Clinton to hand over email server to FBI

[TheSlamma]

A brief from the DoJ ooutlines the govt's position-



http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/09/24/politico-acknowledges-doj-confirmation-that-cli/205777

FBI involvement stems from this-

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/u...il-inquiry-weighs-if-aides-erred-at-send.html

Notice the nit picky back biting gyrations by security pinheads.

Which isn't about what was or wasn't deleted or about private vs govt server but about the fact that aides transferred information later deemed to be classified as normal email rather than thru more secure channels. That's why they're looking over the whole shebang.

Hillary erred in only using one server, no doubt, but that's purely political rather than practical in any real world sense.

So lets say that a Republican Senator puts up a private email in his house and begins doing a mix of personal and work related emails on that server.

Now he starts doing questionable things (remember we made this person republican so it is likely 😉 )

At that point how would a watchdog group or citizen go about doing a discovery on his emails to try to get to the bottom of those questionable activities?

 

[Moonbeam]

So lets say that a Republican Senator puts up a private email in his house and begins doing a mix of personal and work related emails on that server.

Now he starts doing questionable things (remember we made this person republican so it is likely 😉 )

At that point how would a watchdog group or citizen go about doing a discovery on his emails to try to get to the bottom of those questionable activities?

So that's why the endless investigation of Mrs. Clinton. She has questionable practices because she's a Democrat. Thank you for that peek into your soul, as it were.

 

[TheSlamma]

So that's why the endless investigation of Mrs. Clinton. She has questionable practices because she's a Democrat. Thank you for that peek into your soul, as it were.

Moony, I thought you had a higher IQ than 70. I don't care about the party, I made the government worker who should abide by the law a Republican in the example so Jhhnn could get over his bias smoke and mirrors and maybe have a rational conversation. One you clearly can't have either it looks like.

Try to answer the question HONESTLY for the first time in your or his life and lets see where the answer takes us.

 

[Jhhnn]

So lets say that a Republican Senator puts up a private email in his house and begins doing a mix of personal and work related emails on that server.

Now he starts doing questionable things (remember we made this person republican so it is likely 😉 )

At that point how would a watchdog group or citizen go about doing a discovery on his emails to try to get to the bottom of those questionable activities?

Beautifully vague & accusatory. Questionable things? Apply that more specifically to the issue at hand, please.

 

[TheSlamma]

Beautifully vague & accusatory. Questionable things? Apply that more specifically to the issue at hand, please.

This is the problem, you are trying to make it about everything but the law.

Here is the point you and Moony you just can't get past your hackery.

In order to comply with the FOIA or the Open Records Act, government workers must not transmit work related emails over ANY server that is not controlled by their agency so that it can COMPLY with those laws and be retained and discoverable.

http://arcmail.com/wp-content/themes/arcmail/images/2011/05/ArcMail_ePolicyWP_Final.pdf
https://www.gwava.com/government-email-archiving
https://foia.state.gov/Learn/RecordsManagement.aspx

Both of you are as bad as the idiots we have voting on laws like Pro IP bill and have no idea what the "InterNETS" even are.

Stop making it about politics, this is again about COMPLYING WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND HOW PRIVATE SERVERS UNDERMINE THAT NO MATTER WHO THE PARTY!

 

[Jhhnn]

I do enjoy watching the continuous state of denial among some posters. The conversation goes like this-

LK: She lied under oath!

Me: What did she say?

LK: It's not my job to back up my accusations. Truthiness Rules!

Me: That's not reasonable. Surely you can tell me what she actually said. That's really the crux of the matter, not the conclusion you've drawn from reading what others have said about it.

LK: I Believe! You can't question that! Fuck you!

Followed by an affirmation of faith by Cabri, as if he hasn't ventured down the same rabbit hole.

If they can't link to sworn testimony it seems likely that there wasn't any to base the claim on. I mean, really. Source material matters. Well, other than in the realm of what right wing propagandists want the chumps to believe.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is the problem, you are trying to make it about everything but the law.

Here is the point you and Moony you just can't get past your hackery.

In order to comply with the FOIA or the Open Records Act, government workers must not transmit work related emails over ANY server that is not controlled by their agency so that it can COMPLY with those laws and be retained and discoverable.

http://arcmail.com/wp-content/themes/arcmail/images/2011/05/ArcMail_ePolicyWP_Final.pdf
https://www.gwava.com/government-email-archiving
https://foia.state.gov/Learn/RecordsManagement.aspx

Both of you are as bad as the idiots we have voting on laws like Pro IP bill and have no idea what the "InterNETS" even are.

Stop making it about politics, this is again about COMPLYING WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND HOW PRIVATE SERVERS UNDERMINE THAT NO MATTER WHO THE PARTY!

Nice dodge. It's your scenario. Actually, it's a scenario played out on a massive scale by the Bush Admin. In that case, it was the outing of Valerie Plame that led to the hue & cry. In Hillary's case, it's what, exactly, other than being Hillary?

 

[TheSlamma]

Nice dodge. It's your scenario. Actually, it's a scenario played out on a massive scale by the Bush Admin. In that case, it was the outing of Valerie Plame that led to the hue & cry. In Hillary's case, it's what, exactly, other than being Hillary?

No dodge at all, but cute try. Okay so answer that question then, it is a simple question,

1: How would you as a citizen ask to flex your freedom of information act on a politician who is transmitting work related emails on a private server?

That is a SUPER EASY question. I await your dodge, there is no need for more information, you can ask for a discovery without any cause.. did you know that about the law? no you didn't. Now that you do know, you can ask for any government workers email as part of those acts they don't have to be doing anything illegal. So answer it and try not to dodge again you have 100% of all the information you need to answer it.

Yes the Bush administration did it too and guess what? I held the same stance then, what was your stance on the issue?

 

[LegendKiller]

I do enjoy watching the continuous state of denial among some posters. The conversation goes like this-

LK: She lied under oath!

Me: What did she say?

LK: It's not my job to back up my accusations. Truthiness Rules!

Me: That's not reasonable. Surely you can tell me what she actually said. That's really the crux of the matter, not the conclusion you've drawn from reading what others have said about it.

LK: I Believe! You can't question that! Fuck you!

Followed by an affirmation of faith by Cabri, as if he hasn't ventured down the same rabbit hole.

If they can't link to sworn testimony it seems likely that there wasn't any to base the claim on. I mean, really. Source material matters. Well, other than in the realm of what right wing propagandists want the chumps to believe.

The problem is that the reason why you believe what you believe is that you refuse to look at other sources or consider other views. In your eyes she can do no wrong.

Have you considered that she signed a sworn statement to the judge in the foia case that she turned over everything? Huma refused to sign. Wonder why?

 

[cabri]

The problem is that the reason why you believe what you believe is that you refuse to look at other sources or consider other views. In your eyes she can do no wrong.

Have you considered that she signed a sworn statement to the judge in the foia case that she turned over everything? Huma refused to sign. Wonder why?

How can she sign a statement that she turned over everything when the FBI is finding things that were not turned over. And also a gap in emails.

Similar to the famous 18 minute gap for Nixon.
Accident?

We have no idea on what she considers personal or her staff. I am sure she did not review all 60K+ emails on her own for personal vs government content.

So her staff made the determination as to what us relevant 😕

 

[TheSlamma]

How can she sign a statement that she turned over everything when the FBI is finding things that were not turned over. And also a gap in emails.

Similar to the famous 18 minute gap for Nixon.
Accident?

We have no idea on what she considers personal or her staff. I am sure she did not review all 60K+ emails on her own for personal vs government content.

So her staff made the determination as to what us relevant 😕

Wait, you called out a republican also? so you are just trying to hold all of these people accountable equally!? Retract retract! before you get tossed into the washer on high spin!!

 

[Bowfinger]

Hardly. Absolutely no one who still supports her will object to anything she does. Literally not anything. The mainstream media will mention this only as Republican attacks, if they mention it at all, so low information voters won't care.

Not exactly. I assume you're familiar with the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. That's why Republicans are frustrated. They have no credibility outside the nutter bubble. They've spent the last seven years scurrilously attacking anyone and everyone associated with the Obama administration. In most cases, these attacks have been based on lies. Even when there was some kernel of truth within an attack it was buried under the lies intended to turn a small problem into a MAJOR SCANDAL!!!

Even when such lies have been soundly refuted, the GOP faithful continue to parrot them (e.g., Obama's a Muslim, Obama was born in Kenya, etc.) They love their lies. There's a whole industry built around deliberately lying to the GOP faithful. Just like a battered wife, the faithful keep coming back for more, no matter how blatant the lies. The result? Those outside the nutter bubble see the GOP faithful as ignorant rubes, stupid, simple people who can't tell truth from fiction. They therefore have no credibility. Their accusations against Clinton are presumed to be just more of the same raging BS they've been pushing for years.

In short, the GOP are the boys who cry wolf. Even if they happen to tell the truth, they are assumed to be lying yet again.

 

[Pens1566]

Not exactly. I assume you're familiar with the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. That's why Republicans are frustrated. They have no credibility outside the nutter bubble. They've spent the last seven years scurrilously attacking anyone and everyone associated with the Obama administration. In most cases, these attacks have been based on lies. Even when there was some kernel of truth within an attack it was buried under the lies intended to turn a small problem into a MAJOR SCANDAL!!!

Even when such lies have been soundly refuted, the GOP faithful continue to parrot them (e.g., Obama's a Muslim, Obama was born in Kenya, etc.) They love their lies. There's a whole industry built around deliberately lying to the GOP faithful. Just like a battered wife, the faithful keep coming back for more, no matter how blatant the lies. The result? Those outside the nutter bubble see the GOP faithful as ignorant rubes, stupid, simple people who can't tell truth from fiction. They therefore have no credibility. Their accusations against Clinton are presumed to be just more of the same raging BS they've been pushing for years.

In short, the GOP are the boys who cry wolf. Even if they happen to tell the truth, they are assumed to be lying yet again.

You're too kind. It goes back at least to the Clinton administration.

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem is that the reason why you believe what you believe is that you refuse to look at other sources or consider other views. In your eyes she can do no wrong.

Have you considered that she signed a sworn statement to the judge in the foia case that she turned over everything? Huma refused to sign. Wonder why?

Amazing. You have provided no sources, merely your opinion based on the absorption of right wing propaganda.

When I ask for a direct source, you turn insulting.

I realize that you can link dozens of such sources saying the same thing with none of them providing any actual evidence at all.

You mistake my intention entirely. I'm not saying she didn't lie. I'm asking what lie she told under oath, in her own words. How can you say she lied when you don't even know what she actually said?

 

[LegendKiller]

Amazing. You have provided no sources, merely your opinion based on the absorption of right wing propaganda.

When I ask for a direct source, you turn insulting.

I realize that you can link dozens of such sources saying the same thing with none of them providing any actual evidence at all.

You mistake my intention entirely. I'm not saying she didn't lie. I'm asking what lie she told under oath, in her own words. How can you say she lied when you don't even know what she actually said?

Because I'm not a lazy fuck. I do research for a living, if I see something I don't know, I look around and try to understand. Why don't you do the same?

 

[Blackjack200]

Google search yourself you fucking moron. I know that your pathetic attempt at duhversion will get nowhere, you'll still deny that she is a fucking liar, but what does it matter to you? Obviously it doesn't.

My accusation is that you're a fucking moron. You bear the burden of proof to everybody on the planet to prove you aren't.

So prove it. Figure out Google, search Clinton, emails, perjury, or whatever, and learn.

Some want to be spoon fed because they are unable to have proper hand/eye coordination. Everyone can see it, but they are in denial.

10+10 = 20

Many do not need to remove shoes and use toes to prove such

Lots of digital ink spilled here to essentially say "We cannot link to where Hillary Clinton lied under oath. Therefore, that claim was a lie."

Come on guys, it's not that hard.

 

[Jhhnn]

No dodge at all, but cute try. Okay so answer that question then, it is a simple question,

1: How would you as a citizen ask to flex your freedom of information act on a politician who is transmitting work related emails on a private server?

That is a SUPER EASY question. I await your dodge, there is no need for more information, you can ask for a discovery without any cause.. did you know that about the law? no you didn't. Now that you do know, you can ask for any government workers email as part of those acts they don't have to be doing anything illegal. So answer it and try not to dodge again you have 100% of all the information you need to answer it.

Yes the Bush administration did it too and guess what? I held the same stance then, what was your stance on the issue?

I outlined the process used to create the official record earlier & that's what the FOIA covers.

And, in case you hadn't noticed, making a FOIA request wrt a personal email account & actually receiving the information are two entirely different things. Unless some actual crime is alleged, like the outing of Plame, personal email accounts are not even subject to subpoena let alone the FOIA.

To answer your hypothetical question, the short answer is that you don't get access to that thru the FOIA. That's no different today than it ever was.

I understand what you want. Might as well want a unicorn.

 

[boomerang]

When that certain state Senator from Illinois started climbing the federal political ladder, he brought along with him the political methodology of the region. You know, 'if they bring a knife, we bring a gun'.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

If we are to assume that the backlash of what Hillary brought upon herself is politically based, (something we are being told ad nauseam) then what is the problem? The political landscape got changed in a big way when Obama took office. Is the right to roll over and show their bellies while the left fights them like it's a death match? Democrats brought a knife and Republicans brought a gun. The tables are turned. It's totally unrealistic to expect otherwise. The current rules were made by the Democrats. The Republicans are just playing by those same rules.

 

[LegendKiller]

Lots of digital ink spilled here to essentially say "We cannot link to where Hillary Clinton lied under oath. Therefore, that claim was a lie."

Come on guys, it's not that hard.

No, a few ones and zeros to prove a point, you guys are either A. Low information monogloids or B. Willfully ignorant.

 

[Bowfinger]

Lots of digital ink spilled here to essentially say "We cannot link to where Hillary Clinton lied under oath. Therefore, that claim was a lie."

Come on guys, it's not that hard.

They are a good example of what I just posted. They have posted so many unsupported or openly false accusations that they now have no credibility at all. They're happy to guzzle the propaganda on faith alone, and cannot accept that rational people expect actual evidence.

 

[hal2kilo]

No, a few ones and zeros to prove a point, you guys are either A. Low information monogloids or B. Willfully ignorant.

No just rational. Like you haven't been in a long time.

 

[Bowfinger]

No, a few ones and zeros to prove a point, you guys are either A. Low information monogloids or B. Willfully ignorant.

Projection at its worst.

 

[LegendKiller]

Projection at its worst.

Yeah, just like you're being owned on Ahmed, you'll be owned on this. Now go suck on the teet a bit more.

 

[LegendKiller]

No just rational. Like you haven't been in a long time.

LOL - I am perfectly rational. I just don't fall for your party line.

If rationality is only voting D, I am glad I am not rational.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because I'm not a lazy fuck. I do research for a living, if I see something I don't know, I look around and try to understand. Why don't you do the same?

So, no, you can't link to what she said under oath that you claim was a lie.

Me? I've looked & can't find it. All I can find is blather along the lines of your own, the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle in action. For propagandists, it's easy to saturate information channels with what you want people to believe because people who want to believe will repeat it mindlessly for them.

A Professional researcher like yourself might do better if they want to base their opinion on fact rather than to merely confirm existing bias.

If you can't find it either then you might do well to look at yourself & figure out why you want to believe w/o evidence.