Clinton to hand over email server to FBI

[ivwshane]

You are confused about how the process works. Just because she deems something personal does not make it immune from FOIA requests. If that were the case, no information would EVER be released based on FOIA requests, every official would simply deem the information to be personal.

I don't think you understand how the process works (or more accurately, worked).

I'm applying the exact same standard I'd apply to any government official. The public has a right to know what their representatives do. The only way that can happen is if documents are retained and the government official can't simply delete any email they don't want to release.

Exactly! You are applying your standard. Who are you exactly? Did you send an email to clinton when she became SoS detailing your guidelines? No? Then exactly what guidelines should she have used?

 

[ivwshane]

Apparently Hillary disagrees with you. She apologized. Why would she apologize if there was nothing to apologize for? Or, are you saying she's saying anything she feels is needed to help her poll numbers regardless of truth? Which is it, was she lying about being sorry, or was she lying about having done nothing wrong?

She's a politician, politicians do what they think the voters want.

 

[Double Trouble]

Exactly! You are applying your standard. Who are you exactly? Did you send an email to clinton when she became SoS detailing your guidelines? No? Then exactly what guidelines should she have used?

I'm pretty familiar with FOIA requests , but that's not relevant. If I'm wrong, show me where and why.

Of course I'm applying my standard, just like every other voter does. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Hillary apologized for what she did. Was she lying when she apologized, or was she lying when she said there was nothing to apologize for?

 

[Double Trouble]

She's a politician, politicians do what they think the voters want.

So was she lying when she said there was nothing to apologize for, or when she apologized?

 

[werepossum]

Ah, more conspiracy theory, the DOJ is now apart of it!

As I've already explained, quoted, and bolded, had clinton used a government server nothing would have changed. She still would have had control over what was deemed government business and her emails marked personal would have been immune to FOI requests and she still would have been well within her right to delete those emails.

What's left is you now apply a standard to clinton that literally doesn't apply to anyone else. You've got nothing but character assassination left to use, the go to option for the right.

The DoJ is largely irrelevant here because Clinton made herself the sole arbiter of what anyone representing those people who paid her salary should be able to see. If you think- . . . Sorry, that was mean. If you feel that is proper behavior in government, then you are a good little subject happy to swallow whatever shit those in charge choose to feed you and thus, exactly the kind of tool your proggie masters prefer - a dull one.

 

[LegendKiller]

The DoJ is largely irrelevant here because Clinton made herself the sole arbiter of what anyone representing those people who paid her salary should be able to see. If you think- . . . Sorry, that was mean. If you feel that is proper behavior in government, then you are a good little subject happy to swallow whatever shit those in charge choose to feed you and thus, exactly the kind of tool your proggie masters prefer - a dull one.

This.

How can anybody decide whether any other email wasn't personal if nobody but her own team judged and then deleted? They cannot go back through, they cannot reexamine, they cannot release what has been deleted. It is gone, all at her whim.

That is the problem with this. She was judge, jury, and executioner. There was no 3rd party, or legal oversight. Just her and her kind.

We already know she lies. Emails she said were personal weren't. Emails that were sent via an unsecured email server were classified, at the time of origination, when she said they weren't.

So we should trust her now?


You libtards are a riot.

 

[Jhhnn]

Did the judge actually rule on anything? Looks to me like that's simply the justice departments position, which would be completely expected considering who they report to. Even if the judge were to accept that position, it just further underscores the impropriety of Hillary's use of a personal server, it doesn't vindicate her position in the least.

The public has a right to see government business communications, that's what FOIA requests are about. If you let the government official screen all communications first and delete those they find inconvenient to release, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the FOIA?

I think Hillary did the right thing by apologizing, but she should have done so from the beginning instead of waiting until polling numbers forced her hand. Now her apology smacks of self serving instead of sincerity.

Had to throw in a little innuendo in the second sentence, huh?

The DoJ defends a practice in place before Obama took office.

 

[Jhhnn]

The DoJ is largely irrelevant here because Clinton made herself the sole arbiter of what anyone representing those people who paid her salary should be able to see. If you think- . . . Sorry, that was mean. If you feel that is proper behavior in government, then you are a good little subject happy to swallow whatever shit those in charge choose to feed you and thus, exactly the kind of tool your proggie masters prefer - a dull one.

She and her predecessors already had that power whether they used govt, RNC or other private servers. According to the DoJ & likely the State Dept Kerry & his successors will also.

It's different for Righties when it's Hillary, of course, because Hillary.

 

[Jhhnn]

This.

How can anybody decide whether any other email wasn't personal if nobody but her own team judged and then deleted? They cannot go back through, they cannot reexamine, they cannot release what has been deleted. It is gone, all at her whim.

That is the problem with this. She was judge, jury, and executioner. There was no 3rd party, or legal oversight. Just her and her kind.

We already know she lies. Emails she said were personal weren't. Emails that were sent via an unsecured email server were classified, at the time of origination, when she said they weren't.

So we should trust her now?


You libtards are a riot.

How many conclusions can you leap to in order to maintain conspiracy theory?

 

[MongGrel]

This.

How can anybody decide whether any other email wasn't personal if nobody but her own team judged and then deleted? They cannot go back through, they cannot reexamine, they cannot release what has been deleted. It is gone, all at her whim.

That is the problem with this. She was judge, jury, and executioner. There was no 3rd party, or legal oversight. Just her and her kind.

We already know she lies. Emails she said were personal weren't. Emails that were sent via an unsecured email server were classified, at the time of origination, when she said they weren't.

So we should trust her now?


You libtards are a riot.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm pretty familiar with FOIA requests , but that's not relevant. If I'm wrong, show me where and why.

I already have. You can search through my prior posts here in this thread as well as read the posts that talk about what the former policy was and what it is now. I'm not going to do the work again for people who didn't bother to read it the first time (that's a general statement and not specifically directed at you)

Of course I'm applying my standard, just like every other voter does. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

You don't understand why your standards are irrelevant to Clinton's actions or the policy she's required to follow? I'm at a loss on that one!

Hillary apologized for what she did. Was she lying when she apologized, or was she lying when she said there was nothing to apologize for?

Lying? Who knows, maybe. What exactly did she apologize for? Using a private server? Exactly what would have changed if she hadn't used a private server?

 

[ivwshane]

The DoJ is largely irrelevant here because Clinton made herself the sole arbiter of what anyone representing those people who paid her salary should be able to see. If you think- . . . Sorry, that was mean. If you feel that is proper behavior in government, then you are a good little subject happy to swallow whatever shit those in charge choose to feed you and thus, exactly the kind of tool your proggie masters prefer - a dull one.

Hmm...let's see, ad hominem, straw man, ad hominem sandwich!

First off what I feel is irrelevant. This benghazi investigation isn't about what people feel is wrong (though that seems to be what people like you think), it's about whether or not policy or the law was broken. So far, not only have you offered up nothing showing how she broke the law or violated policy but neither has anyone involved in the investigation. Clinton is either the criminal mastermind of the century or repubs are the dumbest bunch of people to ever hold a seat in congress. There is a third option of course and that this is an investigation for the sole purpose to damage a political opponent. Nah, it's never the easiest most simplest answer. /s

 

[werepossum]

Hmm...let's see, ad hominem, straw man, ad hominem sandwich!

First off what I feel is irrelevant. This benghazi investigation isn't about what people feel is wrong (though that seems to be what people like you think), it's about whether or not policy or the law was broken. So far, not only have you offered up nothing showing how she broke the law or violated policy but neither has anyone involved in the investigation. Clinton is either the criminal mastermind of the century or repubs are the dumbest bunch of people to ever hold a seat in congress. There is a third option of course and that this is an investigation for the sole purpose to damage a political opponent. Nah, it's never the easiest most simplest answer. /s

We both know there is literally nothing she can do that you won't support. Hey, I understand; some people long for the security of the boot on their necks, following around the authoritarians with nooses about their necks and pennies in their hands to buy their way into thrall. Others prefer checks and balances, having developed an ability and a liking for standing on their hind legs.

 

[ivwshane]

We both know there is literally nothing she can do that you won't support. Hey, I understand; some people long for the security of the boot on their necks, following around the authoritarians with nooses about their necks and pennies in their hands to buy their way into thrall. Others prefer checks and balances, having developed an ability and a liking for standing on their hind legs.

I guess you can't address the issue and instead resort to a red herring.

As I've already explained previously, my thoughts on what is right or wrong or what the policy should be is irrelevant to the benghazi investigation of which this "email scandal" falls under. Is there a reason you seem incapable of removing yourself from the facts and reality of the investigation? Can you name an actual policy or law she violated without bringing in what you think she did wrong? No? Why do you think that is?

 

[dank69]

We both know there is literally nothing she can do that you won't support. Hey, I understand; some people long for the security of the boot on their necks, following around the authoritarians with nooses about their necks and pennies in their hands to buy their way into thrall. Others prefer checks and balances, having developed an ability and a liking for standing on their hind legs.

You are a pathetic hack.

 

[LegendKiller]

You are a pathetic hack.

Gotta love it.

The DoJ says there is no "evidence" of official emails being deleted, but they have no evidence that it is true, or false. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS FUCKING DELETED!!!

yet liberals are doing a victory lap.


And you call somebody else a hack?

 

[ivwshane]

Gotta love it.

The DoJ says there is no "evidence" of official emails being deleted, but they have no evidence that it is true, or false. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS FUCKING DELETED!!!

yet liberals are doing a victory lap.


And you call somebody else a hack?

The DOJ said nothing about evidence being deleted, they said Clinton was within her right to delete emails she deemed personal.

I'm just curious as to at what point you will deem this "scandal" as being over?

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love it.

The DoJ says there is no "evidence" of official emails being deleted, but they have no evidence that it is true, or false. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS FUCKING DELETED!!!

yet liberals are doing a victory lap.


And you call somebody else a hack?

So, lack of evidence is now evidence?

Only in Glenbeckstan.

 

[Jhhnn]

The DOJ said nothing about evidence being deleted, they said Clinton was within her right to delete emails she deemed personal.

I'm just curious as to at what point you will deem this "scandal" as being over?

Never. It's now integrated into the Birther/Benghazi mindfuck.

 

[ivwshane]

Oh oh! What will republicans have left if these deleted emails turn up nothing?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c8ce52-58c6-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html

“Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped,” company spokesman Andy Boian told The Washington Post. “All the information we have is that the server wasn’t wiped.”

 

[OutHouse]

So was she lying when she said there was nothing to apologize for, or when she apologized?

She lied no question about it.

 

[nageov3t]

Oh oh! What will republicans have left if these deleted emails turn up nothing?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c8ce52-58c6-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html

that strikes me as odd, just speaking as a former web hosting company worker.

why wouldn't it be wiped unless it was still in-use? when a client cancelled (or stopped paying), we'd leave their servers powered off in the rack for a couple days, pull them if no issues were reported, and then save the hard drives for like maybe a month before either wiping them and putting them in a bin for re-use or making them for destruction (once/year we'd rent a giant industrial shredder to physically destroy hard drives and then sell it as scrap)

 

[ivwshane]

that strikes me as odd, just speaking as a former web hosting company worker.

why wouldn't it be wiped unless it was still in-use? when a client cancelled (or stopped paying), we'd leave their servers powered off in the rack for a couple days, pull them if no issues were reported, and then save the hard drives for like maybe a month before either wiping them and putting them in a bin for re-use or making them for destruction (once/year we'd rent a giant industrial shredder to physically destroy hard drives and then sell it as scrap)

My understanding is that it was still in use. The issue seems to be that neither clinton or her lawyer know anything about IT and have misused IT terms.

 

[LegendKiller]

So, lack of evidence is now evidence?

Only in Glenbeckstan.

No, the lack of evidence shows the potential for a cover up.

 

[LegendKiller]

The DOJ said nothing about evidence being deleted, they said Clinton was within her right to delete emails she deemed personal.

I'm just curious as to at what point you will deem this "scandal" as being over?

Sure. It is within everybody's right. But then how do we know it was only personal ones she deleted? Had she been on the state dept. email system we would have backups and they could be discoverable and searched for key terms. We can't do that noe, can we?

She is also still answerable to compromising security.