• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton had no official State Dept. email address

I wonder if she can brush this off by blaming her subordinates? If its true, I dont think she can.

I don't think she'll get out from under this, either.

Probably the best she can do is string things along until the next election...hoping her Democratic base won't let such things prevent them from voting for her. If she can't do that, I'm afraid her campaign is going to be over before it gets started...and she could end up with a criminal record.


Oh...wait, there are a couple other possibilities though I don't give them very high chances of happening. The State Department might tell a pack of lies to keep her off the hook or she might get convicted really quickly...and Obama pardons her. I don't think Obama likes her enough to stick his political neck out for her and you know all those emails she turned over to the State Department? They are not in digital form that is easily searched. She gave them reams and reams of printouts. That's got to piss them off since they are facing court suits from multiple directions about her emails.
 
Last edited:
Pretty neat trick - define the relevant population (two people out of dozens of cabinet level WH officials) so you can exclude the White House email scandal of the latter Bush years and MILLIONS of deleted emails. That's relevant, sorry, especially when you're recommending a JAIL term for Hillary over this. That's fine, and we can jail her in the same cell block as Karl Rove and the rest of the Bush WH.

Besides, as you can tell from what you quoted, I'm conceding wrongdoing on Hillary's part, including that IMO she clearly used a private email server to effectively manage what does and doesn't get released - or delete any that might prove damaging if you prefer. That's relevant and highly damaging. The only thing I get a little tired of is the fact that it's a Clinton involved, so if there's a problem she ought to be arrested, tried, convicted and JAILED!!!! Give me a break. The only people buying that are still worried about BENGHAZI!!!!

Sorry Jasper, the reason for focusing on your Powell red herring is because AT LEAST that sounds related. The so-called "Bush staff e-Mail scandal" is even less related. But as you insist:

First, Hillary Clinton is "the only secretary of state known to have conducted all official unclassified government business on a private email address." Years earlier, when emailing was not the ubiquitous practice it is now among high officials, White House staff used both government and private accounts, one for official business and the other for political, personal, and other business... as effectively required under the Hatch Act. And it's a striking departure from the norm for top officials to rely exclusively on private email for official business.".

Second, White House staff did not, as far as known, generally use the private email for government business. While there may have been many exceptions, the primary purpose of the system was not to conceal official business - which was the ONLY real purpose of Clinton's system. There may have been violations by Bush staffers of the Presidential record act but that is uncertain.

Third, if Hillary had a separate email address for personal, political, or other business (as did the white house staff)...on a private server, and had used her State Department email address only for business there would be no controversy. If she deleted her pwn account emails from her server, there would be very little controversy. BUT she blatantly set up a system to hide her motives and actions.

Four, in 2009, the year Clinton became secretary, federal regulations codified that a contemporary transfer to archives is required of personal e-mails used for official business. She did not do so, intentionally.

One has to measure the actions by the standards, assumptions, laws and intentions of the respective persons at the time of their service.
 
Last edited:
I don't think she'll get out from under this, either.

Probably the best she can do is string things along until the next election...hoping her Democratic base won't let such things prevent them from voting for her. If she can't do that, I'm afraid her campaign is going to be over before it gets started...and she could end up with a criminal record.


Oh...wait, there are a couple other possibilities though I don't give them very high chances of happenings. The State Department might tell a pack of lies to keep her off the hook or she might get convicted really quickly...and Obama pardons her.

CNN's John King had an interesting take: Email scandal is Clinton deja vu | Politics - KCCI Home

That decision was made despite direction from her boss - President Obama - that administration officials should use official email accounts. It also came despite his - and her - promises of improved government transparency. And despite her 2007 criticism of Bush administration use of "secret White House email accounts."

Why didn't someone on her team push back, and insist Secretary Clinton reconsider?

Flashback to January 1996. Writing in The New York Times, reporter David Johnston wrote of Mrs. Clinton's secretive role in the firings of White House travel office staffers and, significantly, "a climate of fear in which officials did not dare question Mrs. Clinton's wishes."

What is past is prologue.

Then, and now, Clinton loyalists describe shortcuts taken on her behalf as inadvertent and innocent. For convenience, they say, not protection. Clinton critics, then and now, see cutthroat use of power and a trademark penchant for control and secrecy.

Her camp's response to the email controversy so far is textbook Clinton crisis management: say -- and do -- as little as possible, just enough to keep inevitable controversy from ballooning into unpredictable crisis.
 
Sorry Jasper, the reason for focusing on your Powell red herring is because AT LEAST that sounds related. The so-called "Bush staff e-Mail scandal" is even less related. But as you insist:

It's not unrelated. The relevant population isn't other Federal SoS's - basically her and Powell. At a minimum, it's executive branch cabinet level officials.


Second, White House staff did not, as far as known, generally use the private email for government business. While there may have been many exceptions, the primary purpose of the system was not to conceal official business - which was the ONLY real purpose of Clinton's system. There may have been violations by Bush staffers of the Presidential record act but that is uncertain.

LMAO. That's really all you need to say to let everyone know you're not even trying to be subjective here. Were you asleep during that entire controversy and haven't even read the wiki article on it since?

It's not "known" that Hillary didn't turn over all her work related emails. If she has, and no one has credibly alleged she has not, the big violation here is she didn't transfer them contemporaneously as sort of required by regulations at that time.
 
It's not unrelated. The relevant population isn't other Federal SoS's - basically her and Powell. At a minimum, it's executive branch cabinet level officials.

LMAO. That's really all you need to say to let everyone know you're not even trying to be subjective here. Were you asleep during that entire controversy and haven't even read the wiki article on it since?

It's not "known" that Hillary didn't turn over all her work related emails. If she has, and no one has credibly alleged she has not, the big violation here is she didn't transfer them contemporaneously as sort of required by regulations at that time.

Sorry old chap, you can't make a case out of wishful thinking. It's simple:

Clinton routed all her State Department Business to a private router; the Bush white house staff had one government approved and secured system for business, and access to the other system for "other" political and personal stuff.

And whether or not, after being caught, she turned over all the 'purloined' records is moot. We know, by design, that she was concealing, and intended to conceal, the totality of her business email records. We also know, for sure, that this was not occasional or even infrequent presence of government business on a private server. And finally, we know that by 2009 it was completely clear it was illegal.

This does not apply to the Bush years, other than through speculation and wishful "gotcha" thinking.
 
Hypocrisy is inherent in politics...What is dishonest is the ability to own up to it.

Owning up to hypocrisy is dishonest??? I've figured your ass for some time now.
 
Owning up to hypocrisy is dishonest??? I've figured your ass for some time now.

You have nothing 'figured'...I made a mistake in wording...The dishonesty is in NOT owning up to it....But, I don't expect you to be honest and own up to your own....
 
I don't think she'll get out from under this, either.

Probably the best she can do is string things along until the next election...hoping her Democratic base won't let such things prevent them from voting for her. If she can't do that, I'm afraid her campaign is going to be over before it gets started...and she could end up with a criminal record.

They definitely won't. Especially not if the alternative is an election-rigger.
 
You have nothing 'figured'...I made a mistake in wording...The dishonesty is in NOT owning up to it....But, I don't expect you to be honest and own up to your own....

Which would be?
 
You know, no one has come up with a good reason why this is a major crisis NOW. Everyone who emailed her - or got an email from her - knew she was using a private account. If there was a problem, it should have been brought up then.

I can only assume this is a fake crisis to try to derail her run for the presidency.
 
You know, no one has come up with a good reason why this is a major crisis NOW. Everyone who emailed her - or got an email from her - knew she was using a private account. If there was a problem, it should have been brought up then.

I can only assume this is a fake crisis to try to derail her run for the presidency.

Well, let's hope it has that effect as well. No, it's not a fake issue, and there's probably others doing it as well. At any rate, this needs to be about national security. No politicians or diplomats should be conducting official business on personal e-mail systems. This is solved by issuing .gov addresses to all government employees and requiring their use and archiving. And prosecution of anyone caught conducting official business on personal systems.
 
You know, no one has come up with a good reason why this is a major crisis NOW. Everyone who emailed her - or got an email from her - knew she was using a private account. If there was a problem, it should have been brought up then.

I can only assume this is a fake crisis to try to derail her run for the presidency.

Her subordinates at State cannot reasonably have been expected to call out their boss. It is a crisis now because BHO campaign operatives fed the story to the NYT.
 
I hope who ever this matters to investigates her to the fullest. I wish them all the best in their investigations and hearings.

I hope she is released from prison in time to take the oath of office...If not She will be the first President in US history to have her swearing in... in prison.

Oh brother.
 
So tell me what is unclear about it? First you claimed she broke it, then it was unclear? The powers given in the 1950 bill does not use the word "records", and it strictly limits what can be collected. The amendment passed in 2014 broadens the powers to the words "records defined" which gives a much broader amount of power.

But none the less I guess it was just "unclear" in my pasts posts. Maybe this will make it a bit more clear: "Finally, like the amendments to the PRA, the amendments to the FRA also include language that would provide that an employee of an executive agency may not create or send a record from a nonofficial electronic messaging account without ensuring such record was submitted to an official electronic messaging account.". http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt218/pdf/CRPT-113srpt218.pdf I mean, I thought it was pretty clear before... Is it still "false" or "unclear"? Or has it been made clear yet?

In other words, as long as Hillary was replying to State Dept/other federal employees to their government email accounts, I.e., "state.gov", she had every reason to believe her emails would become part of State Dept permanent record even if her email replies were initiated from a private email account.

Under the law as revised, that makes sense. That's not to say she may not have taken certain personal liberties with "scrubbing" her own emails, but who among asking us hadn't?

I go through my emails regularly and delete old emails I've sent that are no longer relevant all the time. And that which I miss gets archived. Of course, the question as to what, if anything, wasn't archived that could have been considered "official -vs- personal/private" and who has jurisdiction over the email review process does need to be resolved especially if any of her email replies involved a critical "decision" only she could make as SOS.

Overall, I think this entire ordeal is more an exercise in search of that "gotcha" moment, but as I said previously let's see what those other 300 emails that got turned over to congressional investigators heading up Benghazi-Gate turn up.

Again, Good Luck!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom