Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama Used a Pseudonym in Emails with Clinton

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama Used a Pseudonym in Emails with Clinton

    Obama used a pseudonym in his email conversations with Clinton through her personal email server. Obama claimed he didn't know about Clinton's email server, which indicated he lied outright to us. If he knew about Clinton's email server and did not report it to the authorities, then he probably broke a bunch of federal laws.

    Why else would he use a pseudonym when emailing Clinton?

    So far, State Department has refused to release the contents of emails between Obama and Clinton, saying that the President invoked executive privilege. It's not an admission of guilt but clearly something is going on. Although in retrospect, it's not so surprising that two corrupt politicians would use a non-sanctioned means of communicating with each other to escape the prying eyes of those who want transparency in government.

    So much for the talk about being the most transparent administration.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...ils-fbi-228607
    In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.

    "Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says. "Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."

    The State Department has refused to make public that and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama. Lawyers have cited the "presidential communications privilege," a variation of executive privilege, in order to withhold the messages under the Freedom of Information Act.
    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

    "Aim small, miss small."

  • #2
    Instant, blanket, invocation of executive privilege almost always indicates something illegal or highly questionable, and politically damaging is going on with the President. Doesn't matter which one either... Nixon, Bush, Clinton, Obama... If they do this right off on something there's good dirt to be had.

    But, in this case, Obama doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. If he used a pseudonym then either he has to admit that he was doing that and that the pseudonym is, in fact, him or he can't claim executive privilege over e-mails between Clinton and someone other than the President...

    Comment


    • #3
      He was sneaky, she was shifty .

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post

        Why else would he use a pseudonym when emailing Clinton?

        So far, State Department has refused to release the contents of emails between Obama and Clinton, saying that the President invoked executive privilege. It's not an admission of guilt but clearly something is going on.
        http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...ils-fbi-228607


        The State Department has refused to make public that and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama. Lawyers have cited the "presidential communications privilege," a variation of executive privilege, in order to withhold the messages under the Freedom of Information Act.[/INDENT]
        Nope, not at all and not even almost.

        This kind of privilege exists for a reason and it wasn't invented by Obama. A President, this President and all Presidents and the senior executives of any state, need to a means to communicate with other high ranking staff on policy issues via a private means so that they can speak candidly and also develop ideas. Some ideas may be poorly thought out and poorly formed. Some of those half-back passing ideas may offend a particular constituency or a foreign allies.

        The Obama administration can and should resist disclosure. For the sake of argument just imagine in theory that Obama has done nothing illegal in his discussions with Hillary. Even then he has to know there is no amount of disclosure that would end the issue. In an election year and even more so if Hillary wins, there is no end, not even a theoretical end, to the demands to disclose more. The Republicans gain by simply making the demand. If it is refused they gain. If it is granted, there will no doubt but something that can be either used for simple embarrassment value or a reference to something that can be used to make more demands for disclosure.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
          Nope, not at all and not even almost.

          This kind of privilege exists for a reason and it wasn't invented by Obama. A President, this President and all Presidents and the senior executives of any state, need to a means to communicate with other high ranking staff on policy issues via a private means so that they can speak candidly and also develop ideas. Some ideas may be poorly thought out and poorly formed. Some of those half-back passing ideas may offend a particular constituency or a foreign allies.

          The Obama administration can and should resist disclosure. For the sake of argument just imagine in theory that Obama has done nothing illegal in his discussions with Hillary. Even then he has to know there is no amount of disclosure that would end the issue. In an election year and even more so if Hillary wins, there is no end, not even a theoretical end, to the demands to disclose more. The Republicans gain by simply making the demand. If it is refused they gain. If it is granted, there will no doubt but something that can be either used for simple embarrassment value or a reference to something that can be used to make more demands for disclosure.
          Abject nonsense.

          Executive privilege cannot be invoked to cover up criminal activity.

          The use of the private email for official business was illegal and the White House knew she was breaking the law...
          Abedin also told the FBI that Clinton’s team had to inform the White House that she was changing her email address so that the president could receive messages from her.

          http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...-with-clinton#

          Furthermore, it is unlawful for government officials to conceal their identities in official government communications.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            Abject nonsense.

            Executive privilege cannot be invoked to cover up criminal activity.

            The use of the private email for official business was illegal and the White House knew she was breaking the law...
            Abedin also told the FBI that Clinton’s team had to inform the White House that she was changing her email address so that the president could receive messages from her.

            http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...-with-clinton#

            Furthermore, it is unlawful for government officials to conceal their identities in official government communications.
            You surely most know that liberals are not subject to the same laws as deplorable. Their leaders are the intellectual elite that are far wiser than the outdated constitution or laws passed by ignorant conservatives.
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
              Nope, not at all and not even almost.

              This kind of privilege exists for a reason and it wasn't invented by Obama. A President, this President and all Presidents and the senior executives of any state, need to a means to communicate with other high ranking staff on policy issues via a private means so that they can speak candidly and also develop ideas. Some ideas may be poorly thought out and poorly formed. Some of those half-back passing ideas may offend a particular constituency or a foreign allies.

              The Obama administration can and should resist disclosure. For the sake of argument just imagine in theory that Obama has done nothing illegal in his discussions with Hillary. Even then he has to know there is no amount of disclosure that would end the issue. In an election year and even more so if Hillary wins, there is no end, not even a theoretical end, to the demands to disclose more. The Republicans gain by simply making the demand. If it is refused they gain. If it is granted, there will no doubt but something that can be either used for simple embarrassment value or a reference to something that can be used to make more demands for disclosure.
              The use of a pseudonym by the President creates a problem here. If the communication was between senior executives, there was no need for a pseudonym to be used when using official communications as all business / official White House communications must be saved for archive, including ones that are covered by executive privilege.
              Now, if the President was using a pseudonym the problem remains his proving that it was his pseudonym. If it was someone else making those communications, then they aren't covered and should be released. If Obama did indeed make them then he broke a half dozen + federal laws and regulations regarding White House communications between himself and a cabinet member.

              He can't have it both ways but is trying to. That indicates that the activity was at least questionable and possibly illegal.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                Nope, not at all and not even almost.

                This kind of privilege exists for a reason and it wasn't invented by Obama. A President, this President and all Presidents and the senior executives of any state, need to a means to communicate with other high ranking staff on policy issues via a private means so that they can speak candidly and also develop ideas. Some ideas may be poorly thought out and poorly formed. Some of those half-back passing ideas may offend a particular constituency or a foreign allies.

                The Obama administration can and should resist disclosure. For the sake of argument just imagine in theory that Obama has done nothing illegal in his discussions with Hillary. Even then he has to know there is no amount of disclosure that would end the issue. In an election year and even more so if Hillary wins, there is no end, not even a theoretical end, to the demands to disclose more. The Republicans gain by simply making the demand. If it is refused they gain. If it is granted, there will no doubt but something that can be either used for simple embarrassment value or a reference to something that can be used to make more demands for disclosure.
                I take it you've never heard of Watergate.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by phil74501 View Post
                  I take it you've never heard of Watergate.
                  I take it you remember that Nixon was forced to resign?
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    I take it you remember that Nixon was forced to resign?
                    Yes, I've heard that. Nixon also claimed executive privilege, as lynelhutz was proposing the Obama administration do, and we all know how well that went over in Watergate. Hence my comment.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      5 Reasons James Comey's FBI Investigation of Hillary is a Total Joke

                      Some EXCERPTS:
                      ...
                      When asked if it was a crime for Cheryl Mills to have these emails on her unauthorized system, Comey replied that until further information is obtained, he couldn't say it was criminal. However, section 793(e) of the Espionage Act states in part (emphasis added):

                      "Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation...willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

                      If the confidential material on Mills' laptop contained anything related to national defense--which is probable--that sounds like a crime.
                      ...
                      Section 1.3(d) of the Obama administration memorandum on classified material states:

                      "All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification...as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year."

                      Despite the heading of the email not containing a (C), there was one such marking in the body of the text, and according to The Hill, "a 'C' in parentheses in the body of an email is used to designate a specific paragraph as containing classified information."

                      As someone who was supposed to have received classification training "at least once a calendar year," one would think the former Secretary of State should have known better.
                      ...
                      Section 793(f) of the Espionage Act, under which Clinton was being scrutinized, states (emphasis added):

                      "Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

                      At the end of the FBI's investigation, Comey admitted that Clinton's conduct with regard to her private email server was "extremely careless," and that anyone in her position should have "known better," but added that it didn't constitute "gross negligence."
                      ...
                      Aside from Gowdy's rather succinct summation of events, we now know even more.

                      We know Cheryl Mills had classified material on her laptop; we know President Obama used a pseudonym when he emailed Clinton, thereby contradicting his previous claim that he was unaware of her unauthorized private system; and we know that Platte River Networks' Paul Combetta used BleachBit to delete Clinton's emails shortly after Cheryl Mills spoke with him over the phone--despite the issuing of a subpoena to retain the emails.

                      Yet, in the face of all the evidence, the FBI recommended against indictment. Some people are simply too big to jail, it seems.
                      ...
                      http://www.dailywire.com/news/9561/5...ign=position9#

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X