• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Will the Hillary Email Scandal Blow Over?

The gist is that Powell used private emails for government work. Clinton did likewise. That seems to be missing the point that Clinton wasn't even supposed to use a private email to begin with.

And of course, all of that misses the point that his is just another witch hunt by the Republicans.

There is a difference between having a private email and running a server from your house. I have a private e mail. I do not run a server from my house.
What is the difference? That you know the external security of the server is sound if localized at home?

I know Clinton Apologists have only one play in the playbook, but this really seems to be a stretch.
Who are Clinton apologists here? I know you can't read so I have no idea where you'd get the idea I was or wasn't a Clinton apologist.
 
There is a difference between having a private email and running a server from your house. I have a private e mail. I do not run a server from my house.
What is the difference? That you know the external security of the server is sound if localized at home?

I can't delete all traces of emails of my yahoo mail account.

I know Clinton Apologists have only one play in the playbook, but this really seems to be a stretch.
Who are Clinton apologists here? I know you can't read so I have no idea where you'd get the idea I was or wasn't a Clinton apologist.

Oooh, slick burn. I can't read. Nice.

+3 Hillary defense points for you on that one.
 
What is the difference? That you know the external security of the server is sound if localized at home?

I can't delete all traces of emails of my yahoo mail account.
Are you suggesting you'd be saying 'Hey, at least Clinton used a Yahoo email account and not a private server'?

I know Clinton Apologists have only one play in the playbook, but this really seems to be a stretch.
Who are Clinton apologists here? I know you can't read so I have no idea where you'd get the idea I was or wasn't a Clinton apologist.
Oooh, slick burn. I can't read. Nice.

+3 Hillary defense points for you on that one.
Yeah, that is cute, make an insult and then take umbrage over having an insult placed towards you.
 
I can't delete all traces of emails of my yahoo mail account.
Are you suggesting you'd be saying 'Hey, at least Clinton used a Yahoo email account and not a private server'?

I know Clinton Apologists have only one play in the playbook, but this really seems to be a stretch.
Who are Clinton apologists here? I know you can't read so I have no idea where you'd get the idea I was or wasn't a Clinton apologist.
Oooh, slick burn. I can't read. Nice.

+3 Hillary defense points for you on that one.
Yeah, that is cute, make an insult and then take umbrage over having an insult placed towards you.

I didn't take umbrage, I awarded you +3 Hillary Defense points!

You are the pride of the Hillary Auxiliary.
 
Are you suggesting you'd be saying 'Hey, at least Clinton used a Yahoo email account and not a private server'?

I know Clinton Apologists have only one play in the playbook, but this really seems to be a stretch.
Who are Clinton apologists here? I know you can't read so I have no idea where you'd get the idea I was or wasn't a Clinton apologist.
Oooh, slick burn. I can't read. Nice.

+3 Hillary defense points for you on that one.
Yeah, that is cute, make an insult and then take umbrage over having an insult placed towards you.

I didn't take umbrage, I awarded you +3 Hillary Defense points!

You are the pride of the Hillary Auxiliary.
*sigh*
 
You are shifting goalposts. You asked if it was done by others. It was shown that it was. Whether what Clinton did was right is a different story.

Apologies, it you think I was attacking. I appreciate the info on GWB.

And that has been my point is why (as if we all don't know) is this suddenly an issue?
 
Apologies, it you think I was attacking. I appreciate the info on GWB.

And that has been my point is why (as if we all don't know) is this suddenly an issue?

It first came up in March 2013 when a Romanian hacker (who is now in jail) got into Sidney Blumenthal's email and started circulating screen captures of Hillary's emails. He had gotten into a lot of famous peoples emails - I don't think he was part of the "vast right wing conspiracy". It died off. What brought it back was the Inspector General of the intelligence community saying the email contained "Top Secret" info.

MSNBC thinks it's a legitimate issue, they have been talking about it all day. I haven't been watching FOX. They are saying that over 300 emails have been found that may contain classified stuff. Is Bob Woodward part of the frothing right conspiracy machine? He is talking about it on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/legal-jeopardy-in-clinton-email-server-case--506598979543
 
It was common for high ranking government officials to set up a server in their home and register a domain name for email? Do you have a source?
It was common practice. link
Sorry folks, not true.

The Counsels for the defense (Jimmy, NS, and Ravensky) are, like their notorious client, far too pleased with inventing dodges, excuses, and red herring arguments, rather than giving sustained attention to facts. So once more, lets review:

The issue has never been over anyone having a private email account. Nor has it been over official business occasionally done over a private email account. Nor is it an issue of someone having their own server for personal business. And there has not been an issue over practices and events before 2007 - before the federal rules, applicable State Department policy, and the laws were developed and implemented.

