Man who installed Hillary email server given immunity by government

[ivwshane]

You are lying, again.

lol +1


Actually it wouldn't be at all the same thing. Had Mrs. Clinton used the government servers set up for that very purpose, there would be no FBI investigation of her and her staffers. If there was a problem, it would be a systemic problem, not a problem she intentionally created to isolate herself from the Freedom of Information requests that lesser mortals must bear. Violation of classification laws? Not her problem. Classification rules incompatible with today's reliance on email communications? Not her problem.

Every time a powerful leftist gets caught breaking the rules, her followers immediately begin blaming the rules.

 

[Bowfinger]

Actually it wouldn't be at all the same thing.

Legally, it would be exactly the same thing within the context I addressed: foreign sources sending email. You tried to change the subject.

Had Mrs. Clinton used the government servers set up for that very purpose, there would be no FBI investigation of her and her staffers. If there was a problem, it would be a systemic problem, not a problem she intentionally created to isolate herself from the Freedom of Information requests that lesser mortals must bear. Violation of classification laws? Not her problem. Classification rules incompatible with today's reliance on email communications? Not her problem.

If you read the actual official statements rather than the FoxCo spin, you will find that is what the FBI is investigating. They are not focusing solely on Clinton, but are looking into potential systemic issues with the way State staffers handle classified information.

Every time a powerful leftist gets caught breaking the rules, her followers immediately begin blaming the rules.

Derp. Similarly, righties think everything the government does is wrong and stupid ... except when you can use it to attack a Democrat. Then it's engraved on a stone tablet handed down by God.

Be honest. Do you think our classification rules re. foreign communications are reasonable, or even relevant, in a world where email is the primary form of written communications? That doesn't have to be a partisan question.

 

[Fern]

Nope, that's not evidence. I expect you're talking about this "exclusive" Fox story (which is why you didn't cite your source): link.

It supports exactly what I posted. What's this talk of "evidence" you bring up? What evidence about what?

It is the typical nutter innuendo and speculation from unnamed sources. Instead of statements of fact, they offer the usual insinuation: "whether" passwords were shared, "if" Clinton let others use her account, and a list of "potential scenarios" that all start with the unproven assumption that classified data was copied from classified systems. Is any of it true? We don't know, and the RNC faithful don't care.
-snip-

Please. An article about an ongoing investigation is by its very nature going to use words like "whether" or "if". That's what investigations do; they investigate "whether" something happened and "if" she (or whomever) did it.

"Is any of that true"? Are you fvcking serious? It's an investigation; it's to determine if "any of that is true". When the investigation is completed maybe we'll know. But your apparent claim that no story on an ongoing investigation is valid is nonsense.

And Catherine Herridge is a good reporter, award winning etc. Her's are not opinion pieces, nor are they speculation or innuendo. She's got sources inside the intelligence community. And she confirms the info with other sources. Your outright dismissal of her work reflects on you, not others. Yes, liberals must only read news that tells them what they want to hear.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

lol +1


Actually it wouldn't be at all the same thing. Had Mrs. Clinton used the government servers set up for that very purpose, there would be no FBI investigation of her and her staffers. If there was a problem, it would be a systemic problem, not a problem she intentionally created to isolate herself from the Freedom of Information requests that lesser mortals must bear.

That's your standard innuendo presented as fact. The only evidence as to motivations come from her statements & the rest is what Righties can find in their imaginations.

Violation of classification laws? Not her problem. Classification rules incompatible with today's reliance on email communications? Not her problem.

Every time a powerful leftist gets caught breaking the rules, her followers immediately begin blaming the rules.

The same rules apply to any email server. The IG could easily have asked for the same review finding classified information on a non-classified govt server.

Meanwhile, of course, every bit of new information sends the Repub bullshit generator into warp speed. It's the same story, different verse- from the birth certificate to today.

 

[werepossum]

Legally, it would be exactly the same thing within the context I addressed: foreign sources sending email. You tried to change the subject.


If you read the actual official statements rather than the FoxCo spin, you will find that is what the FBI is investigating. They are not focusing solely on Clinton, but are looking into potential systemic issues with the way State staffers handle classified information.


Derp. Similarly, righties think everything the government does is wrong and stupid ... except when you can use it to attack a Democrat. Then it's engraved on a stone tablet handed down by God.

Be honest. Do you think our classification rules re. foreign communications are reasonable, or even relevant, in a world where email is the primary form of written communications? That doesn't have to be a partisan question.

Nope. There would be no investigation of Mrs. Clinton because she would have done nothing wrong. At the very most, she would be a victim of the system since she followed the rules and cannot be held responsible if those rules are not sensible. Instead, she chose to do government business on her own private server, over which she could exercise complete control. While this may be expanding into a much-needed review of our policies, it is first and foremost an investigation of whether Mrs. Clinton broke any laws. That would be completely removed had she simply used the system established for that purpose, regardless of whether that system is appropriate.

I think email from foreign leaders and government officials should absolutely be held as sensitive information and reside solely on government servers, over which the best security we can furnish is exercised. During World War II, an entire industry existed for reading such innocuous information and thus plotting movements and predicting likely courses of action. Certainly this still exists today. The more we keep such information secure, the less we give away before we're prepared to give it away.

I'll ask you a "be honest" question in turn. The State Department responded to legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests for correspondence between Hillary Clinton and other parties concerning the Benghazi attacks by stating that it had no such correspondence. Do you honestly think this was simply a coincidence of Mrs. Clinton's innocent search for convenience?

 

[werepossum]

It supports exactly what I posted. What's this talk of "evidence" you bring up? What evidence about what?



Please. An article about an ongoing investigation is by its very nature going to use words like "whether" or "if". That's what investigations do; they investigate "whether" something happened and "if" she (or whomever) did it.

"Is any of that true"? Are you fvcking serious? It's an investigation; it's to determine if "any of that is true". When the investigation is completed maybe we'll know. But your apparent claim that no story on an ongoing investigation is valid is nonsense.

And Catherine Herridge is a good reporter, award winning etc. Her's are not opinion pieces, nor are they speculation or innuendo. She's got sources inside the intelligence community. And she confirms the info with other sources. Your outright dismissal of her work reflects on you, not others. Yes, liberals must only read news that tells them what they want to hear.

Fern

Catherine Herridge is awesome. I just can't personally sit through the array of pole dancers and bloviators to catch her.

 

[ivwshane]

Once again you are full of shit! This "email scandal" is tied to the "Benghazi scandal", of which, the emails from the state department were already being investigated. This is simply more of the same looking for some smoking gun that wasn't found in the first seven Benghazi investigations to show that it was Clintons fault for the four Americans that died in Benghazi.

Gullible idiots like yourself have continuously been manipulated to keep the shroud of doubt, suspicion, and wrong doing, all in the name of keeping Hillary from winning the presidency. Unlike your evil progressives conspiracy the Republicans are that despicable and will use a tragedy for political gain (see scalia's death as the latest political game).

Nope. There would be no investigation of Mrs. Clinton because she would have done nothing wrong. At the very most, she would be a victim of the system since she followed the rules and cannot be held responsible if those rules are not sensible. Instead, she chose to do government business on her own private server, over which she could exercise complete control. While this may be expanding into a much-needed review of our policies, it is first and foremost an investigation of whether Mrs. Clinton broke any laws. That would be completely removed had she simply used the system established for that purpose, regardless of whether that system is appropriate.

I think email from foreign leaders and government officials should absolutely be held as sensitive information and reside solely on government servers, over which the best security we can furnish is exercised. During World War II, an entire industry existed for reading such innocuous information and thus plotting movements and predicting likely courses of action. Certainly this still exists today. The more we keep such information secure, the less we give away before we're prepared to give it away.

I'll ask you a "be honest" question in turn. The State Department responded to legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests for correspondence between Hillary Clinton and other parties concerning the Benghazi attacks by stating that it had no such correspondence. Do you honestly think this was simply a coincidence of Mrs. Clinton's innocent search for convenience?

 

[Jhhnn]

Instead, she chose to do government business on her own private server, over which she could exercise complete control. While this may be expanding into a much-needed review of our policies, it is first and foremost an investigation of whether Mrs. Clinton broke any laws.

Bullshit. If they private server were illegal in and of itself she'd already be busted. It's irrelevant to the current review other than for propaganda purposes.

This is a review to find out *If* classified information was mishandled & if so how & by whom.

You haven't even established the *If* part, let alone any of the rest of it.

 

[waggy]

I love this forum. Clinton could kill and eat a buss full of children and people would defend her.

I think it's rather interesting that they gave this guy immunity. I wonder how it plays out.

 

[Bowfinger]

Follow along:

And all her employees were copying secret information from secured systems onto the insecure system. Committing all sorts of various crimes and likely conspiracy to do so.

... It is completely false based on all information released so far. There has been no evidence any of Clinton's emails were copied from the classified domain.

According to recent reports he's far more correct than you: ...

Nope, that's not evidence. ...

It supports exactly what I posted. What's this talk of "evidence" you bring up? What evidence about what?

You up to speed now? That's the talk of evidence I brought up ... twice.

Please. An article about an ongoing investigation is by its very nature going to use words like "whether" or "if". That's what investigations do; they investigate "whether" something happened and "if" she (or whomever) did it.

"Is any of that true"? Are you fvcking serious? It's an investigation; it's to determine if "any of that is true". When the investigation is completed maybe we'll know.

Yes, that's innuendo and speculation, just as I said. It's innuendo and speculation that Jaskalas asserted as fact. Perhaps you should focus your angst on him.

But your apparent claim that no story on an ongoing investigation is valid is nonsense

I said nothing of the sort, of course. I just said it was full of speculation and innuendo, not evidence. Weren't you recently complaining that someone lied about your position, and it's against the rules? Perhaps you should raise your own bar before jumping on others.

And Catherine Herridge is a good reporter, award winning etc. Her's are not opinion pieces, nor are they speculation or innuendo. She's got sources inside the intelligence community. And she confirms the info with other sources. Your outright dismissal of her work reflects on you, not others. Yes, liberals must only read news that tells them what they want to hear.

Fern

Perhaps she's a fantastic reporter much of the time, but that story was full of innuendo and speculation. That is poor journalism.

 

[Bowfinger]

Nope. There would be no investigation of Mrs. Clinton because she would have done nothing wrong. At the very most, she would be a victim of the system since she followed the rules and cannot be held responsible if those rules are not sensible. Instead, she chose to do government business on her own private server, over which she could exercise complete control. While this may be expanding into a much-needed review of our policies, it is first and foremost an investigation of whether Mrs. Clinton broke any laws. That would be completely removed had she simply used the system established for that purpose, regardless of whether that system is appropriate.

Sorry, you're simply wrong. The only question is whether you're being willfully obtuse (i.e., dishonest), or if you truly don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you just don't get it.

Sending "classified" information via an insecure medium is prohibited. According to current rules, communications from foreign sources is automatically considered classified (at the lowest level). The State email system is not a secure, classified system. Read that one again, because that's where you're going wrong. Because the State email system is not a secure, classified system, any foreign sources sending email to any State employee causes the recipient to break the classification rules. Apparently, by policy, any time a State employee receives such an email, he or she is obligated to report it, servers must be wiped, etc. It's absurd, but those are the rules as they exist today.

Clinton having a private server changes none of what I just said. The same rules apply. Yes, there are a whole bunch of additional issues with her having a personal server, but they are irrelevant to my specific comments in this thread.

I think email from foreign leaders and government officials should absolutely be held as sensitive information and reside solely on government servers, over which the best security we can furnish is exercised. During World War II, an entire industry existed for reading such innocuous information and thus plotting movements and predicting likely courses of action. Certainly this still exists today. The more we keep such information secure, the less we give away before we're prepared to give it away.

That's all well and good, but it means State employees are effectively prohibited from using email to interact with foreign sources. Our classified systems are not connected to the Internet. Foreign sources (with perhaps rare exceptions) have no way to send email through and to our classified systems.

I'll ask you a "be honest" question in turn. The State Department responded to legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests for correspondence between Hillary Clinton and other parties concerning the Benghazi attacks by stating that it had no such correspondence. Do you honestly think this was simply a coincidence of Mrs. Clinton's innocent search for convenience?

I honestly have no idea why they gave that response or how they legally justify it. I would think the requester (Judicial Watch?) would have solid grounds to challenge that with the judge. Did it? What was the result?

 

[Jhhnn]

I'll ask you a "be honest" question in turn. The State Department responded to legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests for correspondence between Hillary Clinton and other parties concerning the Benghazi attacks by stating that it had no such correspondence. Do you honestly think this was simply a coincidence of Mrs. Clinton's innocent search for convenience?

It's consistent with having emails so super sekrit that they won't be released even in redacted form. They're so sekrit you can't admit that you even have 'em.

See how that works?

 

[Belegost]

"I did not have textual relations with that server" Hillary Clinton

"Damn right, I wouldn't put my USB stick anywhere near that musty witch's uninteresting holes." The Server

 

[FerrelGeek]

I love this forum. Clinton could kill and eat a buss full of children and people would defend her.

I think it's rather interesting that they gave this guy immunity. I wonder how it plays out.

Best summation of this thread by far.

 

[boomerang]

An interesting take on this.

Hillary and the Espionage Act of 1917

 

[Brainonska511]

I think it's rather interesting that they gave this guy immunity. I wonder how it plays out.

Maybe the guy wouldn't cooperate without it. No reason to accidentally incriminate yourself by talking to the Feds without immunity. I don't think this really means anything for the overall investigation in the public sphere beyond throwing more innuendo on the burning heap of speculation.

 

[Bowfinger]

An interesting take on this.

Hillary and the Espionage Act of 1917

I believe by "interesting" you mean "deluded." It's another example of why you are so consistently misinformed about current events. He gets major facts wrong, including basics regarding the two government network domains. He then jumps to into all sorts of wild and unsupported supposition. The only question is whether he's intentionally lying to you or truly clueless.

 

[Guurn]

You are wasting your time Werepossum. They are in the Hillary thrall.

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe the guy wouldn't cooperate without it. No reason to accidentally incriminate yourself by talking to the Feds without immunity. I don't think this really means anything for the overall investigation in the public sphere beyond throwing more innuendo on the burning heap of speculation.

He threatened to invoke the 5th amendment if called before congressional inquisitors some while back. It's just common sense for him to do so, like declining an invitation to a cannibals' barbecue.

 

[blankslate]

Yet that doesn't change the fact Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden and chose not to do so.

Clinton tried at least once to kill Bin Laden. With a cruise missile strike on a facility that Bin Laden was at in 1998 (iirc he left an hour or two before the missiles blew up the site). And his political opponents accused him of trying to distract the media from his Lewinsky problem.

It should be noted that the outgoing Clinton Administration warned their counterparts within the incoming Bush administration about Bin Laden (Clinton warned Bush, Gore talked to Cheney, Albright spoke with Rice), and then the Bush Administration ignored warnings, about 9/11, starting months before the infamous August Brief in 2001.



As for the person being granted immunity in the FBI investigation?

Where there is smoke there may very well be fire. The FBI wouldn't be granting immunity to people unless they think there is more important information from the person they are granting immunity than a conviction of the person who is now immune in a specific case.

This speaks directly to Secretary Clinton's "electability". In current polling Senator Sanders does at least as well in match-ups vs prospective Republican candidates yet somehow he's not as electable.


_________________

 

[PlanetJosh]

Maybe this was mentioned or implied before but could this immunity guy be just for show? So the FBI will look like they are trying. I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory, so here goes: After a few weeks maybe the FBI will say well it turns out the man we gave immunity hasn't really provided enough evidence to get Clinton indicted.

And so the FBI will continue to stall and find ways to put off prosecuting her. And if she gets elected the delays will continue on and on until a conservative gets elected to the White House four or eight years later.

 

[etrigan420]

I love this forum. Clinton could kill and eat a buss full of children and people would defend her.

I think it's rather interesting that they gave this guy immunity. I wonder how it plays out.

Alternately, she could save a bus full of children from going over a cliff and people would vilify her.

 

[Jhhnn]

As for the person being granted immunity in the FBI investigation?

Where there is smoke there may very well be fire. The FBI wouldn't be granting immunity to people unless they think there is more important information from the person they are granting immunity than a conviction of the person who is now immune in a specific case.

This speaks directly to Secretary Clinton's "electability". In current polling Senator Sanders does at least as well in match-ups vs prospective Republican candidates yet somehow he's not as electable.


_________________

Or maybe that's just what you want to believe. Lotta of that been going around, ya know?

As I offered earlier, only a fool or a liar would claim to do any different placed in his shoes.

 

[werepossum]

Sorry, you're simply wrong. The only question is whether you're being willfully obtuse (i.e., dishonest), or if you truly don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you just don't get it.

Sending "classified" information via an insecure medium is prohibited. According to current rules, communications from foreign sources is automatically considered classified (at the lowest level). The State email system is not a secure, classified system. Read that one again, because that's where you're going wrong. Because the State email system is not a secure, classified system, any foreign sources sending email to any State employee causes the recipient to break the classification rules. Apparently, by policy, any time a State employee receives such an email, he or she is obligated to report it, servers must be wiped, etc. It's absurd, but those are the rules as they exist today.

Clinton having a private server changes none of what I just said. The same rules apply. Yes, there are a whole bunch of additional issues with her having a personal server, but they are irrelevant to my specific comments in this thread.

