2016 Postmortem

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)

18. She did spearhead a new aggressive war that destroyed a nation.

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:25 PM

Apr 2016

And ran an independent communications platform for her team of admin insiders and outsiders while doing so. That's the "e-mail" scandal, why she was maintaining her own comm channels, not whether the servers met the level of security required to satisfy national security paranoids.

I wish I lived in a country where it was seen that way.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No Mr. President-she did not "intentionally" put America in danger... [View all] catnhatnh Apr 2016 OP

President Obama is partially responsible for what happened as well. Maedhros Apr 2016 #1

Hillary completely snookered him yourpaljoey Apr 2016 #6

Exactly right. Obama seems to have thought Hillary didn't need supervision. BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #10

I know you are referring to Truman's comment that the buck stops here karynnj Apr 2016 #15

I agree. I don't think Obama knew. Fawke Em Apr 2016 #17

umm.. but Obama said she did not intentionally put national security in danger riversedge Apr 2016 #2

And I agreed with him catnhatnh Apr 2016 #5

Than why have the beginning "No, .....??? riversedge Apr 2016 #9

That's agreeing with the President "No she didn't intentionally put the American people in danger" Fumesucker Apr 2016 #21

The Whole thing hangs on that word "intentionally" 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #24

Carelssness isn't. It was actually admitted beedle Apr 2016 #33

I cannot argue with your analysis one whit. Well said. n/t 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #34

Also re:intent... She appears to have *intended* to circumvent freedom of information applicability JudyM Apr 2016 #36

One lawyer speaking about another lawyer. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2016 #32

Obama with some tricky wordsmithing... Avalux Apr 2016 #3

Technically, in this case, carelessness is a crime. kristopher Apr 2016 #12

Yup... Fawke Em Apr 2016 #20

I saw it the first time, and it was neither lost, stolen, removed from where it was originally sent Hoyt Apr 2016 #26

Do you have statute that she violated to make it criminal act? Or are you just spinning BS for BS? Hoyt Apr 2016 #4

It is discussed on several threads catnhatnh Apr 2016 #8

That is not a violation of any statute. "Careless" maybe. You don't think Sanders would have done Hoyt Apr 2016 #11

careless .... interesting word Hiraeth Apr 2016 #19

"Careless" is not a violation of the law. And, since no one has proof of any detrimental action, I Hoyt Apr 2016 #28

Was not my word. Interesting. Hiraeth Apr 2016 #29

See my Post at No. 20. Fawke Em Apr 2016 #22

See my post at 26, which was meant to be posted here but I got "careless." Hoyt Apr 2016 #27

Interesting Hiraeth Apr 2016 #30

Just because she didn't INTENTIONALLY SheilaT Apr 2016 #7

Not to mention Blumenthal MichMan Apr 2016 #13

and of course there is the public corruption side investigation magical thyme Apr 2016 #14

She would have had her server generate white noise, but that's just for protecting donors. Scuba Apr 2016 #16

She did spearhead a new aggressive war that destroyed a nation. JackRiddler Apr 2016 #18

Her carelessness with national security certainly azmom Apr 2016 #23

Obama just washed his hands so there would be no blood on them awake Apr 2016 #25

Did he just throw her under the bus? Hiraeth Apr 2016 #31

Not completely he just said that he would not stop the driver from running her over awake Apr 2016 #35

Lol Hiraeth Apr 2016 #37