Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on March 03, 2015, 01:15:50 AM
-
Wow. If the evidence is correct, not just used a personal email address, but used it exclusively. The claim is she didn't even have an assigned official email account. I'm not sure how that's even possible. I'm sure there was some kind of "SECSTATE" account that some aide had to send the normal dept-wide emails, but it appears there was never a hillary.clinton@state.gov account for peer to peer stuff. All correspondence appears to have been conducted on her freakin' AOL or whatever account.
How that went unnoticed her entire term is beyond me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0
-
At this point what difference does it make?
It's obvious that your criticism of the soon to be first (second? I'm not really sure about Barry )woman president stems from your deep seated hatred of women.
-
At this point what difference does it make?
It's obvious that your criticism of the soon to be first (second? I'm not really sure about Barry )woman president stems from your deep seated hatred of women.
It's alright, I see the writing on the wall. Elizabeth Warren will be our next president.
It's great! I mean, we've already seen how wonderful it works out when you elect a first-term Senator because of the demographic they represent whose only other experience is sitting on a faculty somewhere works out!
Oh well. At least we'll have the first American Indian president, too.
-
I have no problem with electing a female president. I mean, there are binders full of qualified women out there.
-
I'm less concerned with how this plays into her potential presidential run and more concerned about the potential for deception that this practice allows. It now seems Hagel also used a personal email address, and that the practice goes back to the Bush administration, and possibly further. There are clear rules for ALL fed employees, and that includes those at the top, regarding only using gov email and gov servers for all their correspondence.
The difference with the Clinton revelation (and it may end up applying to others) is that instead of using a personal email in addition to her gov email (which has come up before, with other officials), she used it exclusively for her peer to peer communications.
-
So why would a government official do this? Is it to make some sort of claim that your personal email is exempt from disclosure requirements? Is it to bypass having your email archived for posterity?
-
So why would a government official do this? Is it to make some sort of claim that your personal email is exempt from disclosure requirements? Is it to bypass having your email archived for posterity?
Pretty much it's an attempt to dodge FOIA and record keeping requirements and such. At worst, even if she is ordered to provide emails, it can be used to stall for time and/or a way to conveniently "lose" emails...i.e., "I didn't know they were subject to records keeping requirements since it was a private email account!"
-
IMO, this is important, but it still pails in comparrison to Benghazi and probably half a dozen other things she has done over the years.
I also assume that her staff and friends deliberately allowed this to come out now for one reason or another. It is relatively minor, but could be bigger if brought out during the election. The way it is with Democrats, they could be on video and audio committing cold blooded murder and they would still say it was "old news" and "mudslinging" later during the election and the network news goons would still back her up on it.
-
At this point what difference does it make?
It's obvious that your criticism of the soon to be first (second? I'm not really sure about Barry )woman president stems from your deep seated hatred of women.
<PC>"Effeminate American"</PC>
-
So why would a government official do this? Is it to make some sort of claim that your personal email is exempt from disclosure requirements? Is it to bypass having your email archived for posterity?
So you don't end up like Lois Lerner, having to lie to the nation that your hard drive crashed and you don't have backups of your email.
-
Our oligarchs and bureaucrats from both sides of the aisle are lawless.
-
So why would a government official do this? Is it to make some sort of claim that your personal email is exempt from disclosure requirements? Is it to bypass having your email archived for posterity?
Primarily to bypass retention mechanisms.
Maybe as a legal dodge, assuming the other party doesn't know of its existence.
-
Could just be simple arrogance. "Screw you guys, I'm not going to change email addresses and clients because I don't want to. I'm Special."
-
Could just be simple arrogance. "Screw you guys, I'm not going to change email addresses and clients because I don't want to. I'm Special."
Not when the email domain was created the same day as her confirmation hearings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/02/hacked-emails-indicate-that-hillary-clinton-used-a-domain-registered-the-day-of-her-senate-hearings/
-
Not when the email domain was created the same day as her confirmation hearings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/02/hacked-emails-indicate-that-hillary-clinton-used-a-domain-registered-the-day-of-her-senate-hearings/
oh... reading is apparently fundamental.
-
oh... reading is apparently fundamental.
I don't think that was in the original link. I was just providing additional information that negated your idea. Didn't mean to sound accusatory.
-
This came out in the course of the Benghazi hearings, in that Sec. Clinton's e-mails were subpeona'd and State's reply was "Ain't got none, she dun used her own e-mail". Which flies in the face of the Records Act and the "Most Transparent Administration Ever, Really. You don't need to see that."
So as someone pointed out, she can slow walk the discovery process. I don't think she can do 18+ months of it, but the longer she delays the worse it (should) be for her. Six months from now no one will remember.
The issue with the use of non-government e-mails in Bush administration was the use of @Republicans.org e-mails. Turns out that some administration officials did use their "R.org" address to get around the Hatch act (No doing Political work on .gov time/computers). IIRC, it was ruled proper and that is the way it is and was supposed to be done.
-
Oh well. At least we'll have the first American Indian president, too.
I thought that Native American claim (that she claims she never claimed -- her CV notwithstanding) had been shown to be untrue.
-
I thought that Native American claim (that she claims she never claimed -- her CV notwithstanding) had been shown to be untrue.
When the heck did that ever slow down a politician. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
-
I thought that Native American claim (that she claims she never claimed -- her CV notwithstanding) had been shown to be untrue.
http://youtu.be/KTwnwbG9YLE
You are correct.
-
I can't tell for sure from the way the article is written, but it appears she was actually running her physical email servers in her home. That's a level of sophistication well above what the other officials were doing. The part about her backing Google in its China hacking accusations after she had started using them for her backups was perhaps just coincidental, but interesting.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/04/hillary-clinton-email-server-traced-to-internet-service-registered-to-ny-home/
-
Hillary isn't the first in this administration. From an article on Townhall.com:
This isn't the first time the Obama administration has been caught evading federal records laws by using personal email, which ultimately allows officials to escape scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act and Congressional investigation. During Operation Fast and Furious, former Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer got caught fowarding and editing official information about the scandal to his personal email account. Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano claimed she didn't have an email account. IRS officials caught up in the targeting of conservatives, including Lois Lerner, used a personal email account to conduct official government business. Former DOJ Civil Rights attorney and current Labor Secretary Tom Perez used his personal email account during his time at DOJ for official business. Just yesterday, a federal judge ruled the EPA lied about transparency in response to FOIA requests, and in the past, EPA officials have been caught violating federal records laws by using personal email to conduct government business.
-
I thought that Native American claim (that she claims she never claimed -- her CV notwithstanding) had been shown to be untrue.
so the claim will go down the memory hole.
-
I can't tell for sure from the way the article is written, but it appears she was actually running her physical email servers in her home. That's a level of sophistication well above what the other officials were doing. The part about her backing Google in its China hacking accusations after she had started using them for her backups was perhaps just coincidental, but interesting.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/04/hillary-clinton-email-server-traced-to-internet-service-registered-to-ny-home/
Oh, interesting.
She had geek help, obviously. Mail servers aren't simple. (Though I'm sure there are canned appliances someone could have set up.) There are barriers to a normal Joe Schmoe running a mail server from his house. Does she have a static IP at her house? Who's her ISP? Relaying through someone? Who?
-
Interesting new information:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/05/exclusive-internal-cable-from-clinton-state-department-office-barred-use/
-
It would have been better if she had sent it from her personal account.....
-
Remember, these same people don't want you to have privacy in your electronic communications.
-
So Obama said (and gee, what a shocker) that he only learned of Clinton's personal email use debacle via the MSM. So does that mean he never once exchanged emails with his Secretary of State the entire time she held that position?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/08/obama-says-learned-clinton-private-emails-news-reports/
-
Supposedly she had/has an email server in her house. Who does that? The only reason is to keep anyone else from having access.
-
Supposedly she had/has an email server in her house. Who does that? The only reason is to keep anyone else from having access.
Yup. It's weird. And the only reason to do it is because you have an insane level of paranoia about needing deniability in the future. It's much easier to disappear uncomfortable emails when you have direct control over the server. This was something Hilary was thinking about and planning for years ago.
-
Yup. It's weird. And the only reason to do it is because you have an insane level of paranoia about needing deniability in the future. It's much easier to disappear uncomfortable emails when you have direct control over the server. This was something Hilary was thinking about and planning for years ago.
And we're already finding that in the emails she has submitted, that there are no emails for the day of her Twitter user photo where she's seen on her smart phone and on her way to Libya. Not just that day, but no emails for that entire Libya trip. As all things Libya were one of the requirements on the document request, we're already seeing monkey business at work.
-
Yup. It's weird. And the only reason to do it is because you have an insane level of paranoia about needing deniability in the future. It's much easier to disappear uncomfortable emails when you have direct control over the server. This was something Hilary was thinking about and planning for years ago.
