Hillary Clinton's emails

[kmoney]

lain: To elaborate:

Priceless.

 

[kmoney]

Could a Secretary of State even function without a private email server for "off the record" communications?

I understand our desire for transparency, but I don't see how anyone in that office could function under that sort of requirement. Maintaining effective relations with other world leaders would require that they be able to communicate freely, and us with them. I just don't think transparent communication is a reasonable expectation these days. And email is a fast and effective method of communication in a world that moves faster than private phone conversations will allow.

Doen't matter, though, now. Because it's become a "political football", and all sense of reason and proportion have immediately been jettisoned in favor of political bias.

So this issue was doomed to be mired in idiocy the instant it came to light.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that world leaders need a way to sometimes communicate off the record. Perhaps even through email at times. But it seems clear that Clinton didn't use this for off-the-record correspondence. It was general practice. A practice that the FBI has confirmed endangered classified information. And it's now also evident that Clinton's talking points on the issue were not accurate. Of course partisan politics is a factor in all this (previous SoSs did it too), but I think you're taking an overly casual view of it.

 

[Nick M]

I don't know about the laws involved but It seems that the only thing that can bring criminal charges is intent. Otherwise, how can Clinton be getting off?

She broke the law, and she intended to break the law. Not that intent matters. Ignorance is no excuse of the law is what a defendant is told by a judge when they claim they did not know.

Of course, she did know.

And it doesn't matter. I would not vote for her if this didn't happen. And you can show emails of her sending intel to ISIS so they know where to strike, liberals will still vote for her.

 

[Nick M]

lain: To elaborate:

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,

(1) 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

(2) 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.

Word for word from the FBI director "negligence".

 

[PureX]

I'm willing to entertain the idea that world leaders need a way to sometimes communicate off the record. Perhaps even through email at times. But it seems clear that Clinton didn't use this for off-the-record correspondence. It was general practice. A practice that the FBI has confirmed endangered classified information. And it's now also evident that Clinton's talking points on the issue were not accurate. Of course partisan politics is a factor in all this (previous SoSs did it too), but I think you're taking an overly casual view of it.

I just don't see any reasonable way to oversee correspondence for on/off the record content. What politician, ours or anyone else's, is going to want to be on the record until the agreements are mostly ironed out? And who's going to decide when and what content must occur on which server? I just don't see any way for this desire to record every inter-state conversation to work.

Also, until recently, all this recorded documentation was not even possible. And yet we somehow managed to survive as a nation, without it. So to be honest, I just don't think it's as important an issue as others seem to. And as to Clinton misrepresenting the situation, what do we expect? She is being assaulted by a political environment that will stoop to ANYTHING to drive her from office. Do you really think she's going to admit to bending the rules for the sake of effectiveness at her job? I sure wouldn't, if I were her. And neither would any of the republicans and their supporters that are accusing her of being dishonest.

It's another "tempest in a teapot" sponsored by the 'smear Hillary with anything you can find' campaign. And of course it distracts us all from the real problems and issues facing us as a nation, which NEITHER SIDE wants to even speak of.

 

[TomO]

It's another "tempest in a teapot" sponsored by the 'smear Hillary with anything you can find' campaign. And of course it distracts us all from the real problems and issues facing us as a nation, which NEITHER SIDE wants to even speak of.

ureX:

View attachment 24492


You're such a partisan hack it isn't even funny. I think your account is a sock-puppet for Debbie Wasserman Schultz. :chuckle:

Being, as you are, unworthy of any serious response; I hurl meme's at you! :IA:

View attachment 24493


:rotfl:

 

[jeffblue101]

FYI in 15 minutes congress will interview the FBI director on cspan

 

[gcthomas]

Word for word from the FBI director "negligence".

Are emails on her server actually documents that have been removed from its proper place of custody? Where do you suppose they she removed them from?

And gross negligence in the English law tradition is negligence plus foreseeable grave injury or harm. What do you propose as the foreseeable grave harm in this case?

 

[PureX]

You're such a partisan hack it isn't even funny. I think your account is a sock-puppet for Debbie Wasserman Schultz. :chuckle:

Being, as you are, unworthy of any serious response; I hurl meme's at you!

I am not a Hillary supporter.

And if you are a Trump supporter, you don't have even a molecule of integrity left from which to judge anyone else.

 

[TomO]

I am not a Hillary supporter.

Bull! lain: You're going to pull the lever for her surely as a yellow dog eats his own vomit. :chuckle:

And if you are a Trump supporter, you don't have even a molecule of integrity left from which to judge anyone else.

Never have been never will be (I grew up in Jersey, and pay attention to things.)...I know him too well....Right now I'm for Gary Johnson....Voted for him last election too. :juggle:

 

[PureX]

 

[jgarden]

1. The federal Freedom of Information Act (1966) applies only to executive agencies, including the State Department

2. The federal Freedom of Information Act doesn't extend to elected members of the House and Senate - so it is possible that Clinton is being judged by politicians who themselves are currently conducting government business, including classified material, on their own private accounts.

3. Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, Clinton’s predecessor, also used their own private email addresses while serving as Secretary of State.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/beyond-cl...on.html?ref=gs

 

[jgarden]

1. Clinton exercised a shocking lack of judgment concerning his private server and undoubtedly knew that using a private server violated the Information Act.

2. Clinton's actions can only be attributed to a sense of entitlement - that she was above the rules and was not obligated to lead by example.

3. Clinton, however, remains in good company, given that her Republican predecessors were also guilty of the same practices.

4. The fact that the GOP are in control of both the House and Senate, yet have failed to introduce accompanying legislation that would hold themselves to the same standard concerning private accounts, servers and classified materials while conducting government business, as they wish to hold Clinton, is totally hypocritical.

5. The fact that neither Rice nor Powell were subject to their own FBI investigations smacks of partisan politics.

 

[TomO]

Factcheck.Org A Guide to Clinton’s Emails

Was she allowed to use a private server?
No. As we wrote, the IG report said that it has been department policy since 2005 — four years before Clinton took office — that “normal day-to-day operations” be conducted on government servers. The report noted that the department’s Foreign Affairs Manual was updated in November 2005 to say “it is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized [automated information system].” The IG made a distinction between occasional use in emergencies and exclusive use of personal email. “Beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the Department revised the FAM and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not doing so,” the IG report said

Did other secretaries of state use personal emails for government business?
The IG report confirmed what we had previously written: Among Clinton’s predecessors, only Colin Powell (Jan. 20, 2001–Jan. 26, 2005) used a personal email account for government business. Madeleine Albright (Jan. 23, 1997–Jan. 20, 2001) did not use email at all, and Condoleezza Rice (Jan. 26, 2005–Jan. 20, 2009) did not use a personal email account to conduct government business, the IG report said. Clinton’s successor, Secretary of State John Kerry, told the inspector general’s office that he “infrequently” used a personal email account for government business “when responding to a sender who emailed him on his personal account.”
No other secretary of state maintained a private server that was used for government business.

Typical "Bushdidit" garbage.... :yawn:

If Rice and Powell broke the law then prosecute them too....The IG says no though. lain:

 

[jgarden]

Neither Rice nor Powell are running for president in 2016, and with the Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate, they are in a position to determine who will/will not be investigated.

Republicans know that they are headed for "political armageddon" in November - so they are desperately searching for an issue that has traction to level the playing field.

 

[patrick jane]

..Right now I'm for Gary Johnson....Voted for him last election too. :juggle:

May as well vote for Mickey Mouse

 

[CherubRam]

Hillary's political gossip is classified as government secrets. Perhaps, but hardly a big deal.

 

[Mark M]

Hillary's political gossip is classified as government secrets. Perhaps, but hardy a big deal.

Hardy?

Sent from my Coolpad 3320A using Tapatalk

 

[CherubRam]

Hardy?

Sent from my Coolpad 3320A using Tapatalk

Ooops! Hardly.