The issues, ethical and legal, are over Hillary Clinton's intentional actions and her motives during her tenure as Secretary of State. As previously demonstrated, the federal code effective October of 2009 is more than sufficient to demonstrate that Hillary Clinton intentionally and substantially violated the law, and is, therefore, subject to criminal prosecution. Here are the key federal codes on that date:

44 US Code Section 3101 - During her employment, she had a general duty to make and preserve records on the policies, decisions, and transactions of the agency, and to make sure records retention furnished the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

Moreover, §1236.20 specifically defined the appropriate agency recordkeeping system for electronic records. It designated that record-keeping can be electronic stored on a DoD-5015.2 STD-certified product, one that must provide the capture of records, the ability to import records from other sources, and the ability to manually enter records into the system, or link records to other systems.

The system must also maintain records security. It must prevent the unauthorized access, modification, or deletion of declared records, and ensure that appropriate audit trails are in place to track use of the records, and preserve records as long as needed to conduct agency business and to meet NARA-approved (national records act) dispositions. "Agencies must develop procedures to enable the migration of records and their associated metadata to new storage media or formats in order to avoid loss due to media decay or technology obsolescence."
...

§1236.22 requires that agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.

It also also explicitly says that agencies must not use an electronic mail system to store the recordkeeping copy of electronic mail messages identified as Federal records unless that system has all of the features specified in §1236.20(b) of this part.

And §1236.24 requires agencies ensure that the records are filed in a recordkeeping system that meets the requirements in §1236.10.

Yet during her employment she intentionally ignored her general duties of record-keeping. (Section 3101). As agency head she
intentionally refused to follow the numerous requirements for an appropriate and certified recordkeeping system for state department records that she generated (and received).

Instead she used her own unvetted 'home-brewed' system as the exclusive keeper of all of her State Department email records. (see Section 1236.20).

And as head of the agency she ignored the additional legal and procedural requirements for managing her e-mail records, in particular by not preserving the record in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.(see 1236.22 (b)).

She did so in order to conceal ALL her electronic federal records on a home system, and for her to exclusively retain the option to remove or destroy records at will, during AND after her employment.

Having ignored or violated the above provisions, be reminded that under 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Therefore:

During her tenure, and for two years afterward, Hillary Clinton willfully and unlawfully concealed, and attempted to conceal, her State Department records by intentionally using her exclusive and private email server for all her official email business, routing her government records through her private email server, and not complying with contemporaneous record-keeping law. She intentionally did not follow procedure to provide copies of private emails to the State Department while she was head of the agency (and had to be subpoenaed before she admitted her concealment.).

Ms. Clinton's concealment and conspiracy to conceal State Department records requires her arrest and trial. Upon conviction she should spend not less than 1 year in prison, and barred from future office.

Sad but necessary.

PS All this was true in March, before recent revelations. Since then, it has become clear that some of her department email records are missing and were concealed, and that she sent and/or house classified material.

One or two additional years at Leavenworth might be warranted.
 
The Counsel's for the defense - Jimmy, NS, and Ravensky - are, like their notorious client, are far too pleased with inventing dodges, excuses, and red herring arguments, in order to avoid sustained attention to the facts. So once more, lets review:

Read this thread thread over. I'm not defending Hillary at all. I took a bet that it will blow over. Big difference.
 
It was common practice. link
Sorry folks, not true.

The Counsels for the defense (Jimmy, NS, and Ravensky) are, like their notorious client, far too pleased with inventing dodges, excuses, and red herring arguments, rather than giving sustained attention to facts. So once more, lets review:
Interesting. Once again, our 'Gave Obama a fair shake' Maxparrish seems to have failed in reading comprehension.

Does any of this excuse what Clinton did? Not really. There was a policy, she didn't follow it. She may have broken rules, regulations, even laws. However the fiery posturing of the Republicans seems a tad bit hypocritical.
It seems a number of right-wingers can't understand shit about sentences. Maybe they need to go back to elementary school to learn about language. Where exactly have I defended Clinton using a private server? I noted in this thread she wasn't supposed to and noted that despite the massive failure within the W Admin to follow proper protocols or that private email has been used in the past by others, that none of that excused what Clinton did. But some right-wingers seem so blinded by their partisan dumbery, that they can't even handle reading a few posts in the context they were written.
 
The Counsels for the defense (Jimmy, NS, and Ravensky) are, like their notorious client, far too pleased with inventing dodges, excuses, and red herring arguments, rather than giving sustained attention to facts. So once more, lets review:

Defense? Strange. I just believe this is politically motivated hooey. If she did break the law it will come out, but I am pretty sure that someone who has lived their life under a microscope is pretty good at plausible deniability. For over 20 years her political opponents have been scrutinizing her every move. She will survive this. The election is over year away and the electorate will tire of the investigations. They might even turn sympathetic to her plight.

Ahh NS=NobleSavage. Carry on.
 
The Counsel's for the defense - Jimmy, NS, and Ravensky - are, like their notorious client, are far too pleased with inventing dodges, excuses, and red herring arguments, in order to avoid sustained attention to the facts. So once more, lets review:

Read this thread thread over. I'm not defending Hillary at all. I took a bet that it will blow over. Big difference.

NS is Nice Squirrel. Sorry for the misimpression.
 
It does take a special kind of fool to defend Hillary Clinton.

