• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bill Clinton met with AG Loretta Lynch privately in Phoenix

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
See the announcement by Paul Ryan after the FBI released NO CHARGES?

Ryan statement: "while I respect the FBI, this decision is ridiculous."

For those that need translation for what Ryan meant, Ryan actually meant:
WHILE I RESPECT THE FBI, THEY DROPPED THE BALL.
SO....... NOW MY REPUBLICAN CONGRESS WILL CONDUCT OUR OWN INVESTIGATION.
WE WILL HAVE THE LAST WORD CONCERNING CHARGES OR NO CHARGES.
NATURALLY, WE WILL FIND CHARGES.
Hillary's ridiculous decision to move all her official correspondence to her own private server away from Freedom Of Information Requests bears absolutely no resemblance to my side's noble decision to occasionally move our official correspondence to our own private server away from Freedom Of Information Requests because . . . um . . . Benghazi.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,330
3,867
126
how can the republicans win the whitehouse without throwing Hillary in prison? They will need to find a way to throw every democrat nominee in prison from here on out because all the terror babies are able to vote now.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
82
91
if this was half the conspiracy people are making it out to be, wouldn't they have just used random aides that aren't on the media's radar rather than having a high-profile meeting with dozens of reporters nearby?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
270
136
Ahem:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

He didn't say she didn't break the law. He said there is evidence that she may have broken the law, but we're not going to recommend prosecution. The stupid and incompetent defense has prevailed. (Well, that and the impracticality of prosecuting all the other elites who do the same thing on a lesser scale.)
Indeed, you can parse it that way all you like, and I won't deny it's technically true but will again tell you that if you believe the regulatory state to be overly complex and filled with red tape, then you must admit (but won't) that handling classified material in gov't (especially the State Department) is such an integral part of the job that literally everyone directly involved in foreign affairs correspondence at State would be technically guilty of mishandling classified information if the standard is simply that they transmitted classified information marked as such at any point, even once, accidentally or on purpose. It's not difficult to envision this being done constantly, sort of like that guy who always hits Reply All instead of just Reply. Such an offense naturally shouldn't land you in jail.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
270
136
Hillary's ridiculous decision to move all her official correspondence to her own private server away from Freedom Of Information Requests bears absolutely no resemblance to my side's noble decision to occasionally move our official correspondence to our own private server away from Freedom Of Information Requests because . . . um . . . Benghazi.
How can HRC avoid FOIA on emails sent to state.gov email addresses?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Indeed, you can parse it that way all you like, and I won't deny it's technically true but will again tell you that if you believe the regulatory state to be overly complex and filled with red tape, then you must admit (but won't) that handling classified material in gov't (especially the State Department) is such an integral part of the job that literally everyone directly involved in foreign affairs correspondence at State would be technically guilty of mishandling classified information if the standard is simply that they transmitted classified information marked as such at any point, even once, accidentally or on purpose. It's not difficult to envision this being done constantly, sort of like that guy who always hits Reply All instead of just Reply. Such an offense naturally shouldn't land you in jail.
Which is presumably why the government system requires that you enter a security classification for each message sent. That removes the stupidity excuse (i.e. "I just hit 'Reply All'".) Except of course among those qualified to be President.

How can HRC avoid FOIA on emails sent to state.gov email addresses?
Perhaps you missed the discussions here on how State returned "no such documents exist" responses to FOIA requests on HRC emails over Benghazi. If so, please seek them out and find a competent person to explain them to you.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
270
136
Which is presumably why the government system requires that you enter a security classification for each message sent. That removes the stupidity excuse (i.e. "I just hit 'Reply All'".) Except of course among those qualified to be President.
No, it doesn't, given you could just as easily misidentify something as classified or not the same exactly way you would hit Reply All instead of Reply. Literally exactly the same thing.


Perhaps you missed the discussions here on how State returned "no such documents exist" responses to FOIA requests on HRC emails over Benghazi. If so, please seek them out and find a competent person to explain them to you.
You're confused and misinformed; even without Clinton's email production being produced (which she offered up and she definitely should have), FOIA requests have in fact been successful by Judicial Watch via other State Department employees who used state.gov emails, which contained the vast majority of HRC's email correspondence. Look it up if you're still confused.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
No, it doesn't, given you could just as easily misidentify something as classified or not the same exactly way you would hit Reply All instead of Reply. Literally exactly the same thing.

You're confused and misinformed; even without Clinton's email production being produced (which she offered up and she definitely should have), FOIA requests have in fact been successful by Judicial Watch via other State Department employees who used state.gov emails, which contained the vast majority of HRC's email correspondence. Look it up if you're still confused.
Yes, because the Blumenthal hack proved that State was lying. Therefore State was forced to use a brute force approach and comb everybody's emails. They have produced a few, but are dragging their feet and won't be through until way after the election.

Interestingly, the Obama administration used private email as a defense for Lisa Jackson running the EPA and John Holdren, his science adviser. He just today lost at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, when a three-judge panel ruled that using a private email server for official business does not exempt them from the FOIA. Most transparent administration ever?
https://cei.org/content/white-house-loses-fight-over-science-advisers-emails

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/75450CA390CB52C985257FE7005038BD/$file/15-5128-1622973.pdf

Appellant contends
that the district court improperly ruled that documents which
might otherwise be government records for FOIA purposes need
not be searched for or turned over to the requestor because the
head of the defendant agency maintained the putative records on
a private email account in his name at a site other than the
government email site which the agency had searched. Because
we agree with plaintiff-appellant that an agency cannot shield its
records from search or disclosure under FOIA by the expedient
of storing them in a private email account controlled by the
agency head, we reverse the dismissal and remand the case for
further proceedings.
If one is searching for a legacy for the Obama administration, perhaps this is it.
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,440
6
81
How can HRC avoid FOIA on emails sent to state.gov email addresses?
The Secretary of State doesn't only perform official correspondence with State staff or other government workers. Although you'd think that usually someone with a government e-mail would be copied.
 

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2003
9,811
109
106
FOIA requests have in fact been successful by Judicial Watch via other State Department employees who used state.gov emails, which contained the vast majority of HRC's email correspondence. Look it up if you're still confused.

The vast majority of the time, she didn't commit treason.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
270
136
Yes, because the Blumenthal hack proved that State was lying. Therefore State was forced to use a brute force approach and comb everybody's emails. They have produced a few, but are dragging their feet and won't be through until way after the election.
The Blumenthal hack showed no such thing, Alex Jones.

Interestingly, the Obama administration used private email as a defense for Lisa Jackson running the EPA and John Holdren, his science adviser. He just today lost at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, when a three-judge panel ruled that using a private email server for official business does not exempt them from the FOIA. Most transparent administration ever?
https://cei.org/content/white-house-loses-fight-over-science-advisers-emails

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/75450CA390CB52C985257FE7005038BD/$file/15-5128-1622973.pdf



If one is searching for a legacy for the Obama administration, perhaps this is it.
Based on my own sense of good gov't, they probably shouldn't be exempt from FOIA, they don't appear to be as of this (appealable) ruling and yet somehow you still conspiratorialize. Btw, plenty of good reason not to want to respond to a conservative-driven attempt to reveal EPA head's correspondence, not at all surprising Obama admin wouldn't be responsive to climate deniers honestly.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
270
136
The Secretary of State doesn't only perform official correspondence with State staff or other government workers. Although you'd think that usually someone with a government e-mail would be copied.
Indeed, and AFAIK those non state.gov correspondence were produced in lawsuits, as they should have been. As an attorney who worked for a law firm for years and was a victim of the "vast right-wing conspiracy", Hillary Clinton certainly would be well aware she'd eventually be embroiled in FOIA suit(s) when she set up the private server. Given how private she appears to be, it wouldn't surprise me if she wanted maximum control over what information leaked or didn't leak, particularly the personal matters.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,335
706
126
I personally can sleep a bit better now. Likewise I probably won't be sent to Sing Sing for not changing my AT password for 904 days.

It would be a good day to be at home watching the commentators on Faux going mock apeshit over this.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
The Blumenthal hack showed no such thing, Alex Jones.

Based on my own sense of good gov't, they probably shouldn't be exempt from FOIA, they don't appear to be as of this (appealable) ruling and yet somehow you still conspiratorialize. Btw, plenty of good reason not to want to respond to a conservative-driven attempt to reveal EPA head's correspondence, not at all surprising Obama admin wouldn't be responsive to climate deniers honestly.
Conspiratorialize? We now have THREE department heads within the Obama administration whose official email was conducted in such a way as to make it inaccessible to FOIA requests, not to mention the IRS' and Bryan Pagliano's which merely disappeared. Seems like more than a coincidence to me.

Interesting that your "sense of good gov't" is in favor of transparency but against it applying to Democrats.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
270
136
Conspiratorialize? We now have THREE department heads within the Obama administration whose official email was conducted in such a way as to make it inaccessible to FOIA requests, not to mention the IRS' and Bryan Pagliano's which merely disappeared. Seems like more than a coincidence to me.

Interesting that your "sense of good gov't" is in favor of transparency but against it applying to Democrats.
There are not enough facepalms.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,336
343
126
So President Clinton sexxed up Loretta Lynch then sent some hookers and blow to the director of the FBI...

Well played Mr. President... well played.


__________
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
82
91
Indeed, and AFAIK those non state.gov correspondence were produced in lawsuits, as they should have been. As an attorney who worked for a law firm for years and was a victim of the "vast right-wing conspiracy", Hillary Clinton certainly would be well aware she'd eventually be embroiled in FOIA suit(s) when she set up the private server. Given how private she appears to be, it wouldn't surprise me if she wanted maximum control over what information leaked or didn't leak, particularly the personal matters.
Why didn't she just use a personal account for personal stuff? Why mix them all up in one email account?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
57,970
10,360
126
It's amusing how the ravers only got a week's worth of conspiracy theorizing out of Bill's faux pas in Phoenix. What Bill & Loretta said to each other never mattered at all.

I mean, they had such high hopes that they had the answer, somehow, some way until Comey cut 'em off at the knees.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY