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

Hatuey · Mar 5, 2015

jmotivator said:
I've already explained this to you Hatuey, the law has EVERYTHING to do with it.

The law is irrelevant to whether or not her e-mail has been scrubbed. Again, it's been asked that people show evidence that her e-mails were scrubbed. Nobody seems to have any evidence one way or another. You're welcome to show different though. Do you have any evidence that her e-mails were scrubbed?

Fenton · Mar 5, 2015

Hatuey said:
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:

You people threw a fit for years over supposed lies about WMDs when all along they were just left wing manufactured narratives that were never true.

Now we have actual LIARS and now its no big deal because they supposedly haven't broke any laws ? Now be honest.

Its no big deal because they're Democrats and your a huge Lib.

Its a bit hypocritical, don't you think ?

And what did Patreaus just plead guilty to ???

What law did he break ? See any similarities to a State Department Secretary keeping ALL of her Emails on a prIvate server at home and what Patreaus did ?

Hatuey · Mar 5, 2015

Fenton said:
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.

Good grief, so many acrobatics just to admit that you can't prove that the e-mails were scrubbed.

Hatuey · Mar 5, 2015

Fenton said:
You people threw a fit for years over supposed lies about WMDs when all along they were just left wing manufactured narratives that were never true.

So... you've got nothing? Glad to hear.

Fearandloathing · Mar 5, 2015

Hatuey said:
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:

Just how many times do you want it said before you stop denying there is evidence?

You demand to know what crime has been committed, have post after post explaining the evidence of a possible crime and continue to deny it. I doub we will get anywhere, never do with people who put their hands over their ears and go "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah".

How about we deal with this: "mine will be the most open and accountable administration in the history of the United States!" Where is that unfolding here? One of the top officials in his administration, the Secretary of State, has apparently contravened both administration policy and the laws regarding the keeping of secrets and.......?

Here we have a Secretary of State, allegedly with years and years of experience in governance who contravenes the law by establishing a gypsy server in her basement and the keeper of all this accountability is silent, he has merely dispatched his Grubers to go "blah, blah,blah, blah,blah, blah,blah, blah" with their hands over their ears.

And how about we deal with the issue of trust, not legalisms...after having denied these emails exist 7 times under oath why should any American trust her?

The more you defend this, the more you underscore the message that it is the Democratic Party itself that cannot be trusted, not just the leading presidential candidate.

MMC · Mar 5, 2015

Fearandloathing said:
Just how many times do you want it said before you stop denying there is evidence?

You demand to know what crime has been committed, have post after post explaining the evidence of a possible crime and continue to deny it. I doub we will get anywhere, never do with people who put their hands over their ears and go "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah".

How about we deal with this: "mine will be the most open and accountable administration in the history of the United States!" Where is that unfolding here? One of the top officials in his administration, the Secretary of State, has apparently contravened both administration policy and the laws regarding the keeping of secrets and.......?

Here we have a Secretary of State, allegedly with years and years of experience in governance who contravenes the law by establishing a gypsy server in her basement and the keeper of all this accountability is silent, he has merely dispatched his Grubers to go "blah, blah,blah, blah,blah, blah,blah, blah" with their hands over their ears.

And how about we deal with the issue of trust, not legalisms...after having denied these emails exist 7 times under oath why should any American trust her?

The more you defend this, the more you underscore the message that it is the Democratic Party itself that cannot be trusted, not just the leading presidential candidate.

Heya F&L. This might interest you and some others.

Oh my: State Department forced out ambassador in 2012 partly for … using private e-mail for official business
posted at 12:01 pm on March 5, 2015

Her own State Dept disagrees:.....snip~

Oh my: State Department forced out ambassador in 2012 partly for … using private e-mail for official business « Hot Air

jmotivator · Mar 5, 2015

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.

Funny because those investigations were apparently missing ALL OF CLINTONS EMAILS.

Fenton · Mar 5, 2015

Hatuey said:
Good grief, so many acrobatics just to admit that you can't prove that the e-mails were scrubbed.

Yes, we already know that those involved in setting up this private Email server knew from the beginning that they could eventually rely on the very defense you've been using throughout this thread. " Prove they were scrubbed "

AGAIN, that's the point of doing something like this.

jmotivator · Mar 5, 2015

Hatuey said:
The law is irrelevant to whether or not her e-mail has been scrubbed. Again, it's been asked that people show evidence that her e-mails were scrubbed. Nobody seems to have any evidence one way or another. You're welcome to show different though. Do you have any evidence that her e-mails were scrubbed?

No, Hatuey, the law has everything to do with it. If the federal government has not been running a regular audit of the system then it assumed the data has no integrity. An manager overseeing such a system would be dragged before a judge and prosecuted as if the data had been scrubbed because that is the only valid conclusion when the proper protocols have not been followed and documented. Since she has only just now turned over any emails to the State Department it must be assumed that the data has been tampered with because there is no chain of custody.

I know you don't like that answer, but it's the correct answer.

polgara · Mar 5, 2015

MMC said:
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

Greetings, MMC. :2wave:

While I realize that no one can know everything about what the State Department, or anyone else, is doing, this seems like over-the-top "no-nothing" to me. In all those years, no one knew she was using a personal e-mail account to conduct possibly sensitive government business? That is unbelievable, and damn scary to me in view of the nature of her job! What other tentacles of this hydra are yet to be uncovered - not only in State, but other areas of the government? Why she didn't want anyone to know is scarier yet, IMO! Does everyone hate and distrust each in DC, or is it something more?

eohrnberger · Mar 5, 2015

jmotivator said:
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.

Fearandloathing said:
Just how many times do you want it said before you stop denying there is evidence?

You demand to know what crime has been committed, have post after post explaining the evidence of a possible crime and continue to deny it. I doub we will get anywhere, never do with people who put their hands over their ears and go "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah".

How about we deal with this: "mine will be the most open and accountable administration in the history of the United States!" Where is that unfolding here? One of the top officials in his administration, the Secretary of State, has apparently contravened both administration policy and the laws regarding the keeping of secrets and.......?

Here we have a Secretary of State, allegedly with years and years of experience in governance who contravenes the law by establishing a gypsy server in her basement and the keeper of all this accountability is silent, he has merely dispatched his Grubers to go "blah, blah,blah, blah,blah, blah,blah, blah" with their hands over their ears.

And how about we deal with the issue of trust, not legalisms...after having denied these emails exist 7 times under oath why should any American trust her?

The more you defend this, the more you underscore the message that it is the Democratic Party itself that cannot be trusted, not just the leading presidential candidate.

Indeed. Hatuey and I have been around and around at least 3 times about the chain of custody sub-thread, and from what I can see, he see it as an attack on 'his' Hillary or something. :lamo

Hatuey · Mar 5, 2015

Fearandloathing said:
Just how many times do you want it said before you stop denying there is evidence?

tl/dr. Where is the evidence that the e-mails were scrubbed?

jmotivator said:
Funny because those investigations were apparently missing ALL OF CLINTONS EMAILS.

I know, I know, all you needed were Clinton's e-mail to prove... nothing. :shrug:

jmotivator said:
No, Hatuey, the law has everything to do with it.

Not with whether or not the e-mails were scrubbed. If you say the e-mails are scrubbed, show evidence, if not, then there is nothing else to discuss here :shrug:

Fenton said:
Yes, we already know that those involved in setting up this private Email server knew from the beginning that they could eventually rely on the very defense you've been using throughout this thread. " Prove they were scrubbed "

AGAIN, that's the point of doing something like this.

The conspiracy theory forum is a few doors down.

MMC · Mar 5, 2015

polgara said:
Greetings, MMC. :2wave:

While I realize that no one can know everything about what the State Department, or anyone else, is doing, this seems like over-the-top "no-nothing" to me. In all those years, no one knew she was using a personal e-mail account to conduct possibly sensitive government business? That is unbelievable, and damn scary to me in view of the nature of her job! What other tentacles of this hydra are yet to be uncovered - not only in State, but other areas of the government? Why she didn't want anyone to know is scarier yet, IMO! Does everyone hate and distrust each in DC, or is it something more?

That's another point many are talking about today Lady P.

Who else knew this was going on and sending emails back and forth. Why wasn't anything said to anyone. She may have to bow out just to protect a lot of other people.

The person said Clinton's exclusive reliance on personal email as the nation's top diplomat was inconsistent with the guidance given to agencies that official business should be conducted on official email accounts. Once the State Department turned over some of her messages in connection with the Benghazi investigation after she left office, making it apparent she had not followed the guidance, the White House counsel's office asked the department to ensure that her email records were properly archived, according to the person who spoke on a condition of anonymity without authorization to speak on the record.

Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza added to Guy's points, writing that she can’t tweet her way out of this, and it "reinforces" every negative thing the American public thinks about the Clintons:

4. "They only think about politics.": The timing of the setup of Clinton's private e-mail account, first reported by Philip Bump in this space Monday night, is very problematic for the "nothing to see here" argument being put forward by the Clinton types. It was established on the same day that Clinton began her confirmation hearings to be secretary of state. The expiration on the domain is shortly after the 2016 election.....snip~

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

Looks like it is that Gotcha Moment that Hillary has feared all this time.....dropping in to tell her, the difference is.....the lives of others!

Fearandloathing · Mar 5, 2015

eohrnberger said:
Indeed. Hatuey and I have been around and around at least 3 times about the chain of custody sub-thread, and from what I can see, he see it as an attack on 'his' Hillary or something. :lamo

Hillary's friends are going to have to get comfortable with negative news.

The Republicans have control of both houses, and as I have said, that means they have greater control over the debate in both what gets talked about and how.

This is just the beginning. Obama is a secondary target now. He needs to be exposed as part of the now Democratic Party's mess, and she needs to be 'deflowered'.

What they Hillary Gruberites are also going to have to accept is that their "enemies" are not just in the Republican party, but a lot closer to home. If this was not instigated by the White House, it certainly has been abetted by it.

The Democrats hit new lows eight years ago, inside and out. The attacks on Sarah Palin will not soon be forgotten....and returned in kind. She best make sure her skin is thick and her heart in good shape.

It is going to get a lot more ugly before Americans get to choose.

Fearandloathing · Mar 5, 2015

Hatuey said:
tl/dr. Where is the evidence that the e-mails were scrubbed?

I know, I know, all you needed were Clinton's e-mail to prove... nothing. :shrug:

Not with whether or not the e-mails were scrubbed. If you say the e-mails are scrubbed, show evidence, if not, then there is nothing else to discuss here :shrug:

The conspiracy theory forum is a few doors down.

Same old blah blah

One LAST time. scrubbing them is illegal. The traces left show something was scrubbed.

She didn't do it? Is that what you're claiming?

further...it is against the law to even HAVE that private server,. and against the law to not have fessed up about them sooner.

No matter how you slice it she's screwed and you are wrong..

Fearandloathing · Mar 5, 2015

Hatuey said:
The law is irrelevant to whether or not her e-mail has been scrubbed. Again, it's been asked that people show evidence that her e-mails were scrubbed. Nobody seems to have any evidence one way or another. You're welcome to show different though. Do you have any evidence that her e-mails were scrubbed?

Your law degree is from what on line college?

Hatuey · Mar 5, 2015

Fearandloathing said:
Same

tl/dr. Where's the evidence that the e-mails were scrubbed? I can wait all day.

Hatuey · Mar 5, 2015

Fearandloathing said:
Your law degree is from what on line college?

Still here? Good grief. Either you show how they were scrubbed or you don't. If you can't, quit wasting bandwidth with your inability to prove something and admit that nothing can be proven one way or another as of this moment. Hell, State admitted that just going through the 55,000 pages handed over would take months.

Fenton · Mar 5, 2015

Hatuey said:
tl/dr. Where is the evidence that the e-mails were scrubbed?

I know, I know, all you needed were Clinton's e-mail to prove... nothing. :shrug:

Not with whether or not the e-mails were scrubbed. If you say the e-mails are scrubbed, show evidence, if not, then there is nothing else to discuss here :shrug:

The conspiracy theory forum is a few doors down.

Sweet ! Awesome strategy !!

Attempt to relegate this whole scandal to a " conspiracy " !

You people need to run with that because what's been offered up in her defense so far has been a joke.

She tweeted that she " wants the State Department to release her Emails " ?

Lol !!

The Emails that were chosen by her staff to be safe for public consumption.

Your Politicians think their supporters are racing morons

Hatuey · Mar 5, 2015

Fenton said:
Sweet ! Awesome strategy !!

Attempt to relegate this whole scandal to a " conspiracy " !

You people need to run with that because what's been offered up in her defense so far has been a joke.

She tweeted that she " wants the State Department to release her Emails " ?

Lol !!

The Emails that were chosen by her staff to be safe for public consumption.

Your Politicians think their supporters are racing morons

There is no strategy. I asked you to validate a claim. You've been unable to. That's not a strategy, that's you being unable to prove your suspicions; and let's face it. That's all they are.

Mustachio · Mar 5, 2015

I still don't understand why anybody cares about this. If the secretary of state, or the president, or anybody that high up the chain of command wanted to have untraceable communication, they wouldn't use email at all. Whether or not she used a private e-mail account is something I just can't get worked up about. I'm sure the government is capable of reading anybody's email at any time, so I'm not quite sure what people are upset about. If the argument is that she broke the law, that's fine. But something like missing Benghazi emails -- she doesn't need "private" email to be shielded from something like that.

MMC · Mar 5, 2015

Hillary takes another Hit.

Clinton Loses The Washington Post: "Use of Private E-mail Shows Poor Regard For Public Trust".....

Hillary Clinton's email scandal is getting worse and for once, the mainstream media is paying attention in the right way. Now in a scathing op-ed, the Washington Post editorial board is pummeling Clinton for her bad judgement.

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.....snip~

Clinton Loses The Washington Post: "Use of Private E-mail Shows Poor Regard For Public Trust" - Katie Pavlich

Do you think Hillary is hearing that song. No More.....Mr Nice Guy.

Cardinal · Mar 5, 2015

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.

None of that actually matters, though. The assumption from the beginning was of guilt, regardless of what facts did or didn't exist. The assumption that she did something with her privilege to use her personal email for emergencies would have existed regardless, just as the assumption is that she absolutely, definitely will delete or doctor any emails before handing them over.

Fearandloathing · Mar 5, 2015

MMC said:
Hillary takes another Hit.

Clinton Loses The Washington Post: "Use of Private E-mail Shows Poor Regard For Public Trust".....

Hillary Clinton's email scandal is getting worse and for once, the mainstream media is paying attention in the right way. Now in a scathing op-ed, the Washington Post editorial board is pummeling Clinton for her bad judgement.

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.....snip~

Clinton Loses The Washington Post: "Use of Private E-mail Shows Poor Regard For Public Trust" - Katie Pavlich

Do you think Hillary is hearing that song. No More.....Mr Nice Guy.

It is a dire indicator.

The Washington Post was THE paper that led the Watergate probe and caused the congressional hearings.

eohrnberger · Mar 5, 2015

Hatuey said:
There is no strategy. I asked you to validate a claim. You've been unable to. That's not a strategy, that's you being unable to prove your suspicions; and let's face it. That's all they are.

While true, you have to believe that it's not just these few people here on the board that are having these suspicions. No, these suspicions are probably far and wide across many sectors of the voting public, many of them typically Democratic. And it's this that probably has many Democrats worried for the 2016 election. You can bet your bottom dollar on it.

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

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

How long is now?

Computer Gaming Nerd

Computer Gaming Nerd

Rule of Two

How long is now?

How long is now?

How long is now?

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Respected On All Sides

How long is now?