Judge says Hillary Clinton's private emails violated policy

[PokerGuy]

Yep. They just know that if they just keep digging -- forever, if necessary -- they will find a blue dress. And the rubes lap up every drop.

The funny thing is, that even in your own post, you recognize that in that case the truth ended up being exactly what the "vast right wing conspiracy" had said all along. You want to present the blue dress as an example of "if you keep digging long enough you'll find something", but in fact it's an example of "if you keep pushing past the lies, you get to the truth" (remember Bill and his "I did not have..." speech??)

 

[Blackjack200]

The funny thing is, that even in your own post, you recognize that in that case the truth ended up being exactly what the "vast right wing conspiracy" had said all along. You want to present the blue dress as an example of "if you keep digging long enough you'll find something", but in fact it's an example of "if you keep pushing past the lies, you get to the truth" (remember Bill and his "I did not have..." speech??)

The blue dress is a metaphor for the entire Lewinsky scandal, and if you think that is a good example of a serious and disinterested investigation, well, that explains your feelings on the email scandal.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yep. They just know that if they just keep digging -- forever, if necessary -- they will find a blue dress. And the rubes lap up every drop.

These people are not rubes. They are folk so filled with self loathing they slime everything they touch, the walking emotionally dead, spiders spinning webs. They are the tools of The Merovingian governed only by the mechanical process of cause and effect unable to experience a sunrise. Such poor bitter souls.

 

[cabri]

Nobody questions that she used her own email server. The possible physical location of the server is based on innuendo, and has little relevance except to her attackers. The server location has been identified as being a commercial building in NYC. NO government security! The presence of then-classified information on her server, who sent and received it, and the significance of the information in question is still being investigated. She turned over information that was considered to be classified. Code stamps on documents indicate they were classified when she received them. You now have classified info on an UNSECURED systems. She also sent information that should have been treated as classified. You have allegations and innuendo, not facts.
The facts exist when

1. 
   [*]IG states that information was found that was in the classified realm.
   [*]coding stamps indicate material was classified prior to transmission to her.
   [*]Information that should have been classified is in emails from her.
   

There is also the fact the smearbots ignore, that classified information is not allowed in email at all, regardless of whether Clinton used her own email or State email. While that won't make it OK if your allegations are true, it does provide a very different context (for those who care about context rather than merely getting Clinton at all costs).So if it is not allowed in unsecured email, then why did she have it and retain it. Both the sender and her are at fault.

Government employees and contractors have access to a lot of classified information. They also have access to a lot of public information that various agencies consider classified, even if it is widely publicized. There has to be some sort of rational balance in the huge grey area where those two spheres intersect. Does it make sense to prosecute everyone who says even one word about the classified drone programs everyone knows exist? Not in a sane world, certainly. Prosecution should be started to remove the attitude (especially in the government) that handling of classified information is a serious issue. Political position should not matter.

That's why I'll say yet again, let the FBI do its job. They'll look at the facts rather than the spin you're swallowing. They'll apply reasonable judgment as to what truly rises to criminal behavior, unlike the smearbots who will cry for prosecution if even one 't' was found uncrossed. If the FBI finds prosecution is warranted, I'll be on board.The FBI is following up because of what the IG determined and Clinton's reactions.

However, the FBI is also under supervision by the WH. There WILL BE NO prosecution of Clinton for political reasons at a minimum. Obama/FBI choose who they wish to go after.

Comments in BOLD

 

[Subyman]

Maybe its been said before, but shouldn't IT be culpable in some way? They'd have to have known that she was using private emails. If Hillary really didn't know anything about emailing or computer then part of the blame should lay on whoever set it up for her, because they would have known it was wrong and did it anyway. She is obviously at least partially at fault for this.

 

[Blackjack200]

Maybe its been said before, but shouldn't IT be culpable in some way? They'd have to have known that she was using private emails. If Hillary really didn't know anything about emailing or computer then part of the blame should lay on whoever set it up for her, because they would have known it was wrong and did it anyway. She is obviously at least partially at fault for this.

One of the first emails that was released was about the SoS not realizing that she couldn't receive a fax if the phone was off the hook.

I agree that she is ultimately responsible, and I've never said otherwise, but the idea of her scheming this whole thing out herself is hilarious.

Edit: And to more directly answer your question, I would really rather it not go in that direction. I don't care what level IT staff you are, if you're told do something under authority of the SoS, you're pretty much going to do it. In the incredible case that this actually leads to criminal charges, it should be the SoS on the hook.

 

[Jhhnn]

The funny thing is, that even in your own post, you recognize that in that case the truth ended up being exactly what the "vast right wing conspiracy" had said all along. You want to present the blue dress as an example of "if you keep digging long enough you'll find something", but in fact it's an example of "if you keep pushing past the lies, you get to the truth" (remember Bill and his "I did not have..." speech??)

That's not accurate at all. What Starr & the "vast right wing conspiracy" were investigating all along was alleged fraud wrt the Whitewater affair years before, not about Monica at all. The Clintons were cleared of wrongdoing in that, but, uhh, never mind, right?

When you need revisionist history to make an argument, you probably want to reconsider that argument.

 

[sportage]

Hillary will go before the committee. She will explain. No smoking gun. This will pass. Fox will hound it every day until hell freezes over. Hillary will rebound.
There. I just saved everyone six months.

PS. So called political experts, especially republican biased so called experts, love to give their political legal opinions, picking and choosing the select facts which they opinionate from. That is typical and food for the right wing base, but always fails the overall.
They did the same reasoning as to why Obama would never be re-elected.
And why the US Supreme Court would never side with Obamacare...twice!
But, what the hey? Life in the bubble.....
.
.
.

 

[Bowfinger]

The funny thing is, that even in your own post, you recognize that in that case the truth ended up being exactly what the "vast right wing conspiracy" had said all along. You want to present the blue dress as an example of "if you keep digging long enough you'll find something", but in fact it's an example of "if you keep pushing past the lies, you get to the truth" (remember Bill and his "I did not have..." speech??)

As Jhhnn points out. that is complete and total rubbish, partisan revisionist history at its worst. The right wing conspiracy had no idea what the truth was, nor any interest in finding it. They merely proved that if you dump unlimited taxpayer resources into a witch hunt, sooner or later you'll stumble across something you can twist into a scandal. They used this tactic to attack Bill Clinton, and they've now spent several years (unsuccessfully) using the same tactic against Hillary Clinton.

 

[Bowfinger]

The blue dress is a metaphor for the entire Lewinsky scandal, and if you think that is a good example of a serious and disinterested investigation, well, that explains your feelings on the email scandal.

Indeed. Anyone who doesn't see Ken Starr and his witch hunt as a black eye for American justice is morally damaged, IMO.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Is there a 2nd server? Scrolling headline on local news is stating such. If this is in fact the case I think Hilary's goose is cooked.

 

[Bowfinger]

Is there a 2nd server? Scrolling headline on local news is stating such. If this is in fact the case I think Hilary's goose is cooked.

There's an old server and a new server. Clinton upgraded to a new server after she left Secretary of State.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That's not what the scrolling news headline stated. It said 2 servers while SoS.

 

[cabri]

That's not what the scrolling news headline stated. It said 2 servers while SoS.

Any decent/critical system should have a fall over or backup.

 

[kage69]

Maybe its been said before, but shouldn't IT be culpable in some way? They'd have to have known that she was using private emails. If Hillary really didn't know anything about emailing or computer then part of the blame should lay on whoever set it up for her, because they would have known it was wrong and did it anyway. She is obviously at least partially at fault for this.

I keep wondering that too.


As a general rule of thumb I don't have the time or patience to take GOP scandals seriously. They are usually mountains made from molehills and/or demonstrations in abject hypocrisy. All spit, very little polish. This email story doesn't exactly strike me as a Benghazi circle jerk though. I don't like anyone acting like the rules don't apply to them, nor do I appreciate those who conveniently feign computer ignorance when they get caught doing something which doesn't require IT certification to know is wrong, foolish and/or illegal.

I'm not sure how this demonstration of contempt Hillary has for oversight and security is supposed to make me feel good about voting to entrust her with the Presidency. The GOP would have to nominate a Trump or Huckabee like turd or worse to get me to vote for her now.


I wish Sanders and Warren would get to talking...maybe get a lil somethin somethin cookin

 

[Bowfinger]

That's not what the scrolling news headline stated. It said 2 servers while SoS.

Then link the story. Without some sort of substance, you're just spreading gossip.

 

[Pens1566]

Comments in BOLD

Every report I've seen has said the stamps were added AFTER the investigation started. In other words, the emails themselves were not portion marked.

 

[bradley]

The other aspect that should most concern people is FOIA ( freedom of information act). Her using a private email server as she did denies The People their right under law to request and obtain that information...

It was intentionally done for a reason. That is what people should care about - is her intentions. Don't give a shit about the emails themselves.

Yeah, it's not like Hillary as Secretary of State had access to the highest level top secret, confidential, classified information and could jeopardize national security with her own rinky-dink server. I wonder if she likes grape kool-aid or watches sports. I wonder if she and her husband stopped having people killed.

http://www.arkancide.com/

 

[Jaskalas]

Maybe its been said before, but shouldn't IT be culpable in some way? They'd have to have known that she was using private emails. If Hillary really didn't know anything about emailing or computer then part of the blame should lay on whoever set it up for her, because they would have known it was wrong and did it anyway. She is obviously at least partially at fault for this.

I think IT involvement makes this a criminal conspiracy.

 

[NoStateofMind]

You create what you fear.

You created the CBD so you would have something to fear???

You said what was on my tongue, Londo. Exactly the truth.


Which one of us would be walking on the street today if it had been us who'd broken federal laws? I'd wager none.

There's a double standard starting from police on through politicians/well connected. Some, like CBDmoonie, can only see one but not the other. Partisans often have a blind spot due to their ideologies.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Comments in BOLD

So, do you believe Edward Snowden should be prosecuted for the way he handled "classified data" ?

 

[VRAMdemon]

I'm not a fan of her's and would not vote for her, but...I dunno,

This email stuff has nothing to do with classified information. There won't be any security breaches. It's all about being too stupid to run her little office properly and acting like a paranoid idiot. The Republican plan has been to put the scarlet S for scandal on her and it's been working. The public is tired of Clinton scandals, they don't care whether there's any substance to them, and it's obvious that if she became president it would never end.

If you are a Clinton, it is an act of stupidity to do anything that could be construed, even in the most asinine way, as being underhanded or scandalous. Her own mindset of wanting total control may have been her comeuppance. I also think that there was never any security breach, and that the scandal is really a lot of hot air. But, scandal it is. It won't go away, and neither will its antecedent, Benghazi. And, ultimately, I think that the American public are sick of hearing about Clinton scandals. It will either be a situation where potential supporters don't vote for her because they don't want to endure 4 (or 8) years of more of this nonsense, or they will just tune out every mention of Clinton scandal (justified or not) as all being just one big hissy fit by her political opponents. Personally, given her lack of charisma, I think it will be the former. Rational people are tired of "fake scandels" any movements/scandels that end In "gate" and anything that starts with "war on" fill in the blank.

 

[werepossum]

One of the first emails that was released was about the SoS not realizing that she couldn't receive a fax if the phone was off the hook.

I agree that she is ultimately responsible, and I've never said otherwise, but the idea of her scheming this whole thing out herself is hilarious.

Edit: And to more directly answer your question, I would really rather it not go in that direction. I don't care what level IT staff you are, if you're told do something under authority of the SoS, you're pretty much going to do it. In the incredible case that this actually leads to criminal charges, it should be the SoS on the hook.

Interesting evolution of defenses, from Hillary as saint to Hillary as victim to Hillary as too stupid to understand the law or the consequences of her actions. Makes me wonder if the next stage is to claim she died in 2008.

 

[Blackjack200]

Interesting evolution of defenses, from Hillary as saint to Hillary as victim to Hillary as too stupid to understand the law or the consequences of her actions. Makes me wonder if the next stage is to claim she died in 2008.

What you continue to ignore is that I have not been defending The SoS. I've said multiple times that what she did ws wrong and is worthy of criticism.

I suppose if you live in a deluded world where every issue is black and white, every appeal to reason and measure in fact a cynical defense of wrongdoing, and every Clinton scandal worthy of the serious attention and press it got/gets, you would see my paragraph above as some bizarre evolution of defense. I'm sorry, I can't help your stupidity. Turn on Fox, that'll make you feel smart.

 

[Moonbeam]

What you continue to ignore is that I have not been defending The SoS. I've said multiple times that what she did ws wrong and is worthy of criticism.

I suppose if you live in a deluded world where every issue is black and white, every appeal to reason and measure in fact a cynical defense of wrongdoing, and every Clinton scandal worthy of the serious attention and press it got/gets, you would see my paragraph above as some bizarre evolution of defense. I'm sorry, I can't help your stupidity. Turn on Fox, that'll make you feel smart.

He's not stupid. He has core values he imagines are threatened. If you were raised to despise yourself if you lie and children will to protect themselves, you will grow up a crusader against liars and a projector of your own self hate of your lying self onto others. This leads to suspicion and distrust of the other, in this case, the other party.

The facts are, additionally, that it is you would have to be stupid to think like he does. Without his core values to defend, you personally would have to have lost your mind to think like he does. It would require that your brain flat line. His is busy creatively erecting defenses.