New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

So she can count on your vote? Great.

 

He's not unknown though. It's well known that he's spent his entire life as a liberal and is now on every side of every issue. Hell Hillary has spent more of her life as a Republican than Trump has.

The reason that matters is because while to some only the fact that he's running as a Republican matters, to me what matters is his political ideology. In Trump's life he's been pretty consistently liberal, even now that he's trying to pretend he's a Republican, he's still liberal in his thinking. It's all pretty big government to him be it rounding up illegals and banning Muslims or his talk about banning assault weapons and the government "taking care of" healthcare. The D or R mean nothing to me really.

I don't think there is anything you could say about Hillary that you couldn't also say about Trump.....and there's several things you could say negatively about Trump that you couldn't say about Hillary.

Bottom line, Hillary might not be deserving of the presidency, but her only competition is someone not deserving of holding any elected office no matter how small. Give me Hillary over the con man, hell give me Bernie the commie over the con man.

 

As to me hating Trump, I truly don't understand how anyone could hate Hillary and NOT hate Trump as well. The main difference is that Trump is a feral version of Hillary that is pretending to be a Republican.

 

Powell used an AOL account! No, not a private unsecured email service like Clinton - but there is no evidence that clinton's server was hacked. AOL account have been hacked many times.

 

Not to send classified information with though. Kind of a HUGE difference that I'm not surprised you overlooked.

 

Trump

 

Bobby, I've been extremely critical of some of your posts in the past... with good reason, IMO. I know it matters little or nothing to you, but I wholeheartedly agree with the above and I appreciate how well you articulated it. Thanks.

 

I am only addressing his point about security, not classified information.

But how do you know Powell never sent anything classified through his AOL account?

 

Trump has never lied openly to the American people while holding office.

Calling Trump a "con man" as if that somehow separates him from Hilary is silly unless the distinction is "con woman". There are a lot of negatives about Hilary's record in public office that definitely do NOT apply to Trump. I can see how you might think they will if he is elected but they do not yet and there is the possibility that they won't. We have record of how she votes and her inability to lead and command and make decisions and yet you say she is better.

Hilary is a known bad and there is no question she will continue to be what she has been which is completely self serving. Hilary is like playing Russian roulette with 6 rounds in the chamber Trump may be closer to 3 or 4.

 

Well so long as there was nothing classified sent or received then the law wasn't broken. It was a breach of protocol and IMO he shouldn't hold office again as a result of it but it's just not on the same level. As to how or if I know that he didn't send or receive anything classified, I don't know that he didn't, but if he had, I'd be wanting him prosecuted for it.

That's only because he's never held any office. He lies almost constantly so that's not really a selling point.

Trump is a con man not only in the sense that he's conned people out of money in the past with shady business deals and practices, but he's a con man politically by pretending to be something he's not. You could only accuse Hillary of one of those. You want to make the distinction about how Trump has never lied while holding office, well Hillary has never conned anyone out of money in the private sector like Trump has. She's only a political con artist while Trump is a jack of all trades con artist.

He just hasn't had the opportunity yet, his track record his entire life shows you what kind of person he is, and none of it is good.

And Trump is a known bad as well. Now you can decide that you want to overlook that and buy into his latest con, but it's like saying Bernie Madoff would make a great president because he never did anything wrong while holding office.

I mean, at least Hillary is a politician, even if she views things differently than I do.

 

They never looked, maybe we should have the FBI look into it right?

 

Sure, why not? Of course, by now I'm sure there's no evidence whatsoever, but I'd have supported them looking if they thought there was a reason to....and I know you'd have supported that because partisanship is what shapes your entire world view.

 

Have you been paying any attention to the Republican agenda for the last...20 years or so? It's all about big government. The only difference is what they use it for.

 

Except for that hacker who claims to have done it who the FBI extradited. That's not evidence. People haven't been sent to prison on less evidence than that ever.

 

I'm guessing another thread about will be made about Gov. Terry McAuliffe, his shadowy foreign(?) donors, and his ties to the Clintons. Reminds me of the Gore donor controversy...

Pay to play politics at its finest.


So what exactly is Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe being investigated for?
[rquoter]
The politics, and how this relates to the Clintons

McAuliffe's ties to China have already been a political issue for him. During his 2013 campaign, the Republican Governors Association ran an ad questioning his connections to Wang and China in general. And McAuliffe has made his millions in part from sometimes-controversial business dealings, including an electric-car company he founded and promoted by using his political connections, a Washington Post investigation showed.

CNN's report on the investigation focused on the Clinton Foundation and Wang's ties to China's political elite, although CNN said investigators have found nothing wrong. But it's worth exploring to give even more context to how a politician can have connections to foreign nationals.

In 2013, Wang's Chinese company pledged $2 million to the nonprofit foundation. The donation caught the attention of a CBS News investigation in March 2015 -- not because of any campaign finance laws (this is a foundation after all), but because of Wang's political connections.

Wang has served as a delegate to the China's National People's Congress -- kind of like a more ceremonial Congress. And Zapotosky reports that his company helped build one of China's most secure buildings in the world, China's embassy in Washington. CBS lays out why that ties Wang to the highest levels of the Chinese government:

That contract is a direct tie to the Chinese government, said Jim Mann, who has written several books on China's relationship with the United States. With "embassy construction, one of the most important tasks is making sure that there are no bugs there," he said. "So you want to have the closest security and intelligence connections with and approval of the person or company that's going to build your embassy."

Tying this back to McAuliffe: He also served on the board of the Clinton Foundation around the time of the donation. McAuliffe is a longtime Clinton ally and a prolific fundraiser for them. In 2015, Post reporter Laura Vozzella detailed McAuliffe's connection to Wang to show how Clinton Foundation donors also pumped millions into the governor's campaign accounts.

But despite all these political connections, we repeat: CNN reports that there are no allegations that the Clinton Foundation, which collected millions of donations from foreign nationals and companies, did anything wrong.

One more thing: Virginia is the Wild West of campaign finance laws

We mention this at the very bottom of this explanation because it may not be applicable to the investigation. This appears to be a federal investigation, not a state one. But it is worth noting that Virginia state campaign finance laws have virtually no rules. You can accept any amount of money from people, corporations, unions or partnerships. You have to report it, and you can't accept anonymous donations or donations from foreign nationals.
[/rquoter]

There's "nothing wrong" because our campaign finance laws are jacked up.

Bloomberg video on the story: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/v...fe-investigation-is-bad-news-for-the-clintons

 

So let me get this straight, CF illiberals rush to defend rapist Assange and attention-w**** Snowden, but when it comes to national security investigations, nothing?

Good to know. I however do think he needs to be prosecuted just as the US would prosecute him if he worked for the Chinese government.

[rQUOTEr]Hacker who exposed Hillary Clinton's email server pleads guilty

A Romanian computer hacker who revealed the existence of a private email server used by Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state pleaded guilty to hacking-related offenses on Wednesday, the U.S. Justice Department said.

Marcel Lazar, who used the alias "Guccifer," entered his guilty plea before Judge James Cacheris in U.S. District Court, Alexandria, Virginia, the department said in a statement. Sentencing was set for Sept. 1.

In recent media interviews, Lazar claimed he had easily hacked into Clinton's controversial private email server. But the Justice Department statement did not confirm this claim, and a law enforcement official said investigators did not find evidence to support the claim.[/rQUOTEr]

 

State Department report slams Clinton email use

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/polit...port-faults-clinton-over-email-use/index.html

This is the Obama run State Department's Inspector General saying this.

I also find it fascinating the only folks who "declined to be interviewed" were Clinton and her aides. I can't imagine why that might be... /sarcasm

 

http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BBttEYG?ocid=se


The State Department’s independent watchdog released an 83-page report Wednesday to lawmakers concluding that Hillary Clinton’s email practices did not comply with department policies.

Below are some of the most revealing parts of the findings:

1. The report concludes that Clinton’s use of a personal email account was “not an appropriate method.” This knocks down a key argument made in Clinton’s defense — that because she had emailed State Department officials on their government accounts, records of her communications were preserved.




2. In June 2011, there were two hacking attempts on the Clinton email system in one day. An adviser to President Bill Clinton tried to shut down the server each time.




3. There were warnings issued to senior State Department officials that hackers were targeting personal email accounts. Below, an excerpt from a March 11, 2011, memo written by the assistant secretary of diplomatic



4. The audit also covered Clinton’s aides, some of whom did not cooperate when asked to respond to a questionnaire about email use. Some of the aides used their personal email accounts extensively for official business.



5. The package of emails turned over by Clinton was “incomplete.”



6. IT security officials were concerned about Clinton’s use of personal email and held meetings to discuss the need to preserve records and security. One staff member said the security director said the email system had been approved by state’s legal staff. The IG did not find evidence that the department’s legal adviser had reviewed or approved Clinton’s email system.

Another staff member who raised issues was told that their mission was “to support the Secretary, and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”



7. The report also criticizes Colin Powell’s handling of official emails during his tenure as secretary of state, saying it was also “not an appropriate method” for preserving emails that are part of the federal record. When asked to defend her email system, Clinton has said that her predecessors also used personal accounts.



But the report also notes that by the time Clinton became secretary of state, the guidance on email use was much more detailed, suggesting that pointing to Powell is not an entirely fair comparison.

 

Great analysis, Granville. BUT I think it important to keep sight of the forest here, and not just the trees. Why did Hillary set up this personal email server? So that she could conduct business outside of any oversight or without having her emails perused without her being able to interdict beforehand. The entire purpose of this system was to circumvent established governance and ability to recall emails in the event of an investigation. How was it found out that she had this system? When attempts were made to recover her emails regarding Benghazi, and it was discovered that she didn't have any emails. In short, for precisely the reason she had this system set up, and also for precisely the reason such systems are not supposed to be out there.

Her excuse about not wanting two personal mobile devices to access her email is a crock. People access multiple systems from a single mobile device all the time. Her M.O. is very much around control and secrecy, has been since she was First Lady (recall the FBI files she had).

Further, while there are quite a few example of other people in State who used personal email accounts, I haven't heard of ONE where those people didn't even have a State account, and who set up their own entire email system. So, there aren't any others (unless someone can provide such an example) who did what Hillary did. This is also proof that her 'inconvenient' excuse doesn't fly. It is certainly far more 'inconvenient' to set up and manage an entire separate email system, as well as all the communication difficulties this would entail (getting others at State her email address, getting it from them, issues with emailing classified cocuments, etc).

So, while we can argue details and innuendo (and those may indeed be pertinent in a legal sense), there is no doubt at all that she set this system up to circumvent any attempts by others to have access to her emails, or that in doing so she unnecessarily exposed these emails to attempts to hack them (her personal system would not have the security built around it that a government system would, and also it would need to be somewhat exposed just to allow traffic back and forth with everyone else she would need to communicate with). In short, there isn't much doubt as to her intent, despite what she might say about that.