Hilary Clinton emails - Explain please

[hollyisalovelyname]

I have no idea what the Hilary Clinton emails 'scandal' is all about.
Could wiser Mumsnetters please explain it to me.
Thank you.

I don't think there's such thing as "free riders" here.

How else would you characterise nations contributing less than NATO guidelines?

There's a reason they were accepted in NATO and they serve a strategic purpose to the US.
I think Obama was essentially saying that that strategic purpose was dwindling and they'll have to start "earning" their membership.

"Ex-British Army chief Lord Richards endorses DONALD TRUMP for the White House and claims he could make the world a 'safer' place

Richards was Chief of the Defence Staff from 2010 to 2013 under Cameron
He said the 'biggest threats' to security were from terror groups like ISIS
Richards praised Trump's 'instinct' to work with leaders such as Putin "

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3902066/Ex-British-Army-chief-Lord-Richards-endorses-DONALD-TRUMP-White-House-claims-make-world-safer-place.html

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3902066/Ex-British-Army-chief-Lord-Richards-endorses-DONALD-TRUMP-White-House-claims-make-world-safer-place.html#ixzz4P49Ilv6h
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This seems appropriate.

Playing Russian roulette (also appropriate ) with two bullets.

"Ultimately any alliance will be dominated by the US, and will serve only the interests of the US"
Yes, which is why the suggestion that the US has been forced by NATO to act against it's own wishes is a little far fetched

That's not what I said. I don't think anyone has said that.

Many countries value their alliance with America. Britain is probably one of the most obvious
Britain will do whatever it takes to maintain the alliance with the US, especially post Brexit in a world where Britain has absolutely no relevance or other ties. British politicians (and media) have already demonstrated their willingness to follow pretty much blindly wherever America leads (Iraq for instance). It won't matter if Trump gets elected. The toadying up will continue regardless.

If American doesn't want somebody who can talk in sentences as president, really, what is the point of having a president?
America has already had a president who couldn't talk coherently enough to make his way out of a paper bag. He got elected the first time on a technicality but won the second time.

Just because someone comes across as pretty dumb doesn't mean they are not electable. I realise the last president who came across as really dumb was, to put it mildly, not everyone's cup of tea.

However, plenty of presidents who were coherent or even considered eloquent were disasters (imo) - Ronald Reagan did immense damage, and Richard Nixon was a crook, just to name a couple. I'm sure there were others, but probably from the time when the US was irrelevant in terms of geopolitics.

That's not what I said. I don't think anyone has said that.

"I don’t want to be taken advantage of … We’re protecting countries that most of the people in this room have never even heard of and we end up in world war three … Give me a break."

Donald Trump to the people of Scranton.

"We're not going to be ripped off anymore by all of these countries"

Donald Trump to the New York Times.

I suspect you do have a better grasp of foreign policy than Donald Trump Math, but you are not running for president.

Truth be told, if Bernie, Michelle Obama or Bloomberg stood up today and said they were running they would win hands down. HC is not fit for office and she should be questioned for her behaviour as SoS. Trump isn't fit for office for obvious reasons, namely his bombastic approach to everything but I do think we have less risk of WW3 with him compared to HC.

If I did half of what HC has done I would be fired immediately from my job and would probably lose my CPA license. My life would be over and I would be lucky to earn enough to keep a roof over my head. Why HC thinks she should be standing for election is beyond me. I am really having a hard time getting behind her. She has bought this election and I do not like that. Trump on the other hand is an idiot.

I also do not like HC choice of VP. Kane is not fit for that position and there is a chance he will be President if HC is elected. The FBI wouldn't have gone public about these emails a week before the election unless they were very bad.

I agree Want

And if she had any respect for the position, she would've stepped down by now. But, as Julian Assange says, she's a woman eaten by her ambitions.

I would've infinitely preferred to see Bernie (who should've won the primary), Michelle Obama or Bloomberg in her position.

So how about this?

Let's hope this puts Trump to bed once and for all.

BTW both Colin Powell and George W Bush were known to use non-approved email servers. But of course it was OK for them because they were male, and Republicans.

