• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former State Dept. watchdog debunks central Clinton email claim

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,611
Reaction score
28,473
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Former State Dept. watchdog debunks central Clinton email claim | Fox News

EXCLUSIVE: The State Department’s former top watchdog, in an interview with Fox News, rejected Hillary Clinton’s repeated claims that her personal email use was in line with her predecessors’ – while saying he would have immediately opened an investigation if he caught wind of a secretary of state using such an account.
Howard Krongard, a George W. Bush administration appointee who served as the State Department inspector general from April 2005 to January 2008, cited his own experience in challenging Clinton’s insistence that her practices were nothing out of the ordinary.
“Certainly to my knowledge at least, Secretary [Condoleezza] Rice did not have a personal server. I certainly never either sent an email to one or received an email from one,” said Krongard, who served during Rice’s tenure.
Further, he said, “I would have been stunned had I been asked to send an email to her at a personal server, private address. I would have declined to do so on security grounds and if she had sent one to me, I probably would have started an investigation.”

Looks like that excuse about everybody doing it, it out the window.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,387
Reaction score
21,364
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I do not like Clinton's excuses anymore than the next guy, but all we are talking about is one former State Department Inspector General's opinion on when to start an investigation.

What matters most here is what the present administration does, and despite report after report on FoxNews we still do not have an indictment.
 

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,611
Reaction score
28,473
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I do not like Clinton's excuses anymore than the next guy, but all we are talking about is one former State Department Inspector General's opinion on when to start an investigation.

What matters most here is what the present administration does, and despite report after report on FoxNews we still do not have an indictment.

Then stop making excuses for her, how about that? What the administration does will be purely political and have zero to do with the law and justice. You sound just like a hardcore Clinton supporter when you talk about indictment being the sole metric. She exposed classified data whether she's indicted or not. Everybody knows this, including the hackers, of which no one knows how many there were. Her server was unsecure and amateurishly managed; not to mention it wasn't a government server. Not one American citizen should be voting for her.
 

Lovebug

Let go and let God
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
23,202
Reaction score
9,725
Location
south
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Former State Dept. watchdog debunks central Clinton email claim | Fox News



Looks like that excuse about everybody doing it, it out the window.

Ok look, Hillary is pointing fingers. Like that is something new, right?
Here is the thing though. She wants us to believe that she has all the answers, is so much better than the rest, knows more, can do more.
So why was she just as mediocre her predecessors? The minute she was briefed, she should have sought to do a better job, being better informed.
Here is my guess though. The position of SoS was beneath her. She had aimed to be POTUS, and she was being temporarily pacified. She occupied the position for 4 years, nothing more. She didn't care enough. It shows.
Remember, Hillary knows best. It is what she tells us, has been telling us. She now wants the highest position in the land.
Pointing fingers just emphasizes her own inadequacy. She is a lousy wife, stood by her husband to further her own ambitions. She covered up his evil deeds to further her own ambitions. She became Senator because people felt sorry for her. She became SoS because they had to pacify her. She is now running for Prez because she thinks she deserves it.
If Sanders is asked to step aside, people will have to vote for her because she is a Democrat and because a clown is running against her. Voting for her because of her accomplishment? No. Be honest.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,387
Reaction score
21,364
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Then stop making excuses for her, how about that? What the administration does will be purely political and have zero to do with the law and justice. You sound just like a hardcore Clinton supporter when you talk about indictment being the sole metric. She exposed classified data whether she's indicted or not. Everybody knows this, including the hackers, of which no one knows how many there were. Her server was unsecure and amateurishly managed; not to mention it wasn't a government server. Not one American citizen should be voting for her.

Calm down, I am not making excuses for her nor am I a supporter of her campaign.

You "conservatives" need to huddle up or something, we have active threads right now suggesting "71% of Dems Say Clinton Should Keep Running Even If Indicted." All I am really doing is pointing out that it will take an indictment to deal with at least some percentage of her current support.

As for the rest of your hysterics, the group moved by that most is already not voting for her.
 

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,611
Reaction score
28,473
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Calm down, I am not making excuses for her nor am I a supporter of her campaign.

You "conservatives" need to huddle up or something, we have active threads right now suggesting "71% of Dems Say Clinton Should Keep Running Even If Indicted." All I am really doing is pointing out that it will take an indictment to deal with at least some percentage of her current support.

