• 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!

Hillary Clinton Tweets That She Wants Her Email Released To The Public

jmotivator said:
If there is a failure of the Federal mail server she is "allowed" to use a private account for non-privileged state business AND immediately make a paper copy and submit it to the federal archive. Since she just turned over 55k emails it's clear even that rule wasn't followed. Don't play this game with me, I do this for a living. There is no possible way that a private server in your own home is within the laws narrow allowances.

She has a misdemeanor potentially in holding classified data on a private computer (what Petraeus is charged with) and a FELONY of hiding and/or destroying federal documents. That she did not turn these emails over on the previous 7 requests from Congress is pretty clearly hiding federal documents, and if it is determined that she has deleted any emails from that server then she also destroyed federal documents.

Could she just be monumentally stupid and not entirely crooked? Maybe. But then that is why YOU USE FEDERAL FREAKING SERVERS instead of a bullsh** homebrew mail server in your f-ing basement.
Click to expand...

It's an either or, situation isn't it?

Either she broke the law deliberately or she is the dumbest attorney/public servant in existence.

What I love is how the Grubers deal with it, paralleling every scandal. First they say there is "nothing there". When that fails they claim "old news", and when the news doesn't get old, they claim "XXXX did it too" as if that changes anything. Then when that fails, they begin mitigating about exceptions and 'what ifs" etc.

When that fails they go back to "old news"

You never see anyone ever admit anything wrong was done...
 
Hatuey said:
Means nothing one way or another in terms of validating the claim that they've been "scrubbed". If you want to claim that they were "scrubbed" like clownboy did, I welcome you to bring forward your evidence. I'm not a fan of useless conjecture.
Click to expand...

If you notice, I never claimed that they were scrubbed, nor did I claim that they weren't scrubbed.

My point is that you can't, and shouldn't, assume they weren't scrubbed, until verified that they are indeed completed and not altered.

The chain of custody was broken when these emails left the government controlled network. Their state can't be guaranteed one way or another, unless they are validated as being complete and unchanged (if possible).

Why are you still fighting this very common sense and already well practiced and executed, standardized one might even say, position with documents and other evidence of this type?
 
eohrnberger said:
If you notice, I never claimed that they were scrubbed
Click to expand...

That's right, another member did. I asked for evidence to support the claim. He failed to provide any evidence. You've failed to show evidence either way. All you have so far is conjecture based on your own biases. As for assuming anything, I haven't. I've asked for evidence that they have after a member claimed that to be the case. Do you have ANY other strawman you'd like me to address?
 
Hatuey said:
That's right, another member did. I asked for evidence to support the claim. He failed to provide any evidence. You've failed to show evidence either way. All you have so far is conjecture based on your own biases. As for assuming anything, I haven't. I've asked for evidence that they have after a member claimed that to be the case. Do you have ANY other strawman you'd like me to address?
Click to expand...

Look Hatuey, please stop pretending you know anything about federal data security law, procedures and protocols. The simple fact that you can't determine if a server that holds federal records has been scrubbed or not IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

There is no "you have no evidence!" in Federal data security laws. The absence of evidence in and of itself is a federal crime.
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Why again should I give a tinkers damn about her husband again cheating on her? I'm sorry I fail to see what that has to do with anything of him as president? If he does the job and didn't do like Petraus and give his girlfriend secrets and ****, speaking as a woman, I could give a tinkers damn where his dick is. It's not my business.
Click to expand...

I take it from your excited comments that Mrs. Clinton can count on your vote--if she is ever in a position to ask for it.
 
jmotivator said:
Look Hatuey, please stop pretending you know anything about federal data security law, procedures and protocols.
Click to expand...

Federal data security law, procedures and protocols are irrelevant to whether or not it can be proven that they were scrubbed. So I'll ask you too: Do you or do you not have evidence that the e-mails were scrubbed? Yes or no answer. If it's yes, bring the evidence forward. If not, then you can move along too. :shrug:
 
matchlight said:
I take it from your excited comments that Mrs. Clinton can count on your vote--if she is ever in a position to ask for it.
Click to expand...

You thought wrong. I just don't see what where he chooses to spend his dick at has any bearing on it as long as he wasn't doing like Peatreaus and telling secrets.

Hatuey said:
Federal data security law, procedures and protocols are irrelevant to whether or not it can be proven that they were scrubbed. So I'll ask you too: Do you or do you not have evidence that the e-mails were scrubbed? Yes or no answer. If it's yes, bring the evidence forward. If not, then you can move along too. :shrug:
Click to expand...


IT people will be able to figure that out or not. I know someone who does that for a living for a major law firm in my city and she's so damn good it's creepy. Everything has meta data and that you can't get rid of. Once something is there it doesn't go anywhere. It's just harder to get to depending on your level of expertise with it all.
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
IT people will be able to figure that out or not. I know someone who does that for a living for a major law firm in my city and she's so damn good it's creepy. Everything has meta data and that you can't get rid of. Once something is there it doesn't go anywhere. It's just harder to get to depending on your level of expertise with it all.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't really know one way or another whether it was scrubbed. There simply isn't evidence that it was and there isn't evidence that it wasn't. Claiming one way or another is nothing more than conjecture at this point.
 
Hatuey said:
Federal data security law, procedures and protocols are irrelevant to whether or not it can be proven that they were scrubbed. So I'll ask you too: Do you or do you not have evidence that the e-mails were scrubbed? Yes or no answer. If it's yes, bring the evidence forward. If not, then you can move along too. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Seems to me that the only reason why a high level public official would go to the trouble of setting up a private email server is to intentionally try to circumvent FOIA and Oversight Committee request.

If she's dishonest enough to do that AND to push a false narrative about a internet video she's dishonest enough to scrub all communications she doesn't want anyone to see
 
tres borrachos said:
No, I don't. I agree with what they were saying on MSNBC this morning. She parses words and she thinks the rules don't apply to her. But that doesn't mean she should be given a pass.

Apparently her boss' Administration kept telling her to stop using her personal email address. I also think she's incredibly foolish if she didn't know that she shouldn't be conducting business on behalf of the USA from a personal email account on her private server. In my company that's grounds for termination. Probably a lot of other companies as well. I can imagine that Obama is not very happy with her right now, nor should he be.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that Obama or some of his staff was not aware of her personal email account. That's far from a given.

Out of thousands of email recipients not one noticed that the emails were not coming from the .gov site? I find that difficult to believe.

The only acceptable solution at this point is to obtain and examine her server. It's easy enough to determine if there have been deletions.
 
Fenton said:
Seems to me that the only reason why a high level public official would go to the trouble of setting up a private email server is to intentionally try to circumvent FOIA and Oversight Committee request.
Click to expand...

Whatever it seems like to you is irrelevant. If you're going to go around claiming that they were scrubbed, show some evidence to back it up not conjecture. :shrug:
 
Hatuey said:
I honestly don't really know one way or another whether it was scrubbed. There simply isn't evidence that it was and there isn't evidence that it wasn't. Claiming one way or another is nothing more than conjecture at this point.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So I don't get why people are so sure of themselves just because they might not like her. Let the IT people do their jobs.
 
tres borrachos said:
The Washington Post isn't on her side either:

Hillary Clinton’s tweet isn’t going to solve her e-mail problem. Not even close.

<snip>




Hillary Clinton’s tweet isn’t going to solve her e-mail problem. Not even close. - The Washington Post
Click to expand...


Heya TB.
hat.gif
Not only WAPO but the AP too.




Associated Press Threatens Legal Action Over Request for Hillary Clinton Information
By RAVI SOMAIYA
MARCH 4, 2015

The Associated Press said Wednesday that it was considering legal action over unfulfilled Freedom of Information Act requests for government documents covering Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. In its requests, the AP asked for her full schedules and calendars and for details on the State Department’s decision to grant a special position to a longtime Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, among other documents. The oldest request, the news organization said, was made in March 2010.

“We believe it’s critically important that government officials and agencies be held accountable to the voters,” said AP’s general counsel, Karen Kaiser. “In this instance, we’ve exhausted our administrative remedies in pursuit of important documents and are considering legal action.” ....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/b...est-for-hillary-clinton-information.html?_r=0
 
Hatuey said:
That's right, another member did. I asked for evidence to support the claim. He failed to provide any evidence. You've failed to show evidence either way.
Click to expand...

I've failed at nothing that I was posting about. I never asserted the emails were scrubbed or not scrubbed. All I said is that couldn't trust them not to be scrubbed until you verified that they weren't. A completely truthful, fair, standard and prudent position given the circumstances.

Hatuey said:
All you have so far is conjecture based on your own biases. As for assuming anything, I haven't. I've asked for evidence that they have after a member claimed that to be the case. Do you have ANY other strawman you'd like me to address?
Click to expand...

There are no biases in my posts, no strawman. I'm conveying and applying the standard chain of custody practices on these emails, and it's not even conjecture.

Without access to the digital files in which these emails are stored, there no way to validate that they've been scrubbed or not, so your asking for that 'evidence' is just sending someone on a wild goose chase, never to be fulfilled. I'm not expecting an answer, and none is warranted, frankly.
 
MMC said:
Heya TB.
hat.gif
Not only WAPO but the AP too.




Associated Press Threatens Legal Action Over Request for Hillary Clinton Information
By RAVI SOMAIYA
MARCH 4, 2015

The Associated Press said Wednesday that it was considering legal action over unfulfilled Freedom of Information Act requests for government documents covering Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. In its requests, the AP asked for her full schedules and calendars and for details on the State Department’s decision to grant a special position to a longtime Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, among other documents. The oldest request, the news organization said, was made in March 2010.

“We believe it’s critically important that government officials and agencies be held accountable to the voters,” said AP’s general counsel, Karen Kaiser. “In this instance, we’ve exhausted our administrative remedies in pursuit of important documents and are considering legal action.” ....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/b...est-for-hillary-clinton-information.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

Indeed. Without a doubt. I hope AP does get every last scrap. Finally the media's holding a politician accountable!

Hmm. Huma Abedin. Why is that name familiar? Is that the NY Jerk Off's wife?
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Exactly. So I don't get why people are so sure of themselves just because they might not like her. Let the IT people do their jobs.
Click to expand...

After 7 Republican led investigations, they've found nothing on Benghazi. After the supposed IRS scandal, the F&F scandal, the Solyndra scandal etc, they've got absolutely nothing to show. It's desperation, in my opinion but time will tell. Maybe there is something here, my guess is that they'll continue to push this all the way to the election period because they're terrified of Hillary winning in 2016.
 
Hatuey said:
Whatever it seems like to you is irrelevant. If you're going to go around claiming that they were scrubbed, show some evidence to back it up not conjecture. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Lol...if it were " irrelevant " we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I wonder if Hillary thinks all this is irrelevant ?
 
eohrnberger said:
I've failed at nothing that I was posting about.
Click to expand...

Good, then there is nothing else to discuss here. :shrug: You have zero evidence of anything. Clownboy has zero evidence of anything, and any conjecture as to what may or may not be true is irrelevant because there isn't evidence one way or another. :shrug:
 
Fenton said:
Lol...if it were " irrelevant " we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

We're having this discussion because I've challenged all of the opinionated folks to show what evidence they have that the e-mails were scrubbed. Not ONE person has stepped up to the plate with anything. Now, all you're doing is wasting bandwidth with your baseless opinion.
 
Hatuey said:
After 7 Republican led investigations, they've found nothing on Benghazi. After the supposed IRS scandal, the F&F scandal, the Solyndra scandal etc, they've got absolutely nothing to show. It's desperation, in my opinion but time will tell. Maybe there is something here, my guess is that they'll continue to push this all the way to the election period because they're terrified of Hillary winning in 2016.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Even though I really don't understand why they're so damn worried about Hillary. She's basically one of them. Don't they know the history of the DLC and all that ****?

Fenton said:
Lol...if it were " irrelevant " we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I wonder if Hillary thinks all this is irrelevant ?
Click to expand...

That's silly to say. People talk about **** that's irrelevant all the time in life. What's irrelevant to one person isn't to someone else. And apparently she isn't worried about anything since she had her tweet. So, she's probably laughing to the bank, as the saying goes.

Hatuey said:
Good, then there is nothing else to discuss here. :shrug: You have zero evidence of anything. Clownboy has zero evidence of anything, and any conjecture as to what may or may not be true is irrelevant because there isn't evidence one way or another. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's just a football game of nothing and wasted energies.

Hatuey said:
We're having this discussion because I've challenged all of the opinionated folks to show what evidence they have that the e-mails were scrubbed. Not ONE person has stepped up to the plate with anything. Now, all you're doing is wasting bandwidth with your baseless opinion.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There's nothing there! It's like wtf? I would understand if there was something there but nothing has even happened yet and people are already damning.
 
Hatuey said:
After 7 Republican led investigations, they've found nothing on Benghazi. After the supposed IRS scandal, the F&F scandal, the Solyndra scandal etc, they've got absolutely nothing to show. It's desperation, in my opinion but time will tell. Maybe there is something here, my guess is that they'll continue to push this all the way to the election period because they're terrified of Hillary winning in 2016.
Click to expand...

That's not true.

A recent Email from one of her Aides was released that proves Hillary knew the attack was a Terrorist attack almost immediately.

So lying about the deaths of 4 Americans because it was Politically convenient is " nothing " ??
 
Fenton said:
That's not true.
Click to expand...
We had this discussion before and you seem to be regurgitating the same nonsense over and over again. If it isn't true, and you do have something, show us what crime was committed? What felony? What misdemeanor? Why aren't the prosecutions rolling along? Where is the impeachment? Nothing? Okay. You've got nothing. :shrug:
 
Hatuey said:
We're having this discussion because I've challenged all of the opinionated folks to show what evidence they have that the e-mails were scrubbed. Not ONE person has stepped up to the plate with anything. Now, all you're doing is wasting bandwidth with your baseless opinion.
Click to expand...

Yes and I'm sure Hillary and a few die hard Hillary fans are saying the same.

You see thats the whole point of a High level Government official setting up a private email server.

They can, after they've been caught challenge anyone to produce the Emails that dont exist anymore.

Whether they can find those Emails is whats irrelevant.

What's relevant is the lengths that Hillary went to to circumvent any outside access to her cocommunications.
 
eohrnberger said:
Indeed. Without a doubt. I hope AP does get every last scrap. Finally the media's holding a politician accountable!

Hmm. Huma Abedin. Why is that name familiar? Is that the NY Jerk Off's wife?
Click to expand...



Yep the NY Congressman EB. But there is more now and like some are saying. She can't Tweet her way out of this one.



WH Counsel's Office: Wait, Hillary Used Her Personal Email While She Was Secretary Of State?......

Despite Hillary’s tweet, where she proudly proclaimed that all would be able to read her emails, this doesn’t really fix anything. Clinton could release them on her own time given that her personal email address was registered on a server operating out of her family home. To make matters worse, the White House Counsel’s Office reportedly didn’t know Clinton was using her personal email while serving as Obama’s Secretary of State, which not only opened the administration to data breaches, but was not in compliance with the guidelines given to agencies about using government email addresses for government business (via AP):

Yet, as our White House Correspondent Conn Carroll wrote yesterday, the administration couldn’t say that they trust the Clinton camp in whether she followed the law concerning the use of her personal email account:....snip~

WH Counsel's Office: Wait, Hillary Used Her Personal Email While She Was Secretary Of State? - Matt Vespa
 
Hatuey said:
Federal data security law, procedures and protocols are irrelevant to whether or not it can be proven that they were scrubbed. So I'll ask you too: Do you or do you not have evidence that the e-mails were scrubbed? Yes or no answer. If it's yes, bring the evidence forward. If not, then you can move along too. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I've already explained this to you Hatuey, the law has EVERYTHING to do with it. There is a term called "chain of custody" that must be maintained at all times when it comes to classified federal data repositories. This chain of custody is maintained so that the Federal government can ensure at all times the integrity and security of that data. To ensure this the Federal agency is required to regularly audit, back up and patch servers, firewalls and networks from point to point on all classified transmissions and at the server for non classified data. All such data must either be maintained in perpetuity or disposed of under the authority of the IG of the department.

As I said before, the absence of proof of chain of custody is itself a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom