patrick.net

Note to Republicans and conservatives: There are non-Republicans and liberals here discussing the sins of Clinton (gasp) without need to mention the other guy. Republicans and conservatives should try it sometime when their guy is on the slab. It's yet to happen. Doubt it ever will.

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

The CLINTFUCKS are fucking equivocating scum who get attacked for the wrong shit.

What is the right shit?

How can Hillary be in the slammer? My impression is that Trump will deputize her (on a pile of money) thereby exposing her as the sheriff-loving traitor she is.

bob2356 says

What part of ALL correspondence in an official capacity emails or otherwise MUST be archived AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT do you not get?

What part of Clinton finished being being secretary of state in 2012 do you not get ?

OH wait you do get it.

bob2356 says

Technically she didn't violate the law.

Wait, but you said she didn't do her duty.

Your level of indignation and outrage has more to do with what you would like this to be than what it is. MY belief is that if this was even intentional on her part it has only to do with one thing. And that is whether others in government can track her emails immediately after they are sent or received versus the requirement that they eventually can, if need be (paranoia ? perhaps).

I can not imagine other reasons for it. Motives or reasons for behavior matter.

Her emails were required to be stored so that in the future if need be, there is a record of all communications. And they were.

You don't imply unethical or corrupt reasons for it, and I don't think you see those as existing. And yet you are outraged that she supposedly doesn't think some rules apply to her, and then you turn around and add that technically she did not break the rules.

You have outrage and indignation and that's it. Otherwise you're just making a fool out of yourself.

marcus says

bob2356 says

What part of ALL correspondence in an official capacity emails or otherwise MUST be archived AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT do you not get?

What part of Clinton finished being being secretary of state in 2012 do you not get ?

OH wait you do get it.

The national records and archive act is from 1954. The freedom of information act is from 1966. The federal records act is from 1981. The 2014 amendment to the federal records act simply closes the loophole hillary used to dodge compliance. It's an amendment to an existing law, not a new law. Existing laws hillary was subject to the entire time she was sec of state.

marcus says

Wait, but you said she didn't do her duty.

Your level of indignation and outrage has more to do with what you would like this to be than what it is. MY belief is that if this was even intentional on her part it has only to do with one thing. And that is whether others in government can track her emails immediately after they are sent or received versus the requirement that they eventually can, if need be (paranoia ? perhaps).

I can not imagine other reasons for it. Motives or reasons for behavior matter.

Her emails were required to be stored so that in the future if need be, there is a record of all communications. And they were.

No completely wrong. Her emails are required to be in government archives available for public searches under the freedom of information act. Not stored so that there is a future record of communications. Do you know anything about the laws of the land? Didn't you take a semester of US government in college to learn how this all works? It was a requirement where I went.

Again you dodged out. When do you think she would have turned over her official correspondence if no one had found out about her server? Simple question that you keep ignoring. Go ahead take a shot at it. Hint, the answer is never. She didn't do her duty. What happened is that after be exposed she very reluctantly complied with the intent of the law under heavy political pressure. If you can't comprehend the difference then that is pathetic. Like you said motives matter. They matter a lot.

Why should hillary be paranoid about public records that until hillary was sec of state traditionally were turned over promptly? What part of public records do you not grasp? They aren't her private correspondence until hillary says they are not. If they have to do with the execution of her post then they are public as soon as they are written. Even classified documents are public. The classification level and handling (redacted or not released) of sensitive documents would determined by a classification authority, not the author of the document. Hillary is supposed to have no say whatsoever in when, where, and how documents, unclassified or classified, are made public. She doesn't have that right under the law, even though she managed to take it upon herself through being clever at the law. This really isn't a hard concept.

HydroCabron says

yet you are outraged that she supposedly doesn't think some rules apply to her, and then you turn around and add that technically she did not break the rules.

You have outrage and indignation and that's it.

Absolutely, although I have to have admiration for someone who was able to so carefully and successfully plan to end run the entire intent of 4 different federal acts. That has to be a record of some kind. I find it hard to believe that anyone could fail to grasp that not breaking the law isn't the same as complying with the intent of the law. The first duty of any public official is to comply with the intent of the law. On the other hand Hillary has apparently found millions of people like you who don't grasp this.

No way, no how she had all of this occur by casual happenstance. As you say give me a fucking break. She is far too smart, too well trained as a lawyer, and has far to much experience in politics for 40 years for that to happen. She knew exactly what she was doing and why. I find anyone that worked that hard to violate the spirit of the law to be completely unfit for the responsibilities of public office. If you and the rest of the hillary apologists don't then it is very likely you will eventually end up with the government you deserve.

You can write an entire book. It doesn't make you look any less silly, if people simply consider the accepted fact that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to not use a private email account for at least some of his or her official (State Department) business done by email.

Your emotions just control you don't they.

If Hillary were really trying to hide these emails, why didn't she just delete them years ago? The evil plot hypothesis doesn't really make sense.

Ironman says

She HAS deleted 30,000 emails...

Why wouldn't she have deleted all of them, or at least ask of the problematic ones? Also, if it were so egregious, why didn't anyone speak up at the time? Why did they wait 6 years or so?

marcus says

You can write an entire book. It doesn't make you look any less silly, if people simply consider the accepted fact that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to not use a private email account for at least some of his or her official (State Department) business done by email.

Your emotions just control you don't they.

Irrelevant once again. You are having a lot of trouble sorting out the concept of medium vs content. The content of the message must be archived, regardless of the medium. The medium is totally and completely irrelevant. Did the other sec of state using private emails hide them on a private server? No, they used a commercial email service and sent their emails to be archived like they were supposed to be. John Kerry is the first sec of state to not use a private email? Thomas Jefferson would certainly be shocked to know that.

If plainly stating the facts, legal issues, and political issues makes me look silly then what would you call your endless recitation of irrelevant bullshit and total refusal to address any of the questions I have put to you?

Blind devotion to hillary just controls you doesn't it.

marcus says

I would argue it is a mistake but no where near the level of a major policy blunder.

Some of us think that someone who could be president should be able to handle 2 email accounts.

YesYNot says

If Hillary were really trying to hide these emails, why didn't she just delete them years ago? The evil plot hypothesis doesn't really make sense.

Jesus doesn't anyone know the laws they live under. Just frigging amazing. Destroying federal records would be a felony. Simply not turning them over was technically not illegal until 2014. You were supposed to turn them over, but there was nothing in the statute that set a deadline to do it. Obviously hillary was still working on turning them over 6 years later.

I never said there is any evil plot. She just didn't want to be held accountable for her actions and decisions by the public even though it is required by law. She almost got away with it. On a certain level one has to admire that kind of conceit and clever deception. But not in a presidential candidate.

YesYNot says

Why wouldn't she have deleted all of them, or at least ask of the problematic ones? Also, if it were so egregious, why didn't anyone speak up at the time? Why did they wait 6 years or so?

It's a felony plain and simple. I really don't believe she would be foolish to actually try to delete any actual official records no matter how much she wanted to keep them out of the public eye. The billary twins are masters at twisting the law into pretzels, but they are also the masters of not crossing the line into actual crime.

How would anyone know she wasn't turning over her correspondence to be archived? Everyone would assume the sec of state would follow the law. No one realized that she wasn't until she got caught with her private server 6 years later.

bob2356 says

until she got caught with her private server 6 years later.

You are on a soapbox of indignation and dudgeon about an email server.

Proud?

Ironman says

She wasn't running for President 6 years ago and the voting public didn't have to decide if she's honest and trustworthy. Duh...

Well, at least you agree it is not about criminal behavior, and that it is about politics and the election.

bob2356 says

Jesus doesn't anyone know the laws they live under.

Of course not. That's what lawyers are for.bob2356 says

Simply not turning them over was technically not illegal until 2014. You were supposed to turn them over, but there was nothing in the statute that set a deadline to do it.

Ok then. You also agree it was not technically illegal. It was just tardy.

bob2356 says

Did the other sec of state using private emails hide them on a private server? No, they used a commercial email service and sent their emails to be archived like they were supposed to be.

I'm not sure I get why a private server, commercial email service, or virtual server would be better. It all depends on the integrity and competence of the people running the machine/service.

Ironman says

You really are a fucking idiot if you can't tell the difference.

I know what the difference is, but the preference is not clear. Securely setting up an email server is not trivial, but privacy is not guaranteed on a commercial service. Clearly the preference is to use .gov accounts, and let the correct people deal with security issues. But that wasn't on the list.

Ironman says