Pointy, right, because everyone loves Bush.

You don't use a private email server to send around 60,000 emails because you have nothing to hide. Use common sense.

She's been exonerated

Hope it's the end of Trump

Agree with xeno and pointy

Pluto so explain why it was OK for Colin Powell and Dubya? Did they have stuff to hide then? Sauce for the goose. They all did it, but the FBI only went after Clinton. Answers on a postcard, please.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/trump-s-companies-destroyed-emails-a7397046.html

As Trump has never held political office or indeed had much to do with anything at a high level, he hasn't had the opportunity to destroy or misuse privileged information - yet.

This is Trump:

The only hope would be that he could somehow be kept away from any device connected to the internet or 3G.

I would've infinitely preferred to see Bernie (who should've won the primary), Michelle Obama or Bloomberg in her position.

None of them are on the ballot paper. They would like people to vote for Clinton.

pointy HC hasn't been exonerated through. The big difference between other politicians who used a private server and HC is that they kept track of all emails while HC didn't. Personally I wouldn't vote for Colin Powell or Bush for using a private server. If their IT system wasn't working they should have forced change through so they have the infrastructure needed to do their job.

The FBI release goes beyond the server issue. There is also a few issues with the way the Clinton foundation runs. You can't compare the Clinton foundation to the Trump foundation. Trump has about $600k a year to spend while the Clinton foundation is running around $80-120 million a year. As SoS she should not have accepted any donations from foreign governments. It just isn't appropriate.

In my world, I am not allowed to own any shares in companies who have their financial reports signed from my office. It doesn't matter that I don't know anyone on that team or that I don't have access to any information. Lawmakers, HC being one of them, have not allowed people such as myself to behave in ways they engage in. I am fed up of the hypocrisy. Accepting a donation from a foreign government while SoS should be a sackable offense. I have a feeling that is what the FBI are investigating.

When the democrats start talking about Trump buying a portrait of himself and Tim Tebows football through his charity and that being fraudulent I am laughing because it pails in comparison to what records show the Clinton foundations of doing.

And merry

I agree with merry

merry My point is that HC is not a palatable choice. The democrats should have this in the bag but they don't because they were bought by HC. Bernie, MO and Bloomberg are all telling everyone to vote for HC because they are democrats. They are hardly going to tell people to vote for Trump.

Quite frankly Bernie had a good following and if it were between Trump and Bernie I would not have spent the last few months labouring over who I should vote for. I thought about voting for fringe candidates but really that is the cowards way out. Not voting is also not an option for me.

Trump is bad but HC is evil. This isn't a woman vs man thing either. If a man had done half of what HC has done they would have been toast a long time ago. Weiner ran for mayor of NYC and that went nowhere because of his inappropriate behaviour. He hasn't worked since and Huma will be paying alimony for a long long time.

Tony Schwartz, ghostwriter of 'the art of the deal'

“I simply didn’t think that much about it until he decided to run for president and it became clear that this wasn’t going to just fade away, that he was actually in a position to win the nomination. That’s when I thought, ‘Oh my God, I’ve contributed to creating the public image of the man who is sociopathic and people don’t realise it.’”

In the UK the prime minister will not condemn a newspaper that questioned a judges integrity because he is 'openly gay'. The government won't distance themselves from the policies of Farage and his nasty fan club. Farage and Trump are on the same team.

You clearly have reasons to dislike Hillary, want2b but she hasn't threatened to ban Muslims from entering the US and she doesn't have to address black people from the safety of a convention centre full of white people. She doesn't have the head of Breitbart media as her campaign CEO.

I would hesitate to call anybody evil, however I think the only thing you can say about Trump is that so far his opportunities to cause harm have been limited by the scale of his power.

Merry, the issue with HC is that she does not see clear lines between herself and her office at all. There are resemblances to Nixon there that are terribly troubling. I am really bothered by the same issues that are keeping Want2bSupermum up at night.

I would've infinitely preferred to see Bernie (who should've won the primary), Michelle Obama or Bloomberg in her position.
And I agree with you Pluto.

I have friends who are seriously thinking of writing in Bernie Sanders.

"I don’t want to be taken advantage of … We’re protecting countries that most of the people in this room have never even heard of and we end up in world war three … Give me a break." ...
... "We're not going to be ripped off anymore by all of these countries"
Trump is complaining about dollars being spent on NATO defence of countries, not America being led into war, which hasn't yet happened, or forced into positions that America doesn't want to be in, which hasn't happened either.
This is the same grudge he has against international trade agreements, i.e., America is being ripped off. The sentiment has appeal whether applied to unfavourable trade agreements or American workers' taxes paying for the defence of states that are not relevant at all to the interests of the US taxpayer.

Merry I get that you support HC. I don't support her but I also don't support Trump. I am like many people in this election who are really stuck about who to vote for because neither candidate are qualified for the role.

HC is as close to evil as Trump is. Paying black people to attend Trump events and cause trouble is inciting racism. Given her history in the south it is one of the reasons I am having a hard time voting for her. Why not hire white people to cause trouble at Trump events? It was clear she was aiming at making Trump out to be racist when in fact, he has been far more supporting of black communities than HC is.

Math, to quote Trump again:

"and we end up in world war three … Give me a break"

American workers' taxes paying for the defence of states that are not relevant at all to the interests of the US taxpayer.

If America is paying to defend people who aren't relevant to it's interests, it is being forced to do something against it's wishes - or is the argument that America has forgotten that it is paying, like some long forgotten Direct Debit?

(As an aside, I'm not sure of the relevance of 'tax payers' - as in other countries, it is pretty much impossible to enter America without paying tax. Everyone who pays an American sales tax pays American tax, many people and companies pay tax in the US without having the right to vote, many people pay comparatively little tax but do have the right to vote. However, this kind of rhetoric is hardly unique among politicians.)

It seems that the major charge against Hillary Clinton is that she will bring America into conflict with Russia and 'start World War 3' because of her support for a no-fly zone. She is not the first or only person to support a no-fly zone and the idea of a no-fly zone has been very popular amongst the public. MPs on both sides of parliament have recently called for a No Fly Zone. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-mp-pays-tribute-to-friend-jo-cox-during-emergency-syria-debate-a7356256.html It is obvious why - people want to protect the Syrians caught in the conflict.

However, now the weight of military opinion seems to be that a no-fly zone simply wouldn't work, and would just prolong the suffering and that there is nothing that can be done about Syria except let the current conflict run it's course. I think Clinton listens to advice more than Trump. Maybe you don't.

That would not be the end though. Assad is a dictator who has used chemical weapons against his own people. Terrorists don't all live in handy bunkers in the middle east with signs saying 'terrorist'. Trump has not shown himself capable of considered comment that distinguishes between muslims and terrorists. Many Syrians are now dispersed all over the world. Does the international community send them back? When?

America will continue to come into conflict with Russia and other countries and there will never be an easy, obvious answer. It isn't rational to assume that somebody who can be provoked into rants about a beauty queen
can handle international affairs. Trump may have been completely set up by Clinton, but he took the bait. As president of the United States, many people would be very eager to set him up.

Clinton foundation is still being investigated. I'm sorry we drove you off rufus

Paying black people to attend Trump events and cause trouble is inciting racism

Assuming people were paid to go to Trump events to cause trouble (and even assuming that this is true, it is ridiculous to assume that there weren't plenty of people who were and are very willing to protest against Trump), Clinton did not pay Trump to say this:

to say nothing of his comments about 'second amendment people'.

he has been far more supporting of black communities than HC is.

It seems rather a shame then that he hasn't been able to communicate this to black communities. Do you think that they might be put off by the way he retweets white supremacists?

he has been far more supporting of black communities

Has he? How?

I don't think black communities have appreciated how he has referred to them, in terms of ghettos and he's for the infamous stop and search.

Paying black people to attend Trump events and cause trouble is inciting racism.

Inciting racism? Can you explain that logic?

Trump immediately assumed a black supporter at a rally was a protester and called for him to be kicked out.