• 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

Anthony60 said:
Hey, I think they all should be prosecuted then. Do you have a link or anything about Powell and Bush? I haven't read anything about that. Did they not comply with requests for those emails?
Click to expand...

Goodness, the link about Powell was in the post you quoted, and if you don't recall the Bush era email controversy, you've been living in the right wing bubble for years. But here's a link to get you started: Bush White House email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But really, this is about Hillary. And there is a certain bunch of democrats that want her out of the way and leaked this info. That's who started this.
Click to expand...

Could be democrats are behind this, but I have no idea which candidate these alleged perpetrators are backing. To this point no one with any juice has stepped forward to challenge her.
 
Anthony60 said:
I think this is a good example of these government officials thinking they are above the law, and can do whatever they want. Whether it's Powell or Clinton, or whoever. When they work for us in an official capacity, we have the right to know and obtain their emails and everything they did as a government official. I wouldn't put anyone in jail for this, but I sure would not want them working for me anymore.

God, if I decided to set up a server in my home and conduct business for my job through it, I'd be fired the moment they found out about it. I would guess that is true for most people using their employer's email and hardware.
Click to expand...

I agree with this in a way - state department business should go through .gov emails. But the problem is if she used a private email account, and she would have since it appears she likes to communicate through emails, then we'd have the same controversy, only slightly different because the allegation would be she did her secret stuff on BENGHAZI!! and the rest on her supposedly private account.

At the end of the day, my basic feeling is every public official knows their official account is subject to routine FOIA requests and either doesn't use email for sensitive stuff, or uses a private account. So maybe disclosure rules will catch a few mistakes or very stupid people, but will do little to actually increase transparency.

A person I work with also works on many contracts subject to FOIA requests. And on both ends it changes how business is done, and in predictable ways. Basically discussions that are typically done by email happen over the phone. Drafts for discussion with areas of concern highlighted simply aren't attached to emails - they're discussed in person or sent by fax. Etc.
 
JasperL said:
Goodness, the link about Powell was in the post you quoted, and if you don't recall the Bush era email controversy, you've been living in the right wing bubble for years. But here's a link to get you started: Bush White House email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Looks like they did have multiple accounts. Though, in all these instances, I would say that it is quite obvious that the email addresses are not government email. Hillary took it a step further by having the actual server in her house. You can bet that any incriminating emails are long gone. It's almost like arresting someone, but you can only prosecute them with evidence that they have decided to provide.

Could be democrats are behind this, but I have no idea which candidate these alleged perpetrators are backing. To this point no one with any juice has stepped forward to challenge her.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but Warren has said that she won't run if Hillary is running, and there are many liberals that want her to run.
Click to expand...
 
bwahahaha.

this moron of epic proportions has never won a nation election, and she never will.

I don't care how much damage control her buddies in the mainstream media try to cover this up along with your Bosnia lies, her complete lack of achieving anything as Secretary of State, and all the other nonsense she has brought to this nation is going to do her in. she is toast.

she can go hang out with Brian Williams. she is done.
 
JasperL said:
I have no idea if it was 100%, but I've read nowhere that he had a .gov email address and he's turned over ZERO of those private emails.

Colin Powell says he doesn

And I like how you attribute bad motives to Clinton, but ignore Powell and the Bush WH doing the exact same thing, only with the Bush WH millions, as many as 21 million, were permanently deleted.
Click to expand...
You guys need to stop comparing Clinton to Powell. From your own link:

“When I entered the State Department I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly,” he said. “I started using in order to get everybody to use it, so we could be a 21st-century institution and not a 19th-century [one]. [/I]

In 2001, email was fairly new. I didn't get an email account until 2006. Hillary knew the rules and chose not to follow them. You can believe if you want that she felt she was too important to be bothered to carry two devices (lol) or you can believe she set the system up intentionally to control what information the public would get. Either way its bad
 
JasperL said:
Goodness, the link about Powell was in the post you quoted, and if you don't recall the Bush era email controversy, you've been living in the right wing bubble for years. But here's a link to get you started: Bush White House email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
If the Bush email controversy was bad in your mind, why did Hillary not learn from it and why are you defending her? Hillary bitching about the Bush email 'scandal' then doing the same thing only worse herself is hypocrisy. To the left, Bush is the worst president in history, yet every time a dem does something wrong, the response is well, Bush did it too. If you are admitting that Hillary is as bad as Bush, why is she running? And why are democrats handing her the nomination?
 
Fletch said:
If the Bush email controversy was bad in your mind, why did Hillary not learn from it and why are you defending her? Hillary bitching about the Bush email 'scandal' then doing the same thing only worse herself is hypocrisy. To the left, Bush is the worst president in history, yet every time a dem does something wrong, the response is well, Bush did it too. If you are admitting that Hillary is as bad as Bush, why is she running? And why are democrats handing her the nomination?
Click to expand...

It's the way liberals/progressives/socialists/Democrats operate. By linking what they do to what Republicans did...no matter how bad...they think that gives them moral standing to do it also. We see this with many issues...

Bush lied. (therefore it's okay if Obama lies)
Bush, Reagan, etc., issued EO's and EA's. (therefore it's okay if Obama issues them...even if they trample on the Constitution)
Bush started wars in the Middle East. (therefore it's okay if Obama starts wars in the Middle East...this one is especially hypocritical because they THEN go on about how Obama "stops" wars in the Middle East :roll: )
 
Mycroft said:
It's the way liberals/progressives/socialists/Democrats operate. By linking what they do to what Republicans did...no matter how bad...they think that gives them moral standing to do it also. We see this with many issues...

Bush lied. (therefore it's okay if Obama lies)
Bush, Reagan, etc., issued EO's and EA's. (therefore it's okay if Obama issues them...even if they trample on the Constitution)
Bush started wars in the Middle East. (therefore it's okay if Obama starts wars in the Middle East...this one is especially hypocritical because they THEN go on about how Obama "stops" wars in the Middle East :roll: )
Click to expand...

Why is it that, every time you raise this argument, you fail to mention that both sides are hypocrites?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Why is it that, every time you raise this argument, you fail to mention that both sides are hypocrites?
Click to expand...

Fletch was talking about Hillary and her supporters, so that's who I talked about.

But hey, if you want to talk about how "the GOP does it too", be my guest. All you'll be doing is proving my point.
 
Mycroft said:
Fletch was talking about Hillary and her supporters, so that's who I talked about.

But hey, if you want to talk about how "the GOP does it too", be my guest. All you'll be doing is proving my point.
Click to expand...

No need for me to talk about it. It's already been (rightly) said.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I just don't trust people who claim that one party is wonderful and the other is borderline treasonous.

Admitting that both are hypocrites is a good step in the correct direction.
Click to expand...

Oh...

Pray tell, when did I say that "one party is wonderful"? Or that "the other is borderline treasonous"?

You would be well-served by actually responding to what I said...not what your biased perception THINKS I said.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I just don't trust people who claim that one party is wonderful and the other is borderline treasonous.

Admitting that both are hypocrites is a good step in the correct direction.
Click to expand...
"Correct" according to whom? You? :roll:
 
JasperL said:
LOL, I guess her trial can start right after they convict and jail Powell for the same offense, only he's turned over ZERO of his emails, so his prosecution should be quick and easy. And then we can move on to the Bush WH which routinely used RNC servers, and the administrators there expertly and permanently deleted millions of WH emails that weren't ever recovered and to my knowledge none of which were turned over to the archivist. So after we get a couple dozen or more Bush era people jailed, we can start with Obama appointees.

This is the problem many people have explained about the Clintons. There really IS an issue here, but the problem is her detractors blow up any problem into a jailable, or impeachable offense (whatever remedy suits them at the moment) and so her defenders have to pretend that there isn't any problem at all. So instead of discussing the actual issues, we've got most of the country sitting on pretty untenable positions JAIL!@!!! or She's INNOCENT!!! CONSPIRACY!!!

The truth is she probably didn't break any law by using a private email account, and she did turn over her records (at least no one has proved she didn't) satisfying the record keeping laws, which have no time frame specified. And she didn't do anything more or less illegal than her predecessors in her position. But she didn't follow regulations of her own department, and seems to have clearly decided on a personal account to have "control" over which emails get released.
Click to expand...

Regurgitation of Democratic spin-master talking points does not make their disingenuous and misleading red herrings any more appealing.

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, Colin Powell used both a government and a private account. It's a striking departure from the norm for top officials to rely exclusively on private email for official business.".

Second, Powell took charge of a department that was antiquated and mostly without email systems. He was the one that had a modern email system put into the department, and the first to develop department processes for handling something that was new to staff. As a new process, archiving regulations were not clear and not clarified until 2005, after Powell left. The State Department then updated the Foreign Affairs manual to say that day-to-day operations should be conducted on the authorized system. (Therefore Hillary Clinton was well aware of the requirement).

Third, Powell is not refusing to turn over emails. The request is for information 10 or more years old, made with an account long closed. He has said he has no problem with recovering ALL email from the old account, working with State to see if any can be recovered.

Four, in contrast Clinton's staff "negotiated" with her return of emails since August and has refused to give access to her server, and its deleted emails.

Five, 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.

One has to measure the actions by the standards, assumptions, laws and intentions of the respective persons at the time of their service. In that light the Washington Post Fact-Checker gives your regurgitated defense of Hillary 3 Pinocchios, and Polit-Fact Checker gives it a "Mostly False".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...g-democratic-spin-on-hillary-clintons-emails/
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/03/11/fact-check-clinton-and-her-emails
 
I'm doing something unusual tonight...watching FoxNews. The Kelly Files, to be specific. They have raised an interesting question: Did Hillary Clinton sign a form OF-109 when she left the State Department?

Here is an article that explains what that form is and why it is significant.

National Review
 
Mycroft said:
I'm doing something unusual tonight...watching FoxNews. The Kelly Files, to be specific. They have raised an interesting question: Did Hillary Clinton sign a form OF-109 when she left the State Department?

Here is an article that explains what that form is and why it is significant.

National Review
Click to expand...

Ahahahaha

Was just gonna post on this...
 
Mycroft said:
I'm doing something unusual tonight...watching FoxNews. The Kelly Files, to be specific. They have raised an interesting question: Did Hillary Clinton sign a form OF-109 when she left the State Department?

Here is an article that explains what that form is and why it is significant.

National Review
Click to expand...

Nope, she didn't.

2 years after leaving she turns over the Emails at her attorney's discretion with no State Department official present.
 
Fenton said:
Nope, she didn't.

2 years after leaving she turns over the Emails at her attorney's discretion with no State Department official present.
Click to expand...

Well, we don't really know if she did or did not sign that form, but you are correct about WHEN she turned over her documents. But that's the problem. If she signed the document, then she is obviously guilty of deliberately falsifying a government document...and can be charged with committing a felony. If she DIDN'T sign the document, then we need to know why not. This document is something that EVERY State Department employee or official MUST sign.
 
maxparrish said:
Regurgitation of Democratic spin-master talking points does not make their disingenuous and misleading red herrings any more appealing.

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, Colin Powell used both a government and a private account. It's a striking departure from the norm for top officials to rely exclusively on private email for official business.".

Second, Powell took charge of a department that was antiquated and mostly without email systems. He was the one that had a modern email system put into the department, and the first to develop department processes for handling something that was new to staff. As a new process, archiving regulations were not clear and not clarified until 2005, after Powell left. The State Department then updated the Foreign Affairs manual to say that day-to-day operations should be conducted on the authorized system. (Therefore Hillary Clinton was well aware of the requirement).

Third, Powell is not refusing to turn over emails. The request is for information 10 or more years old, made with an account long closed. He has said he has no problem with recovering ALL email from the old account, working with State to see if any can be recovered.

Four, in contrast Clinton's staff "negotiated" with her return of emails since August and has refused to give access to her server, and its deleted emails.

Five, 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.

One has to measure the actions by the standards, assumptions, laws and intentions of the respective persons at the time of their service. In that light the Washington Post Fact-Checker gives your regurgitated defense of Hillary 3 Pinocchios, and Polit-Fact Checker gives it a "Mostly False".

The misleading Democratic spin on Hillary Clinton’s e-mails - The Washington Post
FACT CHECK: Clinton and Her Emails - US News
Click to expand...

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!!!!
 
JasperL said:
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!!!!
Click to expand...

State Department officials including the SOS has to sign a " OF-109" document stating that they turned over all pertinent documents related to their time at the State Department.

Its signed immediately and the employee has to comply by turning over all documents immediately.

Not turning over the documents is a felony.

If HIllary Clinton signed that document then she violated the law.

If she didn't sign that document then why not. ALL State Department employees have to sign it.

They also asign a State Department official to help the employee go through the documents to help them determine what belongs to the State department and what can be deleted or taken with them.
 
Mycroft said:
Well, we don't really know if she did or did not sign that form, but you are correct about WHEN she turned over her documents. But that's the problem. If she signed the document, then she is obviously guilty of deliberately falsifying a government document...and can be charged with committing a felony. If she DIDN'T sign the document, then we need to know why not. This document is something that EVERY State Department employee or official MUST sign.
Click to expand...

I wonder if she can brush this off by blaming her subordinates? If its true, I dont think she can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom