third party votes are a waste, especially in swing states. Texas, and California, where I am, luckily don't matter as much since they are so heavily Republican and Democrat, and it would be shocking to see that change. It's so frustrating when the votes are really close. But I also think people should be able to prove basic competency in the candidates and the political process to be able to vote, and that's not going to happen.

TX gem, those "arguing against" a third party may have a baccalaureate degree in political science. Now, I'm not saying that third party won't become a major party, but there will never be more than two major parties at one time. Shifts do happen. I don't care for either candidate, but no way I'd vote for someone who isn't a republican or democrat this go around. Even if I have to vote against rather than for a candidate.

What is Trump's admiration for Putin all about?

Trump's early campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was paid twelve million dollars to help re-elect Ukranian President Yanokovych -- in one of the most corrupt countries on earth. Notes attached to the payments to Manafort said his services were for"'sociology". Another was for a thirty thousand dollar project called "Rumors". The money was transferred in cash, illegal and untraceable. (See: The New Yorker magazine, Sept. 5, "Letter from Kiev: After the Revolutions".)

Nice company Trump keeps.

A vote for a third party ensures a Trump presidency. If that's what you want...The Libertarian guy didn't know 'what' Aleppo was. If you hate the two candidates, better to leave that part blank and vote down ballot.

Trump has very simplistic thinking. If you say nice things about him, he likes you. If you say not nice things about him, he attacks you. That's a narcissist for you. He thinks Putin called him brilliant, but in reality he meant Trump was colorful or flamboyant. It got lost in translation.

I agree that a vote for Johnson or Stein is a vote for Trump. We have more than 2 parties in theory only. The Aleppo gaff by Johnson was a death knell for him as far as I'm concerned. I don't think Trump wants to be POTUS. He wants to be a dictator like his pal Putin.

What is Trump's admiration for Putin all about?

Who knows for sure, but it probably has to do with his business involvements with russian oligarchs.

From WaPo:

There is strong evidence that Trump’s businesses have received significant funding from Russian investors. Most notably, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. made that very claim at a real estate conference in New York in 2008, saying “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” Donald Trump Jr. added, “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Trump also made millions when he agreed to bring the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow in 2013, a deal financed in part by the development company of a Russian billionaire Aras Agalarov. Agalarov is a Putin ally who is sometimes called the “Trump of Russia” because of his tendency to put his own name on his buildings. At the time, Trump mingled with the Russian business elite at a swanky after-party. “Almost all of the oligarchs were in the room,” Trump bragged on returning home.

As a sign of the importance of Russian investors, partners of one of Trump’s projects then under construction in Panama visited Moscow to sell condos at the building in 2006.

Trump also made significant money from one Russian oligarch in 2008, when he sold a mansion in Palm Beach for $95 million to Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev. Trump had bought the home at a bankruptcy auction less than four years earlier for $41.4 million.