Hillary Clinton exclusively used personal emails at st dpt

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Bowfinger

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
cabri said:
while she did not break the law; she tried to avoid the guidelines/protocols that had been seet forth.

She also broke the law by not signing the document closure form when she left State.

And do we know if she turned over everything?
She destroyed any potential evidence before anyone qualified to check her server.

she must have paid attention to the IRS fiasco :)
Click to expand...
There was no legal requirement for her to sign any such form when she left State. That zombie lie has already been refuted in this thread.

The rest of your remarks are the usual partisan innuendo.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
cabri said:
while she did not break the law; she tried to avoid the guidelines/protocols that had been seet forth.

She also broke the law by not signing the document closure form when she left State.

And do we know if she turned over everything?
She destroyed any potential evidence before anyone qualified to check her server.

she must have paid attention to the IRS fiasco :)
Click to expand...

As if there were any actual wrongdoing alleged to warrant anybody having reason to gather "potential evidence". Well, other than the "wrongness" of Hillary's existence for the rabid right.

IRS "scandal"? Puh-leeze. If Repubs wanted anything more than mud slinging from that they'd have forced Lerner's testimony under a grant of immunity & found answers to questions they really don't want answered. For their purposes, deliberately avoiding the truth just leaves more room for innuendo.

This is little different.
 
K

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
Struggling to see the point of the records act at this point since no one is ever in violation of it if they can come up with a good enough excuse for not following it.

Also, it's amazing to see people complain about the privileges of power and money in one thread and then celebrate it in another.
 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,743
17,397
136
Knowing said:
Struggling to see the point of the records act at this point since no one is ever in violation of it if they can come up with a good enough excuse for not following it.

Also, it's amazing to see people complain about the privileges of power and money in one thread and then celebrate it in another.
Click to expand...

You do understand that people can be for record keeping and transparency while at the same time they can acknowledge that the laws that were once in place meant hillary didn't do anything wrong?


Also, there hasn't been any evidence provided that proves any wrong doing or corruption occurred.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
ivwshane said:
You do understand that people can be for record keeping and transparency while at the same time they can acknowledge that the laws that were once in place meant hillary didn't do anything wrong?


Also, there hasn't been any evidence provided that proves any wrong doing or corruption occurred.
Click to expand...

Yeh, but fishing is free & that's why right wing shills want to comb through everything that the Obama Admin ever did. They don't mind diverting govt resources to fulfill their whims, either. The more inefficient & incompetent they can render the govt of the people the better they like it.
 
K

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
ivwshane said:
You do understand that people can be for record keeping and transparency while at the same time they can acknowledge that the laws that were once in place meant hillary didn't do anything wrong?

Also, there hasn't been any evidence provided that proves any wrong doing or corruption occurred.
Click to expand...

I understand political expediency yes, I also understand that when potential evidence is deleted the potential evidence becomes unavailable for proving wrong doing or corruption. I also disagree with the fundamental assumption that emails made from a private server when in acting in a public capacity are personal.

Jhhnn said:
Yeh, but fishing is free & that's why right wing shills want to comb through everything that the Obama Admin ever did. They don't mind diverting govt resources to fulfill their whims, either. The more inefficient & incompetent they can render the govt of the people the better they like it.
Click to expand...

I'm not right wing. It's disturbing how frequently you voice this opinion that 1) you can't prove and 2) suggests that you believe that one party rule would be superior to the shitshow we have now. It's my right as a citizen of this country to request the diversion of resources according to my whims. The bureaucracy doesn't need my assistance to render itself more inefficient or incompetent.

The Bush administration's communiques should be available and so should Obama's. On the partisan front, why don't you come back to me when "your team" doesn't vote to punt the Patriot Act and your guy doesn't sign it back in to law.

Edit: End running records keeping has become a game and it's only going to get worse moving forward. The fault will ultimately lie with the party before the party that finally does it right - if that ever happens.
 
Last edited:
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,743
17,397
136
Knowing said:
I understand political expediency yes, I also understand that when potential evidence is deleted the potential evidence becomes unavailable for proving wrong doing or corruption. I also disagree with the fundamental assumption that emails made from a private server when in acting in a public capacity are personal.
Click to expand...


I agree but that's not how the law was setup. Officials were and I believe they are still able to determine what's personal or not.
 
C

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
Bowfinger said:
There was no legal requirement for her to sign any such form when she left State. That zombie lie has already been refuted in this thread.

The rest of your remarks are the usual partisan innuendo.
Click to expand...
Link

Much depends if she considered herself above the law

The form is part of a packet of paperwork employees routinely fill out when leaving the department, but Psaki said it does not appear that Clinton or at least two other predecessors, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, ever did so.

On Monday, Psaki had said it was not yet clear whether Clinton completed the form. She suggested then that secretaries of state, as the topmost officials in the department, might have been considered exempt.

"I don't think former secretaries are standard employees," Psaki said.
Click to expand...

which is typical of her.

If there is a grey area; she will manipulate it when called on it. The requirement does not draw the line
 
boomerang

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Well the book is out and it clearly indicates that Hillary has got some explaining to do. There are calls for an FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation, one that truly needs to happen. I think it would be wise to institute a means to outlaw speaking fees for former President's too. Bill has of course pushed this to the max, actually it appears to be over the max, that's the Clinton way. It's pretty classless for former President's to sell their influence. Let's stop this right now. Oh, and for the highly partisan, it should be for both Democrat and Republican ex-Presidents.

The link below explains some of the more egregious acts instigated by the Clinton's to fatten their own wallets. Some centered around pure greed, some centered around the misery of other people. These two are truly equal opportunity hucksters.

The Hill-Billy Cash Pump

We've recently learned that somewhere between 10% and 12% of the money the foundation took in actually went towards anything other than the foundation itself.* Let's hope that the FBI has not become too partisan to investigate the Foundation and the Clinton's themselves. We've got some pretty nice country club type prisons available for these two. It's long past time to drain the swamp and we've got to start sometime if this nation is going to survive retaining some semblance of what it once was. This looks like a slam-dunk and one that will send some serious ripples through the political community. We can't afford not to go after these two with everything we've got.

*Correction: Due to the way the Clinton Foundation performs their work, the actual number is around 80%. Instead of farming out their charitable work, they do it utilizing in-house staff. I am correcting the erroneous information I supplied earlier.
 
Last edited:
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
boomerang said:
Well the book is out and it clearly indicates that Hillary has got some explaining to do. There are calls for an FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation, one that truly needs to happen. I think it would be wise to institute a means to outlaw speaking fees for former President's too. Bill has of course pushed this to the max, actually it appears to be over the max, that's the Clinton way. It's pretty classless for former President's to sell their influence. Let's stop this right now. Oh, and for the highly partisan, it should be for both Democrat and Republican ex-Presidents.

The link below explains some of the more egregious acts instigated by the Clinton's to fatten their own wallets. Some centered around pure greed, some centered around the misery of other people. These two are truly equal opportunity hucksters.

The Hill-Billy Cash Pump

We've recently learned that somewhere between 10% and 12% of the money the foundation took in actually went towards anything other than the foundation itself. Let's hope that the FBI has not become too partisan to investigate the Foundation and the Clinton's themselves. We've got some pretty nice country club type prisons available for these two. It's long past time to drain the swamp and we've got to start sometime if this nation is going to survive retaining some semblance of what it once was. This looks like a slam-dunk and one that will send some serious ripples through the political community. We can't afford not to go after these two with everything we've got.
Click to expand...

Nice re-hash of a re-hash of a factually incorrect hit piece by a partisan purveyor of innuendo based hit pieces- perfect for the feeble minds of right wing conspiracy theorists.

Benghazi, ya know? And Jade Helm! Oh, God! Jade Helm!

I do love the bit about "calls for a FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation"- by whom? Louie Gohmert? Darryl Issa?

If you're not a paid shill, you should apply for the job.
 
rudeguy

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
Jhhnn said:
Nice re-hash of a re-hash of a factually incorrect hit piece by a partisan purveyor of innuendo based hit pieces- perfect for the feeble minds of right wing conspiracy theorists.

Benghazi, ya know? And Jade Helm! Oh, God! Jade Helm!

I do love the bit about "calls for a FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation"- by whom? Louie Gohmert? Darryl Issa?

If you're not a paid shill, you should apply for the job.
Click to expand...

He must be part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
 
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,429
10,727
136
Jaskalas said:
Re: The subject.

This is how the DNC puts their old milk cow out to pasture.
Click to expand...

I stand by my original statement two months ago, and I'm highly amused that Clinton is still considered Presidential material... let alone a candidate by some. I'll buy a boot to eat if she makes it past the voters.

They didn't vote for her last time, they won't vote for her this time.
 
First

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Jaskalas said:
I stand by my original statement two months ago, and I'm highly amused that Clinton is still considered Presidential material... let alone a candidate by some. I'll buy a boot to eat if she makes it past the voters.

They didn't vote for her last time, they won't vote for her this time.
Click to expand...

Clinton wasn't beaten by much by Obama in the primary, based both on votes and delegates. And Obama went on to win by a landslide. Based on the polls, she'll win a similar electoral college landslide, fake controversies or not, in the 2016 general election.
 
xBiffx

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
First said:
Clinton wasn't beaten by much by Obama in the primary, based both on votes and delegates. And Obama went on to win by a landslide. Based on the polls, she'll win a similar electoral college landslide, fake controversies or not, in the 2016 general election.
Click to expand...

Electoral college landslide, LOL. Also polls, LOL.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom