What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (10 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
My logic on the whole matter is simple and I believe sound. Based on what is already known, her shiftiness and arrogance brings me to the conclusion that she should not be trusted with top security clearances.  If she can't have those, she can't be President.  Ergo I personally disqualify her based on criteria I deem to be important.  What happens in the legal system can take its course.

Ordinarily I'd leave it at that.  But when the only other choice is Trump it's like which do you want to eat, a rotten clan or a glass of hemlock?  It's what sours me on the entire establishment and will disgust me further as politics continues to interfere with justice on this matter.  

We've left the cake out too long.  Now there's only roaches. 

 
Last edited:
Let's get back to your original point that Hillary must have been expecting classified information. Maybe that was a good point after all. I had taken you to mean that Hillary "should have known", which would have put it in the realm of negligence. But what if she "did know." One possibility is that she was expecting information that she did not want others to see. It seems to me this documentation displays pretty clearly that Hillary and her team were thoroughly briefed on the vulnerabilities of what they were about to do and yet they did it anyway.

eta - This appears to be the agency within the NSA Hillary was dealing with.

https://www.nsa.gov/ia/
I :wub: how you turn an absurdity meant as a joke into a revelation and then run with it.

And most importantly the NSA conversation has next to nothing to do with what Hillary was setting up!  The NSA was not telling her anything about regular, everyday email communication.  Using the NSA conversation as damning evidence might work with those that mix all of these systems up into one secured government network which Hillary thwarted with her private, unsecured system, but that is still ignorance at best.  That isn't what happened.   These are different systems.  And absent that either Hillary's IT guy somehow networked into the secured system via her server and/or blackberry or that Hillary just told her staff and/or they acted on their own initiative to copy as needed the information sourced to other agencies from the secured systems into emails being sent to her these conversations are not a dot to connect to any wrongdoing at any level.  And until it becomes a dot it is :yawn:  to those not already wearing :tinfoilhat:  or already consumed by  :rant:  for all things Hillary. 

 
The NSA is ultimately to blame for allowing Hillary to set up a non-secure server. That doesn't absolve Hillary of responsibility but it should never have been possible for her to do.

 
The NSA is ultimately to blame for allowing Hillary to set up a non-secure server. That doesn't absolve Hillary of responsibility but it should never have been possible for her to do.
I don't see any indication the NSA realized Hillary was off the grid. Everything they were discussing presumed a standard State Dept setup with a secure CPU in a SCIF and an unclass CPU in her office. Hillary clearly eschewed the secure setup, once in 2009 and once with State in 2011. I don't think it occurred to the NSA in 2009 that Hillary would go ahead and do her own thing anyway. Quite the opposite, the seem to have thought she would follow the rules.

 
I :wub: how you turn an absurdity meant as a joke into a revelation and then run with it.

And most importantly the NSA conversation has next to nothing to do with what Hillary was setting up!  The NSA was not telling her anything about regular, everyday email communication.  Using the NSA conversation as damning evidence might work with those that mix all of these systems up into one secured government network which Hillary thwarted with her private, unsecured system, but that is still ignorance at best.  That isn't what happened.   These are different systems.  And absent that either Hillary's IT guy somehow networked into the secured system via her server and/or blackberry or that Hillary just told her staff and/or they acted on their own initiative to copy as needed the information sourced to other agencies from the secured systems into emails being sent to her these conversations are not a dot to connect to any wrongdoing at any level.  And until it becomes a dot it is :yawn:  to those not already wearing :tinfoilhat:  or already consumed by  :rant:  for all things Hillary. 
Well the NSA obviously did have a correction because there it is, they were there telling Hillary not to use blackberry for classified communications, in SCIF or out of SCIF. It's apparent now that blackberry was her preferred means of communication, and though we know she extended that to iphone and ipad eventually and multiple email addresses at no point by the looks of it did she follow the State IT & NSA guidance that she needed to go CPU in SCIF for classified communications. Hillary resolved this problem by doing everything on blackberry, including unclassified, SBU and classified, all classifications, all together, anywhere and everywhere.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My logic on the whole matter is simple and I believe sound. Based on what is already known, her shiftiness and arrogance brings me to the conclusion that she should not be trusted with top security clearances.  If she can't have those, she can't be President.  Ergo I personally disqualify her based on criteria I deem to be important.  What happens in the legal system can take its course.
When you write this stuff I feel like we're living in two different universes, and that your universe is one of those alternate realities that physicists theorize about. 

When asked about this subject a year ago, Hillary stated that her reason for a private email and for a private server were for convenience. Later on she stated that she never received or sent any classified information. Neither statement has ever been contradicted. Everything else is supposition and, IMO, fantasy. 

 
I don't see any indication the NSA realized Hillary was off the grid. Everything they were discussing presumed a standard State Dept setup with a secure CPU in a SCIF and an unclass CPU in her office. Hillary clearly eschewed the secure setup, once in 2009 and once with State in 2011. I don't think it occurred to the NSA in 2009 that Hillary would go ahead and do her own thing anyway. Quite the opposite, the seem to have thought she would follow the rules.
That is the NSA's fault - they should ensure that every server is secure.

 
That is the NSA's fault - they should ensure that every server is secure.
Sure, servers they're aware of. And actually it's State's obligation. I posted the link to the division at State which handles those things.

eta - It should also be noted that Hillary herself stated at the last Dem debate that she did not seek anyone's permission in doing what she did.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
When you write this stuff I feel like we're living in two different universes, and that your universe is one of those alternate realities that physicists theorize about. 

When asked about this subject a year ago, Hillary stated that her reason for a private email and for a private server were for convenience. Later on she stated that she never received or sent any classified information. Neither statement has ever been contradicted. Everything else is supposition and, IMO, fantasy. 
She said a lot of things that have proven to be false, or at least misleading.  She said the private servers was for convenience... so she could carry a single device.  She carried multiple.  She said her private email was dominated by emails to Bill.  He claims to have only written one email.  She originally claimed there "was no classified information."  Her staff obstructed the very existence of the private email address.  So yes, we are living in parallel universes.  One that she shapes and some choose to live happily within, and the one that's you know, real.

 
Worth remembering this report from AP in October:

Clinton "essentially circumvented millions of dollars' worth of cybersecurity investment that the federal government puts within the State Department," said Justin Harvey, chief security officer of Fidelis Cybersecurity.

"She wouldn't have had the infrastructure to detect or respond to cyber attacks from a nation-state," he said. "Those attacks are incredibly sophisticated, and very hard to detect and contain. And if you have a private server, it's very likely that you would be compromised."


A February 2014 email from SECNAP reported that malicious software based in China "was found running an attack against" Clinton's server. In total, Senate investigators have found records describing three such attempts linked to China, one based in Germany and one originating in South Korea. The attacks occurred in 2013 and 2014. The letter describes four attacks, but investigators have since found records about a fifth, officials who were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly said.
http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/5ad0f6bb57eb487f84e98fe9a74a08b1/clinton-subject-hack-attempts-china-korea-germany

With regard to Pagliano's security logs, this is probably an indication of how and why the Hillary server would not have detected many a direct security intrusion (as opposed to electronic/signal eavesdropping) prior to October 2013.

 
The proper analogy here is if you caught your wife with a private email address that was "bigb000b6969" and she claimed she only used it for when she signed up for marketing offers.  When you asked her to read what was in it, she turns over half with a whole bunch of the recipients, subject lines and text blocked by think black sharpie.  Lo and behold, the rest is...  marketing offers!  Phew!  That settles that matter.

 
Last edited:
When you write this stuff I feel like we're living in two different universes, and that your universe is one of those alternate realities that physicists theorize about. 

When asked about this subject a year ago, Hillary stated that her reason for a private email and for a private server were for convenience. Later on she stated that she never received or sent any classified information. Neither statement has ever been contradicted. Everything else is supposition and, IMO, fantasy. 
First of all - false on both counts, especially the second. Maybe you should at least point to what you're looking at aside from Hillary's own self-serving statements.

Secondly, I'm not sure how the convenience question falls in her favor either way - either she did it for convenience, in which case she put her own preferences ahead of national security and truly so what, or actually it makes it all the worse to so something so serious for such a petty, selfish reason. Or she did not do it out of convenience (because really in the end, 5 email address (and maybe 23 or more?) and three devices while setting up a private server, and hiring three vendors in three states, and avoiding FOIA and the IC is actually really a lot of work...) and she had some specific reason (like avoiding Foia and the eyes of the IC and even her own State Department). This set of emails with the NSA bring both into play. Hillary was technologically incompetent beyond using a blackberry which by their own words she had grown "addicted" to but at the same time she did not want to undertake the procedures laid out by State and the NSA. Both because of convenience and because of desire to secret things she was doing are clearly in play now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Worth remembering this report from AP in October:

http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/5ad0f6bb57eb487f84e98fe9a74a08b1/clinton-subject-hack-attempts-china-korea-germany

With regard to Pagliano's security logs, this is probably an indication of how and why the Hillary server would not have detected many a direct security intrusion (as opposed to electronic/signal eavesdropping) prior to October 2013.
But most (including many here) will say, "The logs showed nothing!  No breach!"  :rolleyes:

 
The proper analogy here is if you caught your wife with a private email address that was "bigb000b6969" and she claimed she only used it for when she signed up for marketing offers.  When you asked her to read what was in it, she turns over half with a whole bunch of the recipients, subject lines and text blocked by think black sharpie.  Lo and behold, the rest is...  marketing offers!  Phew!  That settles that matter.
As stated in one of the links:

Having a server like this is the Internet equivalent of having a Swiss bank account. It implies you have some agenda making it worth jumping through hoops to partition your data, not only from the government IT infrastructure, but from any third-party.

 
But Tim has confirmed that indeed we live in different universes.  In mine, the government has to assume that every bit of intel on that private server was compromised, and respond accordingly, which is why we'll never know how many programs were shut down on a dime and whether sources were identified and associates endangered.  This explains why the "NO BIG DEAL" red stamp at the FBI wasn't stamped down on the case file a year ago, and why it's still a massive ongoing investigation.

If we were in Tim's version of the Universe, this would have been settled long ago.  It's far from it.

 
Pelosi then turned her attention to Irish citizens who are in the United States illegally: "So, and what it's about is all the Irish who are here -- 50,000 who are here who can't even go home for a family funeral because the law would not allow them to come back into the country.

Sure they can go home. I want to punch this loser right in the face.

 
Pelosi then turned her attention to Irish citizens who are in the United States illegally: "So, and what it's about is all the Irish who are here -- 50,000 who are here who can't even go home for a family funeral because the law would not allow them to come back into the country.

Sure they can go home. I want to punch this loser right in the face.
"I mean, sure, it's reasonable to enforce these laws against brown people, but think of the poor Irish people who are breaking the same laws!"

 
One other thing on this.

Would Obama be committing this much to campaigning for Hillary and driving the Party corporate big money donor base to Hillary if he thought she was going to be indicted? Doubtful. They're moving forward with confidence.
Or, just as credibly, incredible hubris...

 
I don't see any indication the NSA realized Hillary was off the grid. Everything they were discussing presumed a standard State Dept setup with a secure CPU in a SCIF and an unclass CPU in her office. Hillary clearly eschewed the secure setup, once in 2009 and once with State in 2011. I don't think it occurred to the NSA in 2009 that Hillary would go ahead and do her own thing anyway. Quite the opposite, the seem to have thought she would follow the rules.
Anybody who expected her to follow the rules is exceptionally naive

 
More on how this could end up Watergate if back room deals are cut, and how NSA also has bad blood with Clinton and will be majorly tweaked if she is not prosecuted.

From the Tim Alternate Universe file.

http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/
It certainly is. 

For the last 25 years, nearly every Hillary scandal has followed a basic 2 rule pattern: 

1. Hillary is guilty of a crime, and she is about to be indicted any day now (within hours!)

2. Hillary will not be indicted because of a massive government cover-up and conspiracy- they're all in on it. 

The article you linked above is more of the same. 

 
And the most hilariously ironic part of this whole thing is the guy Saints quoted who frets over Hillary giving up all of that "cyber security"- ironic because while there is no record of Hillary's private server having ever been breached, there IS record that the State Department's server was breached and all their emails stolen. So much for all that cyber security: Hillary's server was very likely much safer! 

 
And the most hilariously ironic part of this whole thing is the guy Saints quoted who frets over Hillary giving up all of that "cyber security"- ironic because while there is no record of Hillary's private server having ever been breached, there IS record that the State Department's server was breached and all their emails stolen. So much for all that cyber security: Hillary's server was very likely much safer! 
Tim did you note Hillary's comments just above?

How do you think that works? The naivete is in Hillary thinking that could/would only happen when she got off the plane in some foreign airport. In terms of application there's no difference between the Beijing airport or Chappaqua or DC.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And the most hilariously ironic part of this whole thing is the guy Saints quoted who frets over Hillary giving up all of that "cyber security"- ironic because while there is no record of Hillary's private server having ever been breached, there IS record that the State Department's server was breached and all their emails stolen. So much for all that cyber security: Hillary's server was very likely much safer! 
Remind me if I ever get a DUI to retain your counsel.  Remind the judge of all the drunk drivers who didn't kill anyone, and the sober drivers who crashed.  That ought to prove our point.

 
I did. How does that contradict what I wrote? It only confirms it: in all probability the foreigners who spied on us weren't aware that Hillary had a private server, which is why, so far as we know, they never tried to breach it. 
Assume it was breached.  The government has had to.  As soon as Guccifer posted those emails and the Kremlin became aware (if they weren't), they very most likely penetrated it. 

 
I did. How does that contradict what I wrote? It only confirms it: in all probability the foreigners who spied on us weren't aware that Hillary had a private server, which is why, so far as we know, they never tried to breach it. 
Tim her server location and portal configuration were publicly available under her name, that's how dumb it was.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't looked into the email server thing, but perhaps I should because a lot of you obviously have no idea what the seriousness of this may or may not be.

Anyone got any good links to an exhaustive balanced view on what exactly happened?  Not a right wing website that has her convicted already and not an article that is solely designed to exonerate her, but a balanced view of the situation?

 
Virtually all companies make allowances for "big shots".  For example, the CEO who wants Netflix when it's outlawed company-wide, the doctors who want Pandora in their operating room despite a network ban on it due to bandwidth.

Its obvious to me that Hilary considered herself "above the IT" regulations that were set.  A very common thing for big shots.. But something that shoudk disqualify her from being president??  I'll need to see some evidence before I can make that judgment.  (As if my opinion means anything, I'm just a nerdy IT guy)

 
shader said:
I haven't looked into the email server thing, but perhaps I should because a lot of you obviously have no idea what the seriousness of this may or may not be.

Anyone got any good links to an exhaustive balanced view on what exactly happened?  Not a right wing website that has her convicted already and not an article that is solely designed to exonerate her, but a balanced view of the situation?
:lmao:

 
shader said:
Virtually all companies make allowances for "big shots".  For example, the CEO who wants Netflix when it's outlawed company-wide, the doctors who want Pandora in their operating room despite a network ban on it due to bandwidth.

Its obvious to me that Hilary considered herself "above the IT" regulations that were set.  A very common thing for big shots.. But something that shoudk disqualify her from being president??  I'll need to see some evidence before I can make that judgment.  (As if my opinion means anything, I'm just a nerdy IT guy)
Think of it more in the correct context...  She worked in a CDC lab and thought she was above the protocols to never take a sample home.  

 
timschochet said:
I did. How does that contradict what I wrote? It only confirms it: in all probability the foreigners who spied on us weren't aware that Hillary had a private server, which is why, so far as we know, they never tried to breach it. 
A hobbyist Romanian hacker certainly knew she had a private email server. I have little doubt that nation states also knew. 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/investigation/hillary-clinton-private-e-mail-account-897531

"When “Guccifer” (who was later identified as Marcel Lazar Lehel) breached Blumenthal’s account, he discovered an assortment of correspondence sent to Hillary Clinton at the e-mail address hdr22@clintonemail.com. The “clintonemail.com” domain was registered in 2009, shortly after her nomination to become Secretary of State."

 
Well the NSA obviously did have a correction because there it is, they were there telling Hillary not to use blackberry for classified communications, in SCIF or out of SCIF. It's apparent now that blackberry was her preferred means of communication, and though we know she extended that to iphone and ipad eventually and multiple email addresses at no point by the looks of it did she follow the State IT & NSA guidance that she needed to go CPU in SCIF for classified communications. Hillary resolved this problem by doing everything on blackberry, including unclassified, SBU and classified, all classifications, all together, anywhere and everywhere.
Another swing and a miss.    ETA:  Well I guess I am only assuming a miss for the wild, blind swing at nothing.  You might have got lucky.  At least you are swinging hard on the off chance you hit something.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
Assume it was breached.  The government has had to.  As soon as Guccifer posted those emails and the Kremlin became aware (if they weren't), they very most likely penetrated it. 
And the Kremlin :yawn: 'd.  Because they weren't stupid enough to believe that there was some treasure trove of useful secrets in Hillary's email.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In case anyone is interested in reading what Secretary Clinton has to say about this, IN CONTEXT:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

Why did Clinton use her own email account?

When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience. It enabled her to reach people quickly and keep in regular touch with her family and friends more easily given her travel schedule.

That is the only reason she used her own account.

Her usage was widely known to the over 100 State Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, consistent with the practice of prior Secretaries of State and permitted at the time.

As Clinton has said, in hindsight, it would have been better to just have two accounts. While she thought using one account would be easier, obviously, that has not been the case.

Was it allowed?

Yes. The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted her to use a non-government email for work.

The 2009 National Archives regulation in place during her tenure required that "[a]gencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system." The regulation recognizes the use of non-government email accounts.

As she has stated, Clinton's practice was to email government officials on their ".gov" accounts, so her work emails were immediately captured and preserved. In fact, more than 90% of those emails should have already been captured in the State Department’s email system before she provided them with paper copies.

Politifact analysis also confirmed that Clinton's practices complied with laws and regulations, including support from the former director of a prominent government accountability organization: "In Clinton's defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account. Because these rules weren't in effect when Clinton was in office, 'she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time,' said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization."

Clinton said she did not use her email to send or receive classified information, but the State Department and two Inspectors General said some of these emails do contain classified information. Was her statement inaccurate?

Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.

When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified if the State Department or another agency believes its public release could cause potential harm to national security, law enforcement or diplomatic relations.

After reviewing a sampling of the 55,000 pages of emails, the Inspectors General have proffered that a small number of emails, which did not contain any classified markings and/or dissemination controls, should have been classified at the time they were sent. The State Department has said it disagrees with this assessment.

Clinton hopes the State Department and the agencies involved in the review process will sort out as quickly as possible which of the 55,000 pages of emails are appropriate to share with the public.

How did Clinton receive and consume classified information?

The Secretary's office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the State Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types.

A separate, closed email system was used by the State Department for the purpose of handling classified communications, which was designed to prevent such information from being transmitted anywhere other than within that system.

Is Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s email use?

No. As the Department of Justice and Inspectors General made clear, the IGs made a security referral. This was not criminal in nature as misreported by some in the press. The Department of Justice is now seeking assurances about the storage of materials related to Clinton’s email account.

Is it true that her email server and a thumb drive were recently turned over to the government? Why?

Again, when information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified if the State Department or another agency believes its public release could cause potential harm to national security, law enforcement or diplomatic relations.

Clinton hopes that State and the other agencies involved in the review process will sort out as quickly as possible which emails are appropriate to share with the public, and that the release will be as timely and as transparent as possible.

When the Department upgraded some of the previously unclassified email to classified, her team worked with the State Department to ensure copies of her emails were stored in a safe and secure manner. She also directed her team to give her server that hosted her email account while she was Secretary to the Department of Justice, as well as a thumb drive containing copies of her emails that already had been provided to the State Department. Clinton has pledged to cooperate with the government's security inquiry.

Would this issue not have arisen if she used a state.gov email address?

Even if Clinton's emails had been on a government email address and government device, these questions would be raised prior to public release.

While the State Department's review of her 55,000 emails brought the issue to the Inspectors Generals' attentions, the emails that recently were upgraded to classified prior to public release were on the unclassified .gov email system. They were not on the separate, closed system used by State Department for handling classified communications.

Have Clinton's State Department aides also been asked to provide the Department and Congress with emails from their personal accounts?

We understand that members of her State Department staff were recently asked to assist the Department in its record-keeping by providing any work-related emails they may have on personal accounts. They have received requests from Rep. Gowdy as well.

Clinton is proud of the work of all the dedicated public servants that were part of her team at the State Department. She was proud of her aides then and is proud of them now, as they have committed - as she has - to being as helpful as possible in responding to requests.

Press reports say she used multiple devices – a Blackberry and an iPad – is that true?

Clinton relied on her Blackberry for emailing. This was easiest for her. When the iPad came out in 2010, she was as curious as others and found it great for shopping, browsing, and reading articles when she traveled. She also had access to her email account on her iPad and sometimes used it for that too.

Was she ever provided guidance about her use of a non-".gov" email account?

The State Department has and did provide guidance regarding the need to preserve federal records. To address these requirements, it was her practice to email government employees on their ".gov" email address. That way, work emails would be immediately captured and preserved in government record-keeping systems.

What did Clinton provide to the State Department?

On December 5, 2014, 30,490 copies of work or potentially work-related emails sent and received by Clinton from March 18, 2009, to February 1, 2013, were provided to the State Department. This totaled roughly 55,000 pages. More than 90% of her work or potentially work-related emails provided to the Department were already in the State Department's record-keeping system because those e-mails were sent to or received by "state.gov" accounts.

Early in her term, Clinton continued using an att.blackberry.net account that she had used during her Senate service. Given her practice from the beginning of emailing State Department officials on their state.gov accounts, her work-related emails during these initial weeks would have been captured and preserved in the State Department's record-keeping system. She, however, no longer had access to these emails once she transitioned from this account.

Why did the Select Committee announce that she used multiple email addresses during her tenure?

In fairness to the Committee, this was an honest misunderstanding. Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of her initial weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had previously used). In March 2013, a month after she left the Department, Gawker published the email address she used while Secretary, and so she had to change the address on her account.

At the time the printed copies were provided to the Department in 2014, because it was the same account, the new email address established after she left office appeared on the printed copies as the sender, and not the address she used as Secretary. In fact, this address on the account did not exist until March 2013. This led to understandable confusion that was cleared up directly with the Committee after its press conference.

Why didn't Clinton provide her emails to the State Department until December 2014?

In 2014, after recognizing potential gaps in its overall recordkeeping system, the State Department asked for the help of the four previous former Secretaries in meeting the State Department's obligations under the Federal Records Act.

Clinton responded to this request by providing the State Department with over 55,000 pages of emails. As it was Clinton's practice to email U.S. government officials on their .gov accounts, the overwhelming majority of these emails should have already been preserved in the State Department’s email system.

In providing these emails to the Department, Clinton included all she had that were even potentially work-related—including emails about using a fax machine or asking for iced tea during a meeting—erring on the side of over-inclusion, as confirmed by the Department and National Archives' determination that over 1250 emails were "personal" records (which they have indicated will be returned to her).

After providing her work and potentially work-related emails, she chose not to keep her personal, non-work related emails, which by definition, are not federal records and were not requested by the Department or anyone else.

Why did the State Department ask for assistance in collecting records? Why did the State Department need assistance in further meeting its requirements under the Federal Records Act?

The State Department formally requested the assistance of the four previous former Secretaries in a letter to their representatives dated October 28, 2014, to help in further meeting the Department’s requirements under the Federal Records Act.

The letter stated that in September 2013, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issued new guidance clarifying records management responsibilities regarding the use of personal email accounts for government business.

While this guidance was issued after all four former Secretaries had departed office, the Department decided to ensure its records were as complete as possible and sought copies of work emails sent or received by the Secretaries on their own accounts.

Why did Clinton decide not to keep her personal emails?

As Clinton has said before, these were private, personal messages, including emails about her daughter's wedding plans, her mother's funeral services and condolence notes, as well as emails on family vacations, yoga routines, and other items one would typically find in their own email account, such as offers from retailers, spam, etc.

Did Clinton delete any emails while facing a subpoena?

No. As noted, the emails that Clinton chose not to keep were personal emails—they were not federal records or even work-related—and therefore were not subject to any preservation obligation under the Federal Records Act or any request. Nor would they have been subject to the subpoena—which did not exist at the time—that was issued by the Benghazi Select Committee some three months later.

Rep. Gowdy's subpoena issued in March 2015 did not seek, and had nothing to do with, her personal, non-work emails nor her server nor the request by State Department last year for her help in their own record-keeping. Indeed in his March 19th letter, Rep. Gowdy expressly stated he was not seeking any emails that were "purely personal in nature."

In March 2015, when Rep. Gowdy issued a subpoena to Clinton, the State Department had received all of Clinton's work-related emails in response to their 2014 request, and indeed, had already provided Clinton's relevant emails to Rep. Gowdy’s committee.

Rep. Gowdy, other Republicans, and some members of the media have seized on a CNN interview with Clinton to question her on this point. Rep. Gowdy has even gone so far as to say Clinton is lying. But he and the others are clearly mistaken.As Vox reported, "

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah!  I'm tired of my tax dollars going to other people's education.  You're telling me I have to pay for some spoiled little punk kid to go to kindergarten to learn how to write, and he gets nap time AND recess?!?!  On my dollar!??!  Join the army and earn it you little punk!

And don't even get me started on those socialist roads.  For thousands of years people survived fine without them.  You wanna get somewhere, walk or ride or horse you entitled brats!
Treating 20 year olds like 5 year olds.  

Well then again 5 year olds never needed safe places so.......

 
Why did Clinton use her own email account?

When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience. It enabled her to reach people quickly and keep in regular touch with her family and friends more easily given her travel schedule.

She doesn't have an iPhone?

 
I'm not.  It'll be carefully crafted spin draped in lies.  
Okay #### me I read it.  Can I ask you a logic question?  Why'd she delete personal emails?  She had a personal dedicated server with unlimited capacity.  I cannot understand this.  An AOL account in 1996' maybe.  But there's no practical reason to delete any emails when you have a dedicated server.  Makes no sense.  

And the rest is just dripping in bull####.  Implausible and crafted by high priced lawyers.  Lies.  Damn lies.  By a damn liar who hires damn liars to lie filthy lies. 

 
Last edited:
Okay #### me I read it.  Can I ask you a logic question?  Why'd she delete personal emails?  She had a personal dedicated server with unlimited capacity.  I cannot understand this.  An AOL account in 1996' maybe.  But there's no practical reason to delete any emails when you have a dedicated server.  Makes no sense.  

And the rest is just dripping in bull####.  Implausible and crafted by high priced lawyers.  Lies.  Damn lies.  By a damn liar who hires damn liars to lie filthy lies. 
Why did Clinton decide not to keep her personal emails?

As Clinton has said before, these were private, personal messages, including emails about her daughter's wedding plans, her mother's funeral services and condolence notes, as well as emails on family vacations, yoga routines, and other items one would typically find in their own email account, such as offers from retailers, spam, etc.

 
Thanks Tim.  That's a pretty good summary.

Is there anything her accusers have on her other than "we will never know what she deleted!!"?

 
Thanks Tim.  That's a pretty good summary.

Is there anything her accusers have on her other than "we will never know what she deleted!!"?
Yes.  100+ agents dedicated for a year for non-political criminal investigation goes beyond deleted wedding emails. As hard as some may fight to preserve that perception.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top