Hillary Clinton's Private E-Mail Draws Scrutiny

Cross domain still happens and while we peasants have our USB ports blocked, do we think that applies to the ruling class?
 
My problem is the Federal Records Act is it should include everyone in all three branches of government. They should all meet the same requirements.
 
You are correct in that it has been on the books for a while, but from what I understand from the smart people who are analyzing this topic, the requirement to use an official email for correspondence was not introduced until the act was amended in 2014.

This article lays it out: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/officials-detail-obama-administration-email-policies/


I grant that the whole thing is very shady, and does reflect on Mrs. Clinton's character, but it doesn't really look like that's a charge that's going to stick. Really, it seems like the mishandling of classified material has more traction to it.

No "legal requirement," only the US Code, signed by the President of the United States. I'll take what I can read with my own eyes over what some "former official" who isn't even willing to go on the record has to say.
 
No "legal requirement," only the US Code, signed by the President of the United States. I'll take what I can read with my own eyes over what some "former official" who isn't even willing to go on the record has to say.

Yeah and ???

Prosecutorial discretion comes to mind.

Regardless if the actions were in fact lawful (I personally believe there was most likely "spillage"), were her actions as SECSTATE ethical? I do not believe they were simply because the creation and exclusive usage of a private server was done for the sole purpose of complete and total privacy. This violates the ENTIRE inspectors general process by not allowing for oversight and, moreover, as a public servant whose salary is provided for by tax dollars, she absolutely has ZERO right to privacy when using a government computer system (PII excluded). Every email she sent belongs to we the people and not her.

I hope the AP sues the shit out of her for violating the FOIA. But in order to prove she destroyed USG property (a crime) by deleting emails, they would have to ask the Chinese for copies.

This is no worse than the 18 1/2 minutes gap in the Oval Office tapes. "When the Secretary of State does it, IT is not illegal!"
 
Yeah and ???

Prosecutorial discretion comes to mind.

Regardless if the actions were in fact lawful (I personally believe there was most likely "spillage"), were her actions as SECSTATE ethical? I do not believe they were simply because the creation and exclusive usage of a private server was done for the sole purpose of complete and total privacy. This violates the ENTIRE inspectors general process by not allowing for oversight and, moreover, as a public servant whose salary is provided for by tax dollars, she absolutely has ZERO right to privacy when using a government computer system (PII excluded). Every email she sent belongs to we the people and not her.

I hope the AP sues the shit out of her for violating the FOIA. But in order to prove she destroyed USG property (a crime) by deleting emails, they would have to ask the Chinese for copies.

This is no worse than the 18 1/2 minutes gap in the Oval Office tapes. "When the Secretary of State does it, IT is not illegal!"

What does "yeah, and???" mean? The USC was a lawfully enacted statute signed by the President of the United States, there is no "and."
 
What does "yeah, and???" mean? The USC was a lawfully enacted statute signed by the President of the United States, there is no "and."

Sir, meaning that you are completely right however the DOJ would never prosecute and the People would most likely have a difficult case showing that they were harmed by her flagrant lawbreaking. Nothing will come from this.

Her condescending excuse for using a private account sounded like Carville wrote it himself (queue the right wing conspiracy). I, like most teenagers, had no trouble setting up multiple email accounts from multiple web-based servers on my phone. But this is too difficult for the Department of State's IT department? If I were a State Information Management Specialist, I'd write an OpEd in the NYT that started with something like "Look bitch,.."

Her private tech people cannot set up two accounts on her phone but they can run their own server at home?:thumbsdown:
 
I wonder if Bildo coached the Hilldebeast before she went up for that televised late term abortion of a presser?


Looks familiar enough.... NAAAAAAAAAH! It's nothing. I must be seeing things.
 
I wonder if Bildo coached the Hilldebeast before she went up for that televised late term abortion of a presser?

Looks familiar enough.... NAAAAAAAAAH! It's nothing. I must be seeing things.

HA! She said she did not SEND...but did she RECEIVE any SECRET sitreps? Those were just PERSONAL//REL CLINTON:ack:
 
RUMINT is starting to churn out now that Valerie Jarrett was the one responsible for leaking the information about HRC's email server. How true that is, I don't know, especially considering HRC's emails had already been hacked by Guccifer some time ago (the time frame escapes me at the moment). I'm linking to the search result from Google under the news tab, so that those with the time can choose their sources that they want to read through.
 
RUMINT is starting to churn out now that Valerie Jarrett was the one responsible for leaking the information about HRC's email server. How true that is, I don't know, especially considering HRC's emails had already been hacked by Guccifer some time ago (the time frame escapes me at the moment). I'm linking to the search result from Google under the news tab, so that those with the time can choose their sources that they want to read through.
If true then ROTFLMAO!!!

Anyone with minimal ties to Chicago knows the two camps hate each other, and wondered why he picked her for Sec State.
 
If true then ROTFLMAO!!!

Anyone with minimal ties to Chicago knows the two camps hate each other, and wondered why he picked her for Sec State.

I think he did it in an effort to control her. Much easier to control someone who "reports" to you than it is to control a US senator. I think the bigger question is why did she accept and serve? She'd have been much better off to stay a senator IMO.
 
Back
Top