Hillary Clinton exclusively used personal emails at st dpt

[Newell Steamer]

Hillary is worse than Nixon,..

,.. and Nixon is worse than Hitler.

 

[chucky2]

Sorry, political theatre notwithstanding, has it been officially explained yet HowTF anyone is allowed to use a non-Gov e-mail server or e-mail address for Gov work? Out of this entire LOLiasco, that is perhaps the most unbelievable thing I've heard so far.

 

[thraashman]

Sorry, political theatre notwithstanding, has it been officially explained yet HowTF anyone is allowed to use a non-Gov e-mail server or e-mail address for Gov work? Out of this entire LOLiasco, that is perhaps the most unbelievable thing I've heard so far.

I don't think there's any actual laws that require use of a government email server, just so long as all government related emails are retained. Perhaps that's something which can be updated soon.

 

[chucky2]

I don't think there's any actual laws that require use of a government email server, just so long as all government related emails are retained. Perhaps that's something which can be updated soon.

It's almost unbelievable that there isn't a law for Gov employees to use only their assigned Gov e-mail address (served by their Gov e-mail server)...I mean think about it: What large Corp would ever condone the use of a private e-mail account and/or a private e-mail server for Corp business?

I can't think of one legitimate reason for anyone, save for some Gov shadowy backroom type sh1t, which SecState would - or should - never be involved with, to do what Hillary (or any of these others Pols) did.

My Gov is not using Gov e-mail servers and Gov e-mail to operate? It's such a massive WTF it's almost to the unbelievable point.

 

[Genx87]

I don't think there's any actual laws that require use of a government email server, just so long as all government related emails are retained. Perhaps that's something which can be updated soon.

It needs to be updated. Why? Because it relies on the individual to provide said email. And we have to trust them at their word. Try what Clinton did in any court in the land and watch what happens. And as Legendkiller has said with regards to SEC and NASD law. Not providing emails can land one in jail.

 

[First]

It needs to be updated. Why? Because it relies on the individual to provide said email. And we have to trust them at their word. Try what Clinton did in any court in the land and watch what happens. And as Legendkiller has said with regards to SEC and NASD law. Not providing emails can land one in jail.

All due respect to Lengendkiller, he's drawing legal conclusions as a layman. For one, security laws are notoriously stricter than the ones that governed HRC as Secretary of State. That's just documented fact. Find someone with a subscription and search Lexis or Westlaw for the statues in questions if you're curious about the laws governing email records. Two, the ordeal isn't even over to begin with and many questions will be answered about HRC's email correspondence in the next 6-12 months, little of it likely to be interesting let alone illegal. So the uproar, while typical for the Clintons in terms of their complete apathy toward transparency, doesn't really rise to the level of illegal until there's actual evidence of it.

 

[piasabird]

Arrest her for Espionage! Charge her as a spy and deny due process until every deleted E-mail is produced.

 

[Genx87]

All due respect to Lengendkiller, he's drawing legal conclusions as a layman. For one, security laws are notoriously stricter than the ones that governed HRC as Secretary of State. That's just documented fact. Find someone with a subscription and search Lexis or Westlaw for the statues in questions if you're curious about the laws governing email records. Two, the ordeal isn't even over to begin with and many questions will be answered about HRC's email correspondence in the next 6-12 months, little of it likely to be interesting let alone illegal. So the uproar, while typical for the Clintons in terms of their complete apathy toward transparency, doesn't really rise to the level of illegal until there's actual evidence of it.

I don't think many believe what she did was illegal since there doesn't appear to be a law against it. That is the problem and why policy needs to be changed or a law created that forces their hand.

What private enterprise would allow one to use their private email for company correspondence? What court would take a favorable view of such a setup when requiring business related email be discovered? Why are we allowing state officials to use personal email for state correspondence?

 

[FerrelGeek]

Can't you dems come up with anybody better than that heartless old hag? Jump up and down and laugh at the rep candidates all you want, that's fine, I really don't care. But FFS, are you so vested in needing to put a woman in office that she's the best you can front? She has no personality, no likability, no empathy, has no respect for any sort of ethics, she's every bit as much a money-whore as any politician, and if any of you actually think she's going to give a rat's a** about you when she's in office, you're even more brain dead then any of the non dems on here you so gleefully vilify. So stand up and show us lower life forms your true evolutionary superiority and deliver something better.

In spite of what you may think, I'm saying this out of honest incredulity, not out of any desire to be a jerk, troll, etc.

 

[First]

I don't think many believe what she did was illegal since there doesn't appear to be a law against it. That is the problem and why policy needs to be changed or a law created that forces their hand.

Agreed. It's sad this wasn't standardized years before that, as email isn't exactly brand-spanking new technology.

What private enterprise would allow one to use their private email for company correspondence? What court would take a favorable view of such a setup when requiring business related email be discovered? Why are we allowing state officials to use personal email for state correspondence?

Well for one, I can tell you for a fact plenty of private businesses use personal email for business correspondence. This is certainly common and frankly irrefutable. Secondly, it's similarly common for people in a private corp to use private email accidentally, particularly non-tech savvy persons composing emails over a mobile device. Thirdly, I can't speak to the courts as I don't have the cases in front of me to prove it one way or another. But I will again agree with your last point, that public officials need to use public email and communications systems as often as possible....of course, I actually do get why a lot of them don't, as FOIA requests can in fact just be political dirt digging operations having nothing to do with illegality or transparency and everything to do with gotcha politics. That much we know is for certain (e.g. Judicial Watch, Media Matters). There are political conversations over email that officials should be able to have without FOIA requests, (strategy and what have you) and so the line is blurred often times as they may in fact by talking about things that also should be made public. It's a tough line to walk.

 

[rudeguy]

Can't you dems come up with anybody better than that heartless old hag? Jump up and down and laugh at the rep candidates all you want, that's fine, I really don't care. But FFS, are you so vested in needing to put a woman in office that she's the best you can front? She has no personality, no likability, no empathy, has no respect for any sort of ethics, she's every bit as much a money-whore as any politician, and if any of you actually think she's going to give a rat's a** about you when she's in office, you're even more brain dead then any of the non dems on here you so gleefully vilify. So stand up and show us lower life forms your true evolutionary superiority and deliver something better.

In spite of what you may think, I'm saying this out of honest incredulity, not out of any desire to be a jerk, troll, etc.

She is their only shot. Their only hope is have the first [X] president. Every other candidate out there is so tied to Obama and his failed presidency that even Bob Dole would slaughter them at the polls. Seriously, who are they going to put up? Kerry? Reid? Biden? They have nothing except for playing a race or gender card.

 

[OutHouse]

Can't you dems come up with anybody better than that heartless old hag? Jump up and down and laugh at the rep candidates all you want, that's fine, I really don't care. But FFS, are you so vested in needing to put a woman in office that she's the best you can front? She has no personality, no likability, no empathy, has no respect for any sort of ethics, she's every bit as much a money-whore as any politician, and if any of you actually think she's going to give a rat's a** about you when she's in office, you're even more brain dead then any of the non dems on here you so gleefully vilify. So stand up and show us lower life forms your true evolutionary superiority and deliver something better.

In spite of what you may think, I'm saying this out of honest incredulity, not out of any desire to be a jerk, troll, etc.

your post gave me wood.

 

[First]

She is their only shot. Their only hope is have the first [X] president. Every other candidate out there is so tied to Obama and his failed presidency that even Bob Dole would slaughter them at the polls. Seriously, who are they going to put up? Kerry? Reid? Biden? They have nothing except for playing a race or gender card.

Haha. Reid and Biden ain't running, but really now, there's simply no question John Kerry would beat the current set of turds in the Republican field if he decided to run today. A 2% margin of victory in Ohio is all that separated Kerry from the presidency in 2004. No one in the field can come close to saying this.

 

[OutHouse]

And what exactly does the allegation of smuggling thru benghazi to syria have to do with the attack on the embassy?

that you even have to ask this is just proof positive you are a partisan hack.

 

[rudeguy]

Haha. Reid and Biden ain't running, but really now, there's simply no question John Kerry would beat the current set of turds in the Republican field if he decided to run today. A 2% margin of victory in Ohio is all that separated Kerry from the presidency in 2004. No one in the field can come close to saying this.

I don't think anyone else in the field can say they were on the ticket in Ohio in 2004.

And Kerry would get destroyed and he knows it. All anyone debating him would have to do is say the word "Iran" and Kerry would turn into a blubbering mess.

 

[First]

I don't think anyone else in the field can say they were on the ticket in Ohio in 2004.

And Kerry would get destroyed and he knows it. All anyone debating him would have to do is say the word "Iran" and Kerry would turn into a blubbering mess.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, slick. ;0

 

[soundforbjt]

I don't think anyone else in the field can say they were on the ticket in Ohio in 2004.

And Kerry would get destroyed and he knows it. All anyone debating him would have to do is say the word "Iran" and Kerry would turn into a blubbering mess.

Says the guy dumb enough to vote for another Bush...

 

[rudeguy]

Says the guy dumb enough to vote for another Bush...

I fully support any candidate who pisses off stupid libs as much as he does.

 

[First]

I fully support idiocy.

FTFY.

We know.

 

[Attic]

She is their only shot. Their only hope is have the first [X] president. Every other candidate out there is so tied to Obama and his failed presidency that even Bob Dole would slaughter them at the polls. Seriously, who are they going to put up? Kerry? Reid? Biden? They have nothing except for playing a race or gender card.

Biden would beat anything the Republicans have.

It's very easy to beat the Republican candidates. Just play the spinny wheel of ways for them to sabotage themselves. Iraq, Gay Marriage, Healthcare, Income Inequality, Institutional Racism.

The paralizying stupidity of the Right on certain issues is easily exposed and in somecases conjured (where needed) by the Media.


And yea, Hilary is lying about her emails every second she fails to admit that she's hiding them and has removed the incriminating ones from existence, and that this was done intentionally. If you don't get this then there's no discussion, because the truth here is self evident when considering the circumstances and actions taken regarding her emails. Her actions taken are simply not open, at all, so for the really dense you can use her recent quip about "I want everyone to see my emails" and then apply basic reasoning that she's lying.. and additionally that she doesn't hold much regard for those who she intends to fool with her lies.

Beyond that, Hilary to her credit does appear to know what to say to win the election. For a country that believes what they are told, rather than what they see, Hilary is a shoe in IMO.

 

[Jhhnn]

Can't you dems come up with anybody better than that heartless old hag? Jump up and down and laugh at the rep candidates all you want, that's fine, I really don't care. But FFS, are you so vested in needing to put a woman in office that she's the best you can front? She has no personality, no likability, no empathy, has no respect for any sort of ethics, she's every bit as much a money-whore as any politician, and if any of you actually think she's going to give a rat's a** about you when she's in office, you're even more brain dead then any of the non dems on here you so gleefully vilify. So stand up and show us lower life forms your true evolutionary superiority and deliver something better.

In spite of what you may think, I'm saying this out of honest incredulity, not out of any desire to be a jerk, troll, etc.

She is their only shot. Their only hope is have the first [X] president. Every other candidate out there is so tied to Obama and his failed presidency that even Bob Dole would slaughter them at the polls. Seriously, who are they going to put up? Kerry? Reid? Biden? They have nothing except for playing a race or gender card.

Desperate often? Poor picked on conservatives getting huffy with attributions?

Maybe Dems are better at looking past the usual conservative stereotypes, huh? Where would you be if that's true?

Locked into denial to preserve your defective world view & the ideology that sustains it, that's where.

Whatever Obama's race gained him in some circles he lost in others. Same wrt Hillary & gender.

It's a lot deeper than your shallow characterizations allow, obviously. I figure that's because Righties are loathe to admit failure at any level & to learn from the past.

How's it going in Afghanistan?

What a difference we made invading Iraq, huh?

And that Ownership Society housing bubble really was something, wasn't it?

Which is why Repub leadership makes sure to give the flock things that'll busy their minds, keep 'em in the pews. This trumped up conspiracy theory is just the latest way to keep 'em from thinking for themselves, keep 'em from looking at what they believe. Don't look at that- just keep on keepin' on with the same belief system. Keep that defensive self righteousness front and center.

What have they learned? What do they propose to do differently?

Enlighten me. Tell me what you learned when you took a good hard look at what you believe. Tell me you had the courage & integrity to do that. Or is your faith constant & unquestionable before & after?

 

[Fern]

Did she hide the fact she was using a private server? Was it against policy?

You might be a right winger if all you have is right wing talking points

Yeah, it was against long established State Dept policy. See below.

I don't think many believe what she did was illegal since there doesn't appear to be a law against it. That is the problem and why policy needs to be changed or a law created that forces their hand.

The policy you seek already exists:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804.html

“It is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized [Automated Information System], which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information,” the Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual states.

The manual: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf

See rule "12 FAM 544.3 Electronic Transmission Via the Internet" on page 5/7.

If you don't use the State Dept system at all you cannot possibly in compliance with the policy.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, it was against long established State Dept policy. See below.

The policy you seek already exists:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804.html

The manual: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf

See rule "12 FAM 544.3 Electronic Transmission Via the Internet" on page 5/7.

If you don't use the State Dept system at all you cannot possibly in compliance with the policy.

Fern

Methinks those are the rules for the little people, not the Cabinet level elite. If memory serves, previous SecStates have also contracted out for email services.

While I have absolutely no doubt that Hillary's actions were taken solely to benefit Hillary and are bad for this nation, I also don't hold out much hope that any future SecStates will behave much differently.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
What private enterprise would allow one to use their private email for company correspondence? What court would take a favorable view of such a setup when requiring business related email be discovered? Why are we allowing state officials to use personal email for state correspondence?

I suspect you may have meant "publicly held" company and not "private company".

Courts don't give a damn about what email some privately held company uses. No one does. It's the owner's business what email he uses. (There are some large privately held companies and I would think they have email policies in effect. However, those would be for managerial purposes etc.)

Publicly owned companies have email policies. (Publicly owned means their stock is traded on stock exchanges like the NYSE etc.) These companies have internal legal departments and adopt policy as they see fit, usually to help them with SEC compliance issues, other regulatory matters, product liability cases and shareholder & employee lawsuits.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Methinks those are the rules for the little people, not the Cabinet level elite. If memory serves, previous SecStates have also contracted out for email services.
-snip-

Not sure who all those previous SoS's would be.

A little googling indicates email didn't become widespread until 2001 or so (about half the US population had email at 2001). Not sure when the govt adopted it for use, but given the policy was drafted in 2005 I suspect it was around then (unless a previous version of govt email policy existed which would indicate earlier adoption).

Condoleezza Rice's aide says she rarely used it but all official State Dept email was on the govt server. (There is a quote to this effect in my Politico link above.)

I.e., I see no evidence that previous Sec State's ignored State Dept history.

Fern