Clinton to hand over email server to FBI

[LegendKiller]

Clearly you did not know or you would have referenced her statement directly several pages ago in response to my original query rather than digging the hole you're in now.

Take a hard look at yourself & Man Up.

Lol. I am not the illiteratti like you. I do my own independent reseach, but I do enjoy you trying to deflect from your inability to figure things out on your own.

I gave you many links, including one directly to the court document, but you continue to show your partisan hackery by trying to duhflect. You're a fucking retard.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lol. I am not the illiteratti like you. I do my own independent reseach, but I do enjoy you trying to deflect from your inability to figure things out on your own.

I gave you many links, including one directly to the court document, but you continue to show your partisan hackery by trying to duhflect. You're a fucking retard.

I do owe you a slight apology. I missed the link to the court document you offered in post #1076, two pages & 42 posts after your initial unsubstantiated accusation in post #1034

You realize, I hope, that her statement does not confirm your accusation in the slightest.

"On information & belief" is the qualifier you're trying to avoid quite desperately.

She says that she directed certain actions & that her staff told her it had been done. That's all it says.

 

[werepossum]

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!

Well said indeed.

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

She can so attest because she knows there is no chance she'll ever be held accountable.

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.

I think this goes all the way back to the '94 Republican takeover. The Democrats had ruled the House absolutely for forty years - virtually every Congresscritter's adult life - and when they abruptly lost power, they went a bit crazy. Also, the class of '94 was remarkable different than previous classes. Unlike past Republican Congresscritters they went home, back to their constituents, when Congress was not in session, whereas previous Republicans had behaved like Democrats, staying in the D.C. bubble and going back to flyover country only to campaign. This meant they took longer to assimilate into the D.C. mindset (which is basically the Democrat mindset) and so made for a more adversarial relationship. This hostility culminated in a new verb, to bork, but it's well-ingrained among both parties now.

 

[LegendKiller]

I do owe you a slight apology. I missed the link to the court document you offered in post #1076, two pages & 42 posts after your initial unsubstantiated accusation in post #1034

You realize, I hope, that her statement does not confirm your accusation in the slightest.

"On information & belief" is the qualifier you're trying to avoid quite desperately.

She says that she directed certain actions & that her staff told her it had been done. That's all it says.

Having responded to a federal subpoena, I can assure you that is standard boilerplate that will likely not stop a judge if it is determined the methodology behind the search were found to be inadequate.

 

[Jhhnn]

Having responded to a federal subpoena, I can assure you that is standard boilerplate that will likely not stop a judge if it is determined the methodology behind the search were found to be inadequate.

Perhaps. That doesn't substantiate that she lied in any way, however.

 

[LegendKiller]

Perhaps. That doesn't substantiate that she lied in any way, however.

Sure it does. She said she didnsomrthing, she clearly did not. She either lied (far more likely) or she is an incompetent manager who hires incompetent people. Attorneys who respond to e-discovery are extremely thorough since their careers are on the line. She obviously didn't hire attorneys.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure it does. She said she didnsomrthing, she clearly did not. She either lied (far more likely) or she is an incompetent manager who hires incompetent people. Attorneys who respond to e-discovery are extremely thorough since their careers are on the line. She obviously didn't hire attorneys.

Right there you admitted that your original accusation was premature at best.

 

[LegendKiller]

Right there you admitted that your original accusation was premature at best.

Rofl. Which is more likely? I can draw conclusions based upon all evidence and probability. My conclusion is that she lied. How? Because she was not responsive to the court and violated a sworn oath, regardless of who she hired. Incompetence is not an excuse, as any judge will tell you, and I have seen judges rule on before.

A judge will rule in the same manner (perhaps not in this case but under the general premise that incompetence is not anexcuse), even without 100% proof, because it is beyond a reasonable doubt, not 100% certainty.

 

[Jhhnn]

Rofl. Which is more likely? I can draw conclusions based upon all evidence and probability. My conclusion is that she lied. How? Because she was not responsive to the court and violated a sworn oath, regardless of who she hired. Incompetence is not an excuse, as any judge will tell you, and I have seen judges rule on before.

A judge will rule in the same manner (perhaps not in this case but under the general premise that incompetence is not anexcuse), even without 100% proof, because it is beyond a reasonable doubt, not 100% certainty.

It doesn't matter which is more likely. Likelihood doesn't support the flat out accusation in post # 1034.

What sworn oath did she violate, specifically?

Incompetence & misunderstanding are immaterial in contractual matters, matters of mere money, no doubt. This isn't that at all.

 

[LegendKiller]

It doesn't matter which is more likely. Likelihood doesn't support the flat out accusation in post # 1034.

What sworn oath did she violate, specifically?

Incompetence & misunderstanding are immaterial in contractual matters, matters of mere money, no doubt. This isn't that at all.

She did not produce all work emails, as she was directed to do. As she swore she did.

If she is not responsive she committed perjury. Why is the question and how the judge will respond is the other.

Regardless, she repeatedly said, in public, that she turned over all work emails. She did not.

 

[Jhhnn]

She did not produce all work emails, as she was directed to do. As she swore she did.

If she is not responsive she committed perjury. Why is the question and how the judge will respond is the other.

Regardless, she repeatedly said, in public, that she turned over all work emails. She did not.

She swore that she directed her staff to produce the emails & that she believed that they did. Nothing more.

Being unresponsive is not perjury, either.

 

[ivwshane]

Thats a straw man?

What else can you define the ability for one to simply say they cannot be judged, other than they have no accountability? You do not need to prove their actions if you know they have absolute authority.

If the DOJ saying it isn't absolute authority then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[LegendKiller]

She swore that she directed her staff to produce the emails & that she believed that they did. Nothing more.

Being unresponsive is not perjury, either.

So she lied. She had authority, it was her responsibility to produce what was required. She did not, therefore she perjured herself.

Or do you deny that her own word is not worth the paper it is written on?

Donyou understand the concept of executive culpability? Your underlings are your responsbility, especially when you are responding to a legal requirement that you are swearing an oath to. A personal oath, where you are personally responsible.

It's her fucking fault.

 

[LegendKiller]

If the DOJ saying it isn't absolute authority then I don't know what to tell you.

Does the DoJ standards have supremecy over all other departments?

 

[Bowfinger]

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.

Good point. They've been lying to attack the Clintons for 20 years. It's a constant noise that rational people have learned to tune out.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Blah blah blah.
Not surprising, not responsive towards posts with data and logic, which is why I just love fucking with people who don't respond with data or logic.

Then you must spend an awful lot of your life fucking with yourself. How's that working out for you? Feel like you're accomplishing anything yet?

 

[ivwshane]

Does the DoJ standards have supremecy over all other departments?

When it comes to federal policy? Absolutely! It's not like the state department has said anything contradictory.

 

[LegendKiller]

When it comes to federal policy? Absolutely! It's not like the state department has said anything contradictory.

I am going to use your guys' favorite line. Show me a link where DoJ policies are supreme to the State Dept's

 

[Jhhnn]

So she lied.

You offered a scenario where she wouldn't be lying.

She had authority, it was her responsibility to produce what was required. She did not, therefore she perjured herself.

It doesn't fit the definition of perjury unless she lied, something you've allowed she might not have done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

Or do you deny that her own word is not worth the paper it is written on?

Donyou understand the concept of executive culpability? Your underlings are your responsbility, especially when you are responding to a legal requirement that you are swearing an oath to. A personal oath, where you are personally responsible.

It's her fucking fault.

I understand executive culpability. If Hillary's staff did a lousy job she's responsible for that. It doesn't mean she lied or that any of them committed a crime.

 

[ivwshane]

I am going to use your guys' favorite line. Show me a link where DoJ policies are supreme to the State Dept's

Unlike you I'm happy to provide the information. This will be the last time I do it though as I have already done this.

“There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” attorneys from the Justice Department’s civil division wrote.[/b]

AP story via msnbc:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-was-allowed-delete-personal-emails-server-doj

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

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Good point. They've been lying to attack the Clintons for 20 years. It's a constant noise that rational people have learned to tune out.

Just how many lies must she tell before you become concerned about her trustworthiness?

 

[Bowfinger]

Just how many lies must she tell before you become concerned about her trustworthiness?

Wolf! Wolf! No, really. Wolf! Seriously. Wolf! Wolf! We're not lying this time. Wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf ...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wolf! Wolf! No, really. Wolf! Seriously. Wolf! Wolf! We're not lying this time. Wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf ...

That says it all.

 

[Bowfinger]

That says it all.

It certainly should, but it's clear the right still doesn't get it. They believe their own lies and are mystified when nobody else does. They cannot comprehend that they have zero credibility outside their own echo chamber. None. Now, if the FBI states Clinton was lying, people will pay attention. Having you righties claim she is lying is just more of the usual partisan noise. As I explained:

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.

Sinking in?


Edit: Let's turn your initial question around to make it relevant. "Just how many lies must [ your party media ] tell before you become concerned about [ their ] trustworthiness?"

 

[Virge_]

Isn't this entire fiasco simply indicative of how poorly Government policy has kept up with technology?

I find an interesting corroboration to the decline in our current politicians and system at large to adapt to changing tech. Corporations aren't quite as bad, so they have to be doing something right.

How long until the US government is simply run by the 3 Magi?