As for the rest of your hysterics, the group moved by that most is already not voting for her.

There's nothing hysterical about the exposure of classified data, so maybe you need to calm down. If you think we need to huddle up, then either you're not voting (thus voting for Clinton) or your voting for Clinton. So I guess you need to decide how you will vote for Clinton. Sanders is not going to be the nominee.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,387
Reaction score
21,364
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There's nothing hysterical about the exposure of classified data, so maybe you need to calm down. If you think we need to huddle up, then either you're not voting (thus voting for Clinton) or your voting for Clinton. So I guess you need to decide how you will vote for Clinton. Sanders is not going to be the nominee.

Or... I might be going 3rd party.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,387
Reaction score
21,364
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Modern Whig FTW!!!!

Perhaps. But in the end I do not like Hillary or Trump, and consider this nation in real trouble under either one as President.
 

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not that it matters much, but the person who wrote that piece - The former IG - was a fraud


Inspector General Will Leave State Department

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 8, 2007


"Howard J. Krongard, the State Department's embattled inspector general, announced yesterday that he is stepping down next month, ending a turbulent tenure in which he came under fire from employees and lawmakers and was accused of impeding key Iraq-related investigations.

...Kongard, who took the inspector general's job in 2005 after serving as counsel to several accounting and law firms, ran afoul of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in recent months over his stewardship of key investigations.
...
Current and former department officials have charged that Krongard blocked them from pursuing allegations of contract fraud and mismanagement in the construction of the $736 million U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, as well as alleged arms smuggling by Blackwater Worldwide, which has a State Department contract to protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq. "

Some of us remember the shenanigans he pulled as IG.
 

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
23,720
Reaction score
20,735
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Perhaps. But in the end I do not like Hillary or Trump, and consider this nation in real trouble under either one as President.

I'm with you there. Fortunately the president doesn't have as much power as a lot of people think.
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,357
Reaction score
8,099
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm with you there. Fortunately the president doesn't have as much power as a lot of people think.

Choosing Supreme Court justices, yes they do.

That is the only reason I would vote for Trump. The ONLY reason. Can't stand him, but I shudder at the filth Hillary would choose. (Although I think she'll be stepping down as these findings continue to escalate.)
 

Texmex

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
5,189
Reaction score
1,932
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Choosing Supreme Court justices, yes they do.

This is an important task the new president will have to deal with. This is one reason I am a democrat. I prefer liberal judges over conservative ones.
 

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
23,720
Reaction score
20,735
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Choosing Supreme Court justices, yes they do.

That is the only reason I would vote for Trump. The ONLY reason. Can't stand him, but I shudder at the filth Hillary would choose. (Although I think she'll be stepping down as these findings continue to escalate.)

They're both democrats so what's it matter?
 

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,611
Reaction score
28,473
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I'm with you there. Fortunately the president doesn't have as much power as a lot of people think.

We got Obamacare didn't we?
 

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
23,720
Reaction score
20,735
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We got Obamacare didn't we?

A lot of people come across as believing that the president has all encompassing powers and that's just not so. Often for a president to get his agenda into gear requires a lot of negotiating. We saw that when Obama had everything (super majority and all) he still didn't get all he wanted.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not that it matters much, but the person who wrote that piece - The former IG - was a fraud


Inspector General Will Leave State Department

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 8, 2007


"Howard J. Krongard, the State Department's embattled inspector general, announced yesterday that he is stepping down next month, ending a turbulent tenure in which he came under fire from employees and lawmakers and was accused of impeding key Iraq-related investigations.

...Kongard, who took the inspector general's job in 2005 after serving as counsel to several accounting and law firms, ran afoul of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in recent months over his stewardship of key investigations.
...
Current and former department officials have charged that Krongard blocked them from pursuing allegations of contract fraud and mismanagement in the construction of the $736 million U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, as well as alleged arms smuggling by Blackwater Worldwide, which has a State Department contract to protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq. "

Some of us remember the shenanigans he pulled as IG.

And if he is related to the other famous US Government Krongards, he is likely a crook like them. Bush, Dulles and Krongard are some pretty sleazy names in US politics, even though airports and Navy ships are named after them.
 
Top Bottom