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

This.

/thread on Major.

 

Hillary revealed several things today as she lied her face off in front of America.

She looks terrible. She actually looks older than her age of 67. Rightly or wrongly, looks matter in politics.

It’s the same dirty Clintons as before. Always choosing misdirection, lies, concealment, and obfuscation over transparency and honesty.

Regarding the emails and releasing what’s on the server, Hillary believes that stonewalling is the best course of action. Eventually everything will get hung up at the DOJ and never see the light of day. It’s the Fast & Furious defense.

Hillary will get beaten up on transparency for the remainder of her campaign.

Hillary’s cover story is absurd. Just completely unbelievable. “Convenience” led her to install a private server in her home? That’s just ludicrous.

A Commander-in-Chief does not put national security at risk for “convenience”.

Perhaps most importantly for the election, Hillary is just not a very likeable person. She is so manufactured and fake. Everything with her is poll tested and carefully worded – like she is constantly trying to remember her lines and not contradict previous stories. She is the opposite of genuine. Triangulation dominates her political strategy instead of having a set of guiding principles.

 

email is proving to be a big problem for a transparent and open government.

 

Does anyone else find it ironic that Mrs. Clinton (who was an attorney that worked to help those who were trying to impeach President Nixon) is claiming "privacy" for her e-mail server....a claim that is almost identical to what Nixon claimed with regards to the Watergate tapes?

Hey Hillary...how'd that work out for Nixon?

 

Don't hold back Trader_Jorge. Tell us all how you feel.

Maybe you'll have to change your moniker again?

 

You really don't understand how email works? I thought it was a joke at first, but you're really completely unaware that emails involve multiple parties and that she can't delete the other parties' copy? I don't thin you should be calling anyone else stupid based on this.

And the other thing that would explain the huge gaps reported is that Trey Gowdy does not have all of Clinton's emails. He only asked for some, and only got some - specifically, 850 pages out of the 55,000 that exist. Perhaps you should do more research before going on stupid rants.

I have no clue - I'm not the one claiming that she clearly violated a law. To do that, you need evidence, and you very clearly have none, which is why you keep relying on Vince Foster and "can you believe this??" That's not how our system works. I have no idea what she emailed about or how much she did so. I have no idea how or when she used her email and for what purposes, especially given that State Dept has specific separate systems for classified materials. The question is: Do you?

You do realize emails can be made public by people without subpoena, yes?

You realize there are ways to transmit stuff anonymously, yes?

So no one will reveal a single email because of some bizarre fear of Clinton, but all these other countries have hackers that have free reign to them and will use them to blackmail her? You live in a fascinating world of utter stupidity.

Comprehension of basic English would be helpful here. What do you think a hoarder who doesn't throw things away is?

So this one's claim is that it "raises questions". Nothing more.

This guy doesn't understand the Federal Records Act and what it requires. The conclusions he comes to are not supported by the text he quotes. His reading comprehension appears to be as terrible as yours.

If this is what you're relying on, you are truly bad at making a case. Which is not surprising since all your "analysis" rests on murder conspiracy theories and the like.

 

Which is sort of funny, since no one has ever cared that are no records of actual person-to-person discussions between government officials.

 

How is that funny. Emails account for much more than that. Phone records and memos have to be shredded or sealed.

 

A square is a circle when it's already a circle in your mind.

 

And again... You yourself seem to not understand that in the absence of Clinton's emails, there is NO WAY to find out who she sent mail to unless someone steps forward. If she deleted mail then there is no trail from her end. Again... Should the subpoena read "everyone who has ever emailed Hillary"?

YOU are the one who doesn't understand how this works. It's not possible to track this down at this point - which is why she did it in the first place. There is nowhere for any investigators to start, not that she will let them look at her servers anyway...

And what he got had huge gaps in it. He got a big black hole during the ;eriod when she visited Libya. You don't find that curious for a committe investigating Benghazi? Of course you don't... It's perfectly normal for a Secretary of State to cease all electronic communications in the middle of a war and negotiation of aftermath... Right?

Absurd.

I keep throwing out Vince Foster because you keep throwing out the "well someone would talk!" theory. Well, if someone thinks they are going to get snuffed out by the Clinton Machine, they might well not talk. I wouldn't. Would you?

Unfortunately that is how our system works. Thanks to dumb voters who enable crooked politicians.

Well yeah actually. I have been paying attention. Have you?

She did NOT ever get around to creating a .gov email account. In four years, she didn't get what every other federal employee sets up on day one... That means that she did not have access to normal classified screening systems. When government emails are sent with classified information they MUST be marked with the appropriate level of classification. If this is sent to someone with the appropriate level of classification, then that person can access that data. If they do not have the appropriate level of classification, then they cannot access it. That is how most government systems are set up.

Hillary bypassed all of that. No classification requirements. She could send her dog the same classified email that she sent her Deputy, and no one would ever know.

Yes but a subpoena has a better chance of forcing someone to release emails that they don't want to make public. Which is certainly relevant in this case.

Oh my, I hadn't realized that. You mean someone - like a Cabinet level official - could maintain their own servers outside of legally mandated department protocols, and they could transmit information completely under the radar that way? My goodness, I never would have suspected such a thing was possible!!

Are you freaking serious? LMFAO...

If I was a Russian hacker, and I found my way into her systems, what would be the smartest course of action to take? She is a presidential candidate who has a good chance of winning in 2016, thanks to the abundance of ignorant American voters. What do I do with her emails and the bounty of classified information it surely holds? The best course is blackmail.

If I am a lone American citizen sitting on an email from Hillary thart could break her... How confident am I that the Clinton machine won't kill me to suppress it? I am not doing anything with that email personally. Even though I would love to bring down a dishonest politician I am not willing to sacrifice my life and my family's well-being to publicize it.

Vince Foster. You betcha.

Are you calling Clinton a hoarder now? Is that the defense at this point? I guess better a hoarder than a serial liar...

The language is not confusing at all. It requires federal employees to make available all communications for archival. And not two years after the fact under duress.

The defense of this has moved into the category of sublime absurdity. I expect nothing less from the partisan libtards but mindless defense of Hillary's inexcusable actions. The fact is that the is ZERO reason to maintain this personal account as she did other than to avoid transparency. She violated both President Obama's directives as well as her own directives while at State on this matter. This is not even really a matter of debate, it's historical and legal record.

If you believe Hillary, I have a bridge to sell ya. Good pricing, too.

 

I love it when Major picks apart all of treeman's conspiracies. It's quite entertaining. :grin:

Those Clinton's though, I'm ready for them to go away. Enough drama.

 

And winning...the presidency.

 

PTSD is a serious issue.

 

Awful comment from you, but frankly, not surprising. Very low class on your part. Come on.

 

I'm sorry you disagree.

 

You missed something from the weekly journal of "scripts" that conservatives receive.....Benghazi.

 

What's the difference between UFOs and an honest politician? UFOs exist.

 

here's the whole press conference, which, if you can stomach it, is rather painful to watch.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_0ap9FPu5dk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

the AP is now suing the State Department, seeking access to the records!

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5f35...ate-department-seeking-access-clinton-records

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Associated Press filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.

The legal action comes after repeated requests filed under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act have gone unfulfilled. They include one request AP made five years ago and others pending since the summer of 2013.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, comes a day after Clinton broke her silence about her use of a private email account while secretary of state. The FOIA requests and lawsuit seek materials related to her public and private calendars, correspondence involving longtime aides likely to play key roles in her expected campaign for president, and Clinton-related emails about the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices.

"After careful deliberation and exhausting our other options, The Associated Press is taking the necessary legal steps to gain access to these important documents, which will shed light on actions by the State Department and former Secretary Clinton, a presumptive 2016 presidential candidate, during some of the most significant issues of our time," said Karen Kaiser, AP's general counsel.

"The press is a proxy for the people, and AP will continue its pursuit of vital information that's in the public interest through this action and future open records requests," she said.