• 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

Hillary Clinton

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON has served as first lady, a senator from New York and secretary of state. She is no newcomer to the corridors of power. Her decision to exclusively use a private e-mail account while secretary suggests she made a deliberate decision to shield her messages from scrutiny. It was a mistake that reflects poor judgment about a public trust.
Under the rules as they existed during Ms. Clinton’s time as secretary, from 2009 to 2013, government officials were not strictly required to use official e-mail accounts. However, in 2011 the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said, “We are definitely instructed that we need to conduct all of our work on our government accounts . . . .” He said it was “administration policy” to use government accounts. Did this not apply to Ms. Clinton at the State Department?
If government officials did use private e-mails for public business, they were required to consider the e-mails to be equivalent to government records and to preserve them. Ms. Clinton took her e-mail with her when she left office in 2013, and then, in December, when asked by the State Department, turned over 55,000 pages of e-mails from the private account. Her spokesman said that in cases when she wrote to department officials at their formal addresses, those e-mails should still be in the department’s system. President Obama signed amendments to a law last November that require government employees who use private e-mail for official business to forward it to government systems within 20 days. . . .
 
I don't see much ideology in this discussion.

I do. You have openly stated that she is violating the wall, when asked why you link to a pundits claims, all of which have been answered here using the official law. Then you still made claims not backed up by factual information, had when asked to provide the backing behind the claims the reply is, "I cant because of modesty. And look I have pundits making accusations" (all of which have been proven false). Its clear there is an ideology. You dont like her. I get it it. But you not liking her, does not mean she broke the law.
 
I do. You have openly stated that she is violating the wall, when asked why you link to a pundits claims, all of which have been answered here using the official law. Then you still made claims not backed up by factual information, had when asked to provide the backing behind the claims the reply is, "I cant because of modesty. And look I have pundits making accusations" (all of which have been proven false). Its clear there is an ideology. You dont like her. I get it it. But you not liking her, does not mean she broke the law.

Actually, I would vote for her in preference to some of the Repubs. Your faith that the allegations "have been answered" is touching. I think this matter has a long way to go. My guess is that Obama political operators are behind this story.
 
Actually, I would vote for her in preference to some of the Repubs. Your faith that the allegations "have been answered" is touching. I think this matter has a long way to go. My guess is that Obama political operators are behind this story.

:lamo Yup Obama is all behind it.
 
Just so we're clear, the Secretary of State hardly needs an official email address (and especially doesn't need to cull out all the spam, viruses, and other junk). He or she has plenty of aides to handle correspondence.

That being said, doing government business from a personal email account is a definite no-no.

Except what she did was legal when she did it. The law was changed after she left office. The Times seems to have left that little tidbit out of their story.
 
You asked for a link or a direct quote. I provided the link, and her email habit is well documented. Nice try.

If her email habit is so well documented then why don't they have any documented emails? :roll:
 
We can see the smoke and mirrors being deployed on this one, because Clinton hasn't got an ethical leg to stand on. There isn't a chance in hell she didn't do this to avoid having her official emails controlled by the govt.
 

Oh brother! :roll: First, it is noted that you choose to use a highly biased site, and a snarky little troll on that site to refute what is absolutely a scandal, and a problem for Clinton's trustworthiness for 2016.

Clinton is the same person that gave us:

"Benghazi was about a video"

"At this point what does it matter?!"

"I consider myself an early 20th Century progressive"

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just, I don't understand it." --on why she is staying in the race

"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists." --after being asked by George Stephanopoulos about economists' claims that her gas tax holiday proposal would not bring down gas prices

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." --on visiting Bosnia in 1996, contradicting other accounts that said there was no threat of gunfire. Clinton later said she "misspoke"

"Aww don't feel noways tired. I've come too faarrr from where I started frum." --adopting a Southern drawl while speaking at a church...



Come on man, this is just another in the long line of red flags that tell us that Hillary is just not an honest person, or trustworthy enough to be the President of the United States....I mean look what happens when we elect a liar....We get Obama, or even Bush if you prefer....It isn't good for the nation....But maybe that is your goal, it isn't mine.
 
Blindly follow political pundits that agree with me, with no consideration to the facts!

Are you kidding? Was it not you that used a "Banter" web site, with a far leftests opinion on the subject to reply to me earlier? Oh I see, your own standards don't apply to you though do they?
 
And how do they know she was conducting Federal business if they haven't seen the emails?

(And if they have seen the emails, why aren't they disclosing them?)

They have seen the emails. So has the Hungarian hacker that dumped them all on the internet.
 
Although I don't think its a good idea that any government business be conduct on the less secure private e-mail systems, I believe that using private e-mail systems generally isn't the big problem as not providing business related correspondence for archiving is. I just don't understand why a government e-mail isn't assigned whenever someone assumes such a role.

The only reason it wouldn't be is that she told them not to.
 
The only reason it wouldn't be is that she told them not to.

Assuming that you mean she told them not to MAKE HER BUSINESS E-MAILS available for archiving, and that that can be proven, then yeah, we have yet another reason why we don't need her for president.
 
The only reason it wouldn't be is that she told them not to.

And now it seems she is hiding behind the State Dept. for the release....Using the bogus terminology about giving up 55K emails. I say "So what?" 55K, or 155K, how do we know that there aren't more that are being hidden, or destroyed?
 
Please show me in the law then where it states that? You were the one that claimed it does, now show me in the Act where it gives the US Federal Government the power to obtain private emails from federal officials.

Also you never answered my question: "Can you point to this amendment Bill Clinton signed into law?"

I already showed you. I underlined and bolded the relevant parts even.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia/whinitial.pdf
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia/reno93.pdf
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia/presidentstmt.pdf
E-FOIA amendements (H.R. 3802)

https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr1233/BILLS-113hr1233rfs.pdf
 
Do I "trust her"? For the most part no. I am no fan of Hilary Clinton's, I am not "#readyforHilary", I think she is another typical war hawk. But I am not going to falsely accuse her of breaking a law just because I dont like her.

I feel the same way essentially, and it is incredible how sloppy this whole story was reported by supposedly legitimate news outlets. It's the kind of crap that would seem at home on a blog without editors, fact checkers, etc. asking simple questions such as which specific law did she break, is she doing anything different than previous SoS? The AP story about the 'homebrew' email system was just awful and about what you'd expect from a diary post at Daily Kos or Redstate. Pretty pathetic reporting all the way around from the premier "news" organizations.
 
Except what she did was legal when she did it. The law was changed after she left office. The Times seems to have left that little tidbit out of their story.


And I keep going back to -this was known at the time. Anyone who emailed her or who got an email from her knows she was using a private email address. Why didn't anyone complain at the time, if it was such a big deal?
 
I feel the same way essentially, and it is incredible how sloppy this whole story was reported by supposedly legitimate news outlets. It's the kind of crap that would seem at home on a blog without editors, fact checkers, etc. asking simple questions such as which specific law did she break, is she doing anything different than previous SoS? The AP story about the 'homebrew' email system was just awful and about what you'd expect from a diary post at Daily Kos or Redstate. Pretty pathetic reporting all the way around from the premier "news" organizations.


Yea its the Media's fault that she exclusively used a private Email account and private server....Lol
 
Back
Top Bottom