That's all well and good, but it means State employees are effectively prohibited from using email to interact with foreign sources. Our classified systems are not connected to the Internet. Foreign sources (with perhaps rare exceptions) have no way to send email through and to our classified systems.

I honestly have no idea why they gave that response or how they legally justify it. I would think the requester (Judicial Watch?) would have solid grounds to challenge that with the judge. Did it? What was the result?

Granted, if she were sending classified information she's still be in hot water. But you've maintained that she is the victim of other people sending her classified information, or information that was later classified when the peons tried to get a peek. Certainly if she had received from and sent messages to foreign government officials on the State Department system, she would be 100% in the clear.

I evidently wasn't clear on my response. I said "I think email from foreign leaders and government officials should absolutely be held as sensitive information and reside solely on government servers, over which the best security we can furnish is exercised." I meant sensitive, not necessarily classified, but kept on the most secure servers we can make.

You are wasting your time Werepossum. They are in the Hillary thrall.

Yup. And the weird part is, it's intentional. They have a perfectly good honest socialist they could be supporting instead.

Clinton tried at least once to kill Bin Laden. With a cruise missile strike on a facility that Bin Laden was at in 1998 (iirc he left an hour or two before the missiles blew up the site). And his political opponents accused him of trying to distract the media from his Lewinsky problem.

It should be noted that the outgoing Clinton Administration warned their counterparts within the incoming Bush administration about Bin Laden (Clinton warned Bush, Gore talked to Cheney, Albright spoke with Rice), and then the Bush Administration ignored warnings, about 9/11, starting months before the infamous August Brief in 2001.

As for the person being granted immunity in the FBI investigation?

Where there is smoke there may very well be fire. The FBI wouldn't be granting immunity to people unless they think there is more important information from the person they are granting immunity than a conviction of the person who is now immune in a specific case.

This speaks directly to Secretary Clinton's "electability". In current polling Senator Sanders does at least as well in match-ups vs prospective Republican candidates yet somehow he's not as electable.
_________________

According to the generals, we didn't know if Bin Laden had even been there recently, much less and hour or two before. Considering that Clinton warned the Saudi royal family before hand - one of the training camp's then-residents was a member of the Saudi royal family, and given Bin Laden's relative importance at the time, this wasn't unreasonable) it would have been a minor miracle if Bin Laden had been there only an hour or two before the missiles hit. Bill Clinton needed a competing headline to mitigate the Lewinsky testimony, nothing more, and a retaliatory strike for the US embassy bombings wasn't as good a distraction as nearly getting the guy who orchestrated them. BTW, there are some who say that Bin Laden came closer to killing Clinton than the reverse. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...e-within-minutes-of-killing-Bill-Clinton.html

The US leader was saved shortly before his car was due to drive over a bridge in Manila where a bomb had been planted.
The foiled attack came during Mr Clinton's visit to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in the city in 1996.
At one point during his stay, he was scheduled to visit a local politician, his route taking him across a bridge in central Manila.
But as the presidential motorcade was about to set off, secret service officers received a "crackly message in one earpiece" saying intelligence agents had picked up a message suggesting an attack was imminent.
The transmission used the words "bridge" and "wedding" – a terrorists code word for assassination.
The motorcade was quickly re-routed and American agents later discovered a bomb had been planted under the bridge.
The subsequent US investigation into the plot "revealed that it had been masterminded by a Saudi terrorist living in Afghanistan – a man named Osama bin Laden".
Although al Qaeda members have admitted targeting Mr Clinton in the 1990s, no evidence has previously emerged suggesting the group's leader was involved or that the terrorists came close to succeeding.

It's in a book and covered by The Telegraph, so salt to taste. This is not the time to be heart healthy.

I agree that Sanders should be at least as electable given that Hillary is strongest in the states she has no chance of winning, but I suggest the immunity given isn't so much a sign of impending indictment as recognition that not big fish are going to be fried so rather than breading some small fries, best just to grant them immunity and finish the investigation. I could be wrong, of course, but Clinton's behavior is far too close to the Pubbies' behavior for me to believe they really want her indicted, and I can't see Obama's justice department indicting the Democrat nominee in any case.

 

[pcgeek11]

False. Most have been released, though parts are redacted. Only a few have been completely withheld.

Redacted the classified parts.... = withheld....

Only a few have been completely withheld is not equal to "all released" as peckerhead stated.

I fairly confident a lot more have been held back than a few.

But you are welcome to your Hillary delusions.