The woman who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

Bernie voted against authorization.
 
Sorry folks, not true.

The Counsels for the defense (Jimmy, NS, and Ravensky) are, like their notorious client, far too pleased with inventing dodges, excuses, and red herring arguments, rather than giving sustained attention to facts. So once more, lets review:
Interesting. Once again, our 'Gave Obama a fair shake' Maxparrish seems to have failed in reading comprehension.

Does any of this excuse what Clinton did? Not really. There was a policy, she didn't follow it. She may have broken rules, regulations, even laws. However the fiery posturing of the Republicans seems a tad bit hypocritical.
It seems a number of right-wingers can't understand shit about sentences. Maybe they need to go back to elementary school to learn about language. Where exactly have I defended Clinton using a private server? ...

Apparently my comprehension is sufficient to see more flimsy "dodging, excuses, and red herrings". You've made the minimizing argument that the controversy "is nothing more than a Republican witch hunt" and that Clinton has not done anything that Republicans have not already done (a red herring and false comparison).

Telling the jury that your client is only guilty of what everyone else has done, and that he/she are being subjected to a witch-hunt is a well worn court-room tactic.
 
Hey everyone - let's keep the pissing match out of this thread. Please! Let's just post developments as they happen or if they happen and analyze them.
 
Interesting. Once again, our 'Gave Obama a fair shake' Maxparrish seems to have failed in reading comprehension.

Does any of this excuse what Clinton did? Not really. There was a policy, she didn't follow it. She may have broken rules, regulations, even laws. However the fiery posturing of the Republicans seems a tad bit hypocritical.
It seems a number of right-wingers can't understand shit about sentences. Maybe they need to go back to elementary school to learn about language. Where exactly have I defended Clinton using a private server? ...

Apparently my comprehension is sufficient to see more flimsy "dodging, excuses, and red herrings". You've made the minimizing argument that the controversy "is nothing more than a Republican witch hunt" and that Clinton has not done anything that Republicans have not already done (a red herring and false comparison).
Once again, failure to bother to stop and think about what you might or might not have read. It is a witch hunt. They are looking for something, anything, it is a fishing expedition. When the Police want a warrant, they have a bar they need to get over regarding the legitimacy of the search. What the Republicans are doing is trolling in the hopes of finding who the fuck knows what. It can't be about Benghazi because there have already been a bunch of findings on that. So they are just hoping and hoping to find something good.

That doesn't mitigate that Clinton was wrong in what she did. And whatever rules, regulations, laws she may have broken would need to be addressed. I'm sorry you can't understand how two sides can be wrong in a confrontation.

Telling the jury that your client is only guilty of what everyone else has done, and that he/she are being subjected to a witch-hunt is a well worn court-room tactic.
Except I'm not defending Clinton. Just addressing weak-ass attacks being made by the Republicans who apparently only now seem to care about the email servers... though they felt quite differently between 2001 and 2008.
 
Except I'm not defending Clinton. Just addressing weak-ass attacks being made by the Republicans who apparently only now seem to care about the email servers... though they felt quite differently between 2001 and 2008.

When you say "Republicans" are you referring to the FBI and the Inspector General of Intelligence Services?
 
... It is a witch hunt. They are looking for something, anything, it is a fishing expedition. When the Police want a warrant, they have a bar they need to get over regarding the legitimacy of the search. What the Republicans are doing is trolling in the hopes of finding who the fuck knows what. It can't be about Benghazi because there have already been a bunch of findings on that. So they are just hoping and hoping to find something good.

That doesn't mitigate that Clinton was wrong in what she did. And whatever rules, regulations, laws she may have broken would need to be addressed. I'm sorry you can't understand how two sides can be wrong in a confrontation.... Just addressing weak-ass attacks being made by the Republicans who apparently only now seem to care about the email servers... though they felt quite differently between 2001 and 2008.

First, there is no 'fishing expedition' in this scandal. The email scandal is real, and should not be confused with the Benghazi investigation. On March 2, 2015 the New York Times broke the story that "Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record."

Second, no one else had done "the same thing". Under prior departmental rules and laws, the Bush administration did something quite different - they created personal email accounts on GOP servers so as to NOT CONDUCT departmental business on the same server as political business. Unlike Hillary Clinton, they DID their government work on government controlled servers with government email accounts. Doing so (wisely in my view) helped comply with the law (the Hatch Act).

No one ran 100 percent of their official business through a personal email account NOR put all their federal records on a personal server in order to conceal or destroy it at will. Nor did others violate the rules and laws of the time in order to do so. (AND in fact, the rules and law changes made in 2007 and after were done in order to REMOVE ambiguity and/or unaddressed email and records issues).

Last, in 2009 Clinton had no excuse. The new requirements (partly in response to the Bush-GOP email dustup) were clear. Yet, not only did she ignore it, as is now apparent she ran hundreds of classified memos containing classified information through her own unvetted system.

Or are we to believe that the NYTimes and Washington Post are a part of the "Republican Witch Hunt"?
 
Back
Top Bottom