If you meant to say "four" years, I think it goes back further than that.
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/obama-hillary-clinton-personal-email-115899.html
In a press briefing on Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that Obama did correspond with his secretary of state via her private email address.
..“The president, as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office trade emails with his secretary of state,” Earnest said. “I would not describe the number of emails as large, but they did have the occasion to email each other.”
Earnest’s admission comes after Obama said on CBS on Saturday that he learned about Clinton’s use of a private email and server “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.” According to Earnest, this comment should not be assumed to mean that Obama and Clinton never emailed back and forth.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/obama-hillary-clinton-personal-email-115899.html#ixzz3TvRSa2sg
President Obama didn't know about even though he did.
-
I still have to wonder if a lot of this is an attempt to air all of her scandals now to see if she survives as a candidate so they can dismiss them all as old news next year.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.googlepixel.com%2Fimages%2FblackberryLOL.jpg&hash=21e991e813f50df9f5421550f35b93b0253586d7)
-
So Obama said (and gee, what a shocker) that he only learned of Clinton's personal email use debacle via the MSM. So does that mean he never once exchanged emails with his Secretary of State the entire time she held that position?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/08/obama-says-learned-clinton-private-emails-news-reports/
Yeah, the sophisticated and razor-sharp president, who just never has any idea what's going on in his own house.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftwt-thumbs.washtimes.com%2Fmedia%2Fimage%2F2015%2F03%2F09%2Fmrz030715dAPR_s878x638.jpg%3Fc76ab25fea2de3dffeb67c2f1f8ae424c65c0d8c&hash=60967a1821132be92ff78c91ddb3dd01cff1c4de)
-
Supposedly she had/has an email server in her house. Who does that?
Well, I used to back when static IPs were cheaper. It's convenient.
-
I've seen stories about the company that provided/hosting the server being tied back to Putin and Russia. Maybe the "Reset" button Hillary gave him was real.
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/why-the-clinton-email-server-story-matters-and-why-it-may-be-worse-than-you-think/
-
Her defense at this point is absolutely outlandish. "Convenience" is absolutely against govt IT regs, and quite possibly illegal. Didn't want to carry two phones? Suck it up buttercup! I had to carry three: My regular work phone, a 24/7 emergency phone for one of my duties, and my personal phone for personal stuff. It was made quite clear that there would be no number forwarding or anything else to reduce the number of phones I had.
I could have done limited personal stuff on my regular work phone, as gov rules allow cell phone users to make personal calls as long as they don't go over their contract ceiling on minutes or data, or do so during company time. I, and many others, chose not to do so, not just because we didn't want the gov snooping in our private stuff, which they could with a configured phone (all work phones had to be configured for access by IT), but gov smart phones are so locked down that they are practically dumb phones, so carrying a personal phone let you use full smart phone features for your own stuff.
I will say that this is not just Hillary. The private email server certainly is all her, but in my time, I saw a lot of people that were SES who totally shined on regs regarding phones, tablets, laptops, etc. because, same excuse as Hillary, the gov configured devices were "inconvenient", and they figured they were high enough up the ladder that they didn't have to answer to anyone, and mostly they were right, since the highest IT people are generally GS level.
Absolutely most gov IT devices are locked down and inconvenient to use, but tough tiddlywinks, that's the way it is, and if you want to change it, then use the power you hold in your high level position to affect change. Instead, I cringe thinking about how much sensitive information sits on personal devices with giant security holes. Not to mention the loss of access to it by the govt and taxpayers.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa2.img.talkingpointsmemo.com%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fc_fill%2Cfl_keep_iptc%2Cg_faces%2Ch_365%2Cw_652%2Fc7rwncsifhpjpoocpt7r.jpg&hash=0b0a0fbdb03281dced9cc74387a1709120a8b8d6)
-
I watched footage of her press conference. She couldn't even look the reporters in the eye while she was providing her non-answers. I'm sure that there are plenty of Dems who will vote for her no matter what, but the media doesn't seem to be giving her a pass on this one.
-
I watched footage of her press conference. She couldn't even look the reporters in the eye while she was providing her non-answers. I'm sure that there are plenty of Dems who will vote for her no matter what, but the media doesn't seem to be giving her a pass on this one.
I suspect there is latent, unspoken dissatisfaction in the media for the first African-American President, and that they want a shot at a more satisfying option for first female POTUS than HRC. f this blows big and her candidacy fizzles I expect a lot of leg-thrilling for Elizabeth Warren.
-
The press hates her. There was a story in Politico abot Hillary's press conference, the title of which summed up Hillary's message to the press: "Go to Hell".
Which come to think of it, might have been their message to Hillary.
I have also heard that AP is suing to get the e-mails. This could get interesting.
Oh, and the far left of the DNC is already leg-thrilled with Warren, but she said she would not run if Hllary is running. So the question becomes, is this enough to put Hilary back on the bench and free Warren to run? Doubtful. It will take several crushing defeat in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to knock Hillary out as she has tons of money and will spend it all to buy her way to the White House.
But keep in mind how fast the left turn against her in 2008. They really hate and want anyone (except Biden) to save them.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xft1/v/t1.0-9/10350621_1011896572172158_3399587498656002016_n.jpg?oh=d77e2a234979a4b340bc37fe889e7f71&oe=55893F6E&__gda__=1433957903_cc8225955fa183e13c05424c6724e239)
-
Krauthammer says it perfectly:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/early-onset-clinton-fatigue/2015/03/12/5801a542-c8d8-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html
Had Richard Nixon burned his tapes, he would have survived Watergate. Sure, there would have been a major firestorm, but no smoking gun. Hillary Rodham was a young staffer on the House Judiciary Committee investigating Nixon. She saw. She learned.
Today you don’t burn tapes. You delete e-mails. Hillary Clinton deleted 30,000, dismissing their destruction with the brilliantly casual: “I didn’t see any reason to keep them.” After all, they were private and personal, she assured everyone.
How do we know that? She says so. Were, say, Clinton Foundation contributions considered personal? No one asked. It’s unlikely we’ll ever know. We have to trust her.
-
Thirty thousand emails are "personal and private"? Mmmm, right.
(I've got close to 20years worth of mail here. I should see if Thunderchicken can count them for me.)
-
Thirty thousand emails are "personal and private"? Mmmm, right.
Maybe, if you count spam and mailbombs as "personal and private," have no filtering and a fairly public address. *Possibly* reasonable if they were counting filtered spam as "deleted emails," too.
-
I can't see what next week's scandal will be about- you know, the usual high crimes and misdemeanors that won't be investigated and will be forgotten by the week after.
Cumulatively they should equal thousands of years of prison sentences, but those in charge of investigating all play for Team Federal Government as well. Sure Gowdy will scream and Boehner will sniff, but at the end of the day, they'll be in President Caligula's hot tub.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlWo05vlKkM
=D
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fp569%2Fjackstraw4449%2Femail_zpsjlapt9zg.jpg&hash=a984b5b15f30b94f45b641c73683e37ff8f1efc1) (http://s1156.photobucket.com/user/jackstraw4449/media/email_zpsjlapt9zg.jpg.html)
-
Even the State Department is now contradicting aspects of Hillary's story.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/13/state-department-challenges-clinton-claim-that-emails-to-officials-immediately/
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlWo05vlKkM
=D
Awesome! :rofl:
-
So State Dept is saying that they're trying to look into if Clinton signed her OF-109 form upon separation, but it's been two years, so they're having trouble tracking it down. Bullpuckey. It's criminal the way they lie about this stuff because they figure most people don't know how the .gov works.
If someone were to look into me, or any other fed.gov who separated within the last five years to see if we were involved in any wrongdoings, it would take them under two minutes. All records are now electronic. All OPM, or an Inspector General, or whoever, has to do is type in a name, and every personnel document the separated employee ever signed pops up immediately in their EOPF personnel file.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/16/clinton-ducks-question-on-whether-signed-form-seen-as-key-in-email-controversy/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Ah here is some more: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2015/03/16/breaking-news-spam-filtering-service-had-access-to-clinton-classified-emails/#more-101777 (http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2015/03/16/breaking-news-spam-filtering-service-had-access-to-clinton-classified-emails/#more-101777)
She apparently used MxLogic spam filtration service which is now owned by McAfee.
-
The State Department is now saying that it can't find any evidence that Hillary ever signed the form. It must be in Sandy Berger's pants.
-
The State Department is now saying that it can't find any evidence that Hillary ever signed the form. It must be in Sandy Berger's pants.
Well, it's certainly not in Bill's. Nothing stays in his pants.
-
The State Department is now saying that it can't find any evidence that Hillary ever signed the form. It must be in Sandy Berger's pants.
Convenient, since it will mean she only broke policy. Had she signed the form, it's likely she would have broken the law.