IG: Some Emails on Clinton's Server Were Beyond Top Secret

[ivwshane]

BS, what was "convenient" was to let the State Dept handle it as part of their usual duties.

If one can show that another SOS (or head of CIA or DoD) declined use of an agency server and instead set up and use their own private server only then will it cease to be unique or unusual.

Fern

According to who? You? The guy who doesn't know how email works?

What a joke you've become.

 

[Fern]

For fuck sakes bro! Who the fuck said jeb violated any law? It certainly wasn't me. What laws did Clinton violate by having her own server?

Once again, nice try moving the goal posts!

Oh and the reason for linking to mediamatters is because they have multiple quotes with citations to those quotes. Of course your dumbass partisan self didn't bother looking at them.

Re: Bolded - Uhh, it certainly was you (just now). My post you quoted says nothing about Jeb violating any law. It says "subject to".

Yeah, I read the quotes and commented on them ("they're not relevant").

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Re: Bolded - Uhh, it certainly was you (just now). My post you quoted says nothing about Jeb violating any law. It says "subject to".

Yeah, I read the quotes and commented on them ("they're not relevant").

Fern

And what law was Clinton subjected to?

Apparently you are having a hard time following the conversation. It happens when you try and invent an argument no one is making.

 

[Fern]

I think ivwshane may be having a mild crisis.

^

Fern

 

[soundforbjt]

BS, what was "convenient" was to let the State Dept handle it as part of their usual duties.

If one can show that another SOS (or head of CIA or DoD) declined use of an agency server and instead set up and use their own private server only then will it cease to be unique or unusual.

Fern

Does Condi and Powell using the private servers of the RNC count?

 

[Bowfinger]

Never heard it and not buying it.

With all due respect Fern, if you are truly so ignorant about this story and "tech terms" like Internet email, perhaps you should stop pushing your unqualified opinions. You are just adding noise. While Fox or your favorite talk radio gasbag may have neglected this key fact, it's not because it's a secret. It's just because it's inconvenient to the RNC propaganda narrative.

In any case, just looks a claim as to where she got the hardware (PC, case, mobo, HDD etc.). No one cares about that; it's not relevant.

Fern

Of course it's relevant, because it totally torpedoes the nutter cries about how Clinton using a private server was extreme or a tremendous effort. All she had to do was tell a staffer, "Give me an account on Bill's server." Simple and convenient for her.

And yes, for the umpteenth time, using a personal email account for government business was inappropriate. That applies to Clinton and her predecessors alike. That's a separate issue from whether it was convenient.

 

[Jhhnn]

Does Condi and Powell using the private servers of the RNC count?

Righties' memories are both short & convenient when it comes to email, particularly concerning the Bushistas-

http://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/the-emails-that-dick-cheney-deleted/

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/0...t-height-of-u-s-attorney-scandal-media-yawns/

That was, of course, a real national security leak to the Media unlike this basket of snakes of woulda, coulda, shoulda innuendos about Chinese hackers & need to know rigamarole.

So far, the only people who have leaked classified info to the media from Hillary's email are Repub congress critters.

So, what does it mean, Mr Wizard?

It means we're just dealing with more bullshit. Repubs are the masters of Brandolini's law.

 

[Zorkorist]

You'll remember that Mrs. Clinton started out saying, as if we were virgins, that she had no classified emails on her server.

She's going down for this.

-John

 

[ivwshane]

You'll remember that Mrs. Clinton started out saying, as if we were virgins, that she had no classified emails on her server.

She's going down for this.

-John

Yep, almost four years later and we are still waiting...well you and the other believers are. Like the return of christ or the rapture, you wait and you believe all while trying to convince others that you aren't crazy idiots. While you wait, we laugh at you.

 

[Zorkorist]

I can remember where I was when Bill Clinton was impeached. I'm hoping the American voter won't make me sit through Hillary Clinton's impeachment.

-John

 

[soundforbjt]

I can remember where I was when Bill Clinton was impeached. I'm hoping the American voter won't make me sit through Hillary Clinton's impeachment.

-John

I'm surprised you remember where you were yesterday...

 

[Jhhnn]

And yes, for the umpteenth time, using a personal email account for government business was inappropriate. That applies to Clinton and her predecessors alike. That's a separate issue from whether it was convenient.

Well, yeh, but Righties have already compartmentalized that old stuff, put it out of their minds in order to keep the Faith, baby. They don't even see it as a double standard because of well conditioned Hillary hate. For them, holding the hated ones to impossibly high standards comes as natural as breathing.

 

[Fern]

Does Condi and Powell using the private servers of the RNC count?

It seems they had official servers for govt business and, in accordance with the rules, had another email account for non-govt business, such as political party business.

I think it commonly understood that such govt officials need at least 2 email accounts. They're not supposed to use the official account for non-govt purposes.

The problem here seems to be that Hillary used only one server/account. The use of only one seems guarantee rule breaking of one sort or the other: If they have only a non-govt non-secured server then they're guaranteed to have classified on a private server (assuming they use email in conducting their official duties - which seems a fairly safe assumption), or if they have only the official server then they're guaranteed to break the rule on using govt resources for non-govt purposes.

So everyone (excluding Hillary) faces the task of using the right email account. I would guess this is sometimes rather subjective. E.g., some emails would likely contain elements of both, politics and policy are often intertwined. So no matter which way you go someone can criticize/complain.

So no, it doesn't count.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ] The use of only one seems guarantee rule breaking of one sort or the other: If they have only a non-govt non-secured server then they're guaranteed to have classified on a private server (assuming they use email in conducting their official duties ...

Still false

 

[Fern]

Still false

And your position still unexplained.

This issue could have repercussions in a number of areas. One obvious one being Hillary's electability. IMO, if the FBI recommends charges you Hillary supporters have already lost.

The defenses you've guys have thrown up require getting into the weeds and arguing details. Most political strategists I've heard, and not about this issue, claim you've already lost the argument when you have to go there.

The anti-Hillary side has it much easier. They likely win if they can get a "yes" to 3 simple questions:

- Did Hillary have classified info on her private server?
- Is that illegal?
- Have others been punished for it?

I think it's already shaping up as an easy "yes" to all three. (I could throw in a 4th - did she lie, but that's too easy to bother mentioning.) And remember, the Repub side doesn't need to play any more fair than the Dem side.

And your and my opinion doesn't count. I'm not going to vote for her even if I'm persuaded she's completely innocent. I bet you'd still vote for her if the FBI recommended charges (few of us on any side think the DoJ will go forward, but that's another matter).

The only group this really matters with is swing voters.

(If she's charged that would, of course, change this significantly.)

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

And your position still unexplained.

Equally false. I've explained it at least twice. To you. In this thread.

This issue could have repercussions in a number of areas. ...

And now you've completely changed the subject. I've never suggested this story won't hurt Clinton. Not once, not even hinted at it. We all know the American public is easily misled, especially by a full-scale smear like this. I've simply rebutted known false claims (like yours above) and said I will wait for real information from the FBI investigation rather than accepting RNC speculation and innuendo as fact.

 

[Fern]

Yes, I changed it (expanded it actually). I felt like it. But those remarks weren't directed at you. They just happened to follow the one sentence that was.

(My bad. I should have added "----" or something between them as a demarcation.)

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

It seems they had official servers for govt business and, in accordance with the rules, had another email account for non-govt business, such as political party business.

I think it commonly understood that such govt officials need at least 2 email accounts. They're not supposed to use the official account for non-govt purposes.

The problem here seems to be that Hillary used only one server/account. The use of only one seems guarantee rule breaking of one sort or the other: If they have only a non-govt non-secured server then they're guaranteed to have classified on a private server (assuming they use email in conducting their official duties - which seems a fairly safe assumption), or if they have only the official server then they're guaranteed to break the rule on using govt resources for non-govt purposes.

So everyone (excluding Hillary) faces the task of using the right email account. I would guess this is sometimes rather subjective. E.g., some emails would likely contain elements of both, politics and policy are often intertwined. So no matter which way you go someone can criticize/complain.

So no, it doesn't count.

Fern

Please. Using two servers just grants the user plausible deniability as to what went on their private server. Hillary obviously didn't consider that.

There's also no evidence that Hillary's server was any less secure than the State Dept's regular email servers, either.

 

[Knowing]

Righties' memories are both short & convenient when it comes to email, particularly concerning the Bushistas-

If it was wrong then (and it was) it would follow that it would be wrong now and wrong when the good idea fairy first visited hrod. Just like all of the other things that were terrible when (R)s did them but have become old hat 8 years later.

 

[ivwshane]

If it was wrong then (and it was) it would follow that it would be wrong now and wrong when the good idea fairy first visited hrod. Just like all of the other things that were terrible when (R)s did them but have become old hat 8 years later.

It wasn't wrong (and by wrong I mean illegal) then either (except when the Bush admin used the email for RNC business and we all remember the charges he faced then).

But hey, you keep at it! Eventually I'm sure someone will be able to apply future laws and regulations to past occurrences and Hillary will be charged...with something!

 

[ivwshane]

And your position still unexplained.

This issue could have repercussions in a number of areas. One obvious one being Hillary's electability. IMO, if the FBI recommends charges you Hillary supporters have already lost.

The defenses you've guys have thrown up require getting into the weeds and arguing details. Most political strategists I've heard, and not about this issue, claim you've already lost the argument when you have to go there.

The anti-Hillary side has it much easier. They likely win if they can get a "yes" to 3 simple questions:

- Did Hillary have classified info on her private server?
- Is that illegal?
- Have others been punished for it?

I think it's already shaping up as an easy "yes" to all three. (I could throw in a 4th - did she lie, but that's too easy to bother mentioning.) And remember, the Repub side doesn't need to play any more fair than the Dem side.

And your and my opinion doesn't count. I'm not going to vote for her even if I'm persuaded she's completely innocent. I bet you'd still vote for her if the FBI recommended charges (few of us on any side think the DoJ will go forward, but that's another matter).

The only group this really matters with is swing voters.

(If she's charged that would, of course, change this significantly.)

Fern

When cornered, simply change course right fern?!

 

[Jhhnn]

If it was wrong then (and it was) it would follow that it would be wrong now and wrong when the good idea fairy first visited hrod. Just like all of the other things that were terrible when (R)s did them but have become old hat 8 years later.

Please. WRT the Bushistas, there was an actual national security leak to the media. The issue never was about servers at all but about figuring out how that happened & who was responsible. Scooter Libby took the hit for the team & his sentence was immediately commuted.

This is just a fishing expedition.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
There's also no evidence that Hillary's server was any less secure than the State Dept's regular email servers, either.

Ironically, we know the State Department email system has been hacked. There is no evidence (so far) that Clinton's ever was.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Some emails were too sensitive to release even when redacted.


Yeah it's Fox News whatever, what do you make of this?

 

[ivwshane]

Some emails were too sensitive to release even when redacted.


Yeah it's Fox News whatever, what do you make of this?

Make of what? Anonymous sources claiming things followed by a laundry list of unrelated "scandals"? What do you make of it?