Are women in politics expected to maintain higher standards?

The regs about email changed during Condi Rice's term.

 

The leftist's/feminist's are the one's who think as strongly as you describe. Come on now! Why would a very strong and confident female succumb to that "pitty me/victim's life" mentality. It only holds back that person's own "God given" potential. Your way of thinking simply keeps the supposed "Glass ceiling" alive and well.

 

In other words, the crime she committed was BEING IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME.

 

the previous Republican SOS did the same thing... is he in jail

 

Without offenders there would be no victims. Egocentric perpetrators do not consider that OTHERS have ethical rights, also.

 

You are not looking at this email situation through the eyes of anything but a Clinton protagonist.

You go into it BELIEVING Hillary Clinton and her weak explanations, which are just word-parsing excuses meant to create plausible deniability and that are only believed by her lap-dogs who believe everything she says.

In order to fully understand this, you really should closely read what Comey said in July, and then read MY clear explanation of why he made the wrong decision:

Comey's words:

"Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received.

These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail.

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."


Now here's the real deal in my words from my experience:

I have worked a few Special Access Programs (SAPs) in my career because I have very specialized skills that allowed me to be selected, after INTENSE scrutiny, to be granted access to information that is of a scope SO HIGH that you cannot even fathom the gravity of the damage that would occur if such information were to be released.

SAP information is SO HIGHLY CLASSIFIED that even the name of the actual program is classified at such a high level that members of Congress on an investigative committee CANNOT GET ACCESS!

SAP information is the very ultimate example of NEED TO KNOW ACCESS ONLY!

That information does NOT just innocently happen to find its way onto an unclassified information system.

That kind of information has to be INTENTIONALLY AND ILLEGALLY revealed by someone ON THE PROGRAM...disseminated INTENTIONALLY AND ILLEGALLY to someone associated with Hillary Clinton...then it has to be INTENTIONALLY AND ILLEGALLY transmitted after being modified to attempt to conceal its seriously-high classification.

Someone took that information, re-typed it onto their unclassified email system, and sent it - ILLEGALLY - to Hillary Clinton's private email address on her UNSECURED and UNAUTHORIZED home server.

He actions would have been more secure had she sent them on Gmail!

Your contention is that since Director Comey said that he recommends no further action because he didn't find any obvious INTENT to violate the law that she's been fully cleared, right?

WRONG! Flat-out wrong!

In cases like this, INTENT OF DISCLOSURE IS NOT REQUIRED!

The very fact that it is on her system in the first place is a felony - definitely a prosecutable offense!

That's a plain and simple fact that ANY experienced, honest, and reputable attorney can attest to, regardless of Comey's statement that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges ..."

I'm not making these things up! I actually lived this life!

You have to consider that, unlike the Justice Department, which is FULL of political appointees who are subject to political influence from "above", the FBI has only ONE political appointee - THE DIRECTOR - in this case, that's James Comey!

If you think for one second that he wasn't "influenced" by higher-ups in announcing that decision in July, you are looking at this, as I said, through the eyes of a Clinton protagonist who doesn't want to see her prosecuted.

I know you don't want to believe me...so check into what the DOZENS of actual FBI Field Agents who worked this case have to say about Director Comey's decision.

To a person, they are absolutely LIVID!!! They know this situation has all the earmarks of a VERY prosecutable and winnable case!

...and Director Comey knows it as well. He has his reasons for his recommendation - but they do NOT represent the real ground truth.

Again - regardless of how anyone feels about this - whether they love Clinton or hate her - she did what she did for a reason.

The State Department’s policy, as of 2005, is that all day-to-day operations are to be conducted on the official State Department information channel, which Secretary Clinton NEVER used.

If she chose to use a private account, she was obligated to discuss her email setup with several internal offices and demonstrate that it was properly secure, yet she did not.

State Department information security officers told the State Department Inspector General that they never would have allowed the private email server setup - had she asked.

Secretary Clinton did NOT ensure that her work-related emails were preserved on the State Department system in real time, nor did she surrender them immediately when she left office.

State Department policy states that, if a private email account is used, it will NOT be used as the SOLE means of conducting State Department business.

State Department policy further states that in the event that private email accounts are used, all such correspondences MUST be also sent (courtesy copied) to the individual's official (.gov) account in order to properly document those OFFICIAL RECORDS in the event those records are needed to satisfy Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests, subpoenaed for official investigations, or required for any routine audits of official records.

Furthermore, as with ALL government agencies, all correspondence conducted in the course of official government business cannot be maintained solely by the individual. All such correspondences are PROPERTY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and maintaining them outside of official channels makes those official records subject to complete destruction at the individual's own discretion.

The fact that other individuals may have copies of those OFFICIAL RECORDS in their official Department email systems does NOT satisfy the requirements for maintaining those records in the official systems. They are considered SEPARATE RECORDS, and must, therefore, be requested via separate requests, which may delay investigations requiring official requests or subpoenas.

Here's the key underlying factor: Secretary Clinton's violations made her virtually impervious to FOIA requests, official investigations, and audits of records of her official emails while in office and beyond.

She even went so far as to order the deletion of thousands of emails after receiving a subpoena to turn them over.

Again - a crime: concealing and destroying evidence to elude justice. Very clear!

She knew exactly what she was doing. She has a very long and practiced history of expertly covering her butt.

And so she did!

For now.

 

He has been their inspiration.

 

Well they certainly have MORE standards. They get criticized on age earlier and women are the only politicians where you might see something in a political article about their looks. Kinda stupid if you ask me.

 

None of those women ran for President as a Democrat.

There IS a glass ceiling

- - - Updated - - -

Again...Colin Powell

 

She lied...a lot....and she wouldn't protect the 2nd Amendment....that's what happened.

There are many women qualified to be president, but Hilliary wasn't one of them.

 

Hillary was not held to a higher standard as a woman. She had 26 years of baggage and acquired enemies to account for. She is brash and projects herself as a know it all. She listened to all the pundits who said that Trump could not be elected and instead of campaigning on her agenda, she ran an anti Donald campaign. She is a liar and a sneak and refuses to be held accountable for her missteps. She ran an campaign as if it was her turn to pitch. I still voted for her because her social policies were more in line with mine.

 

Just because Hillary wants to claim to be the victim of sexism doesn't make it true. She lost because she sucks, not because she pees sitting down.

 

Oh geez.....playing the woman card even in defeat! Hillary lost, get over it.

 

Really?
I wonder why we're one of the few 1st world nations that have never had a female President then...

Surely there have been competent women out there. I wonder why we never elect them.....

 

Racism. That is why Hillary lost. At least that was the talking point for the last couple weeks. The white woman was the victim of racism.

 

In other words, they are commonly viewed as superficial beings not to be taken seriously. . . . MY POINT, EXACTLY. Gender bias does not pertain exclusively to those who don't like women, but also to those who don't believe in their ability to compete favorably with men.

 

But, how does Donald Trump fit into this picture?

 

He won. #GetOverIt

 

I SINCERELY wish Trump well in his role as President, and I urge ALL Americans to keep an open mind for the sake of our country. (This does not mean I feel comfortable with it.)

While I admit the wording to obviously be partisan oriented, this thread was intended to be a treatise in how much gender bias fits into the final decisions of primarily non-committed voters.

 

. . . . Ask Fact-Check. . . . Trump lied MUCH more than Clinton.

Does protecting the Second Amendment require the allowance for known criminals and terrorists to have access to deadly weapons, or provide ANYONE with the means to commit mass-murder?

 

Sexism is old hat and not much relevant anymore. Of course democrats still use it to scare up a few votes from time to time. If they were not too lazy to come up with actual policies they would not need such silly tactics.

 

Except it sounds like you wanted to elect a woman for the sole reason that she is a woman. Qualifications don't matter to you. Hillary is a crook and women rejected her. She has zero accomplishments and a horrible track record as SoS. Boggles the mind why we didn't vote for this mean vindictive witch.

 

And yours don't? Try a mirror once in a while. You are what you accuse others of being. that's part of your problem.

 

Why are you claiming the rejection of Crooked Hillary is a rejection of all women?

 

My biases are less superficial and won't show up in a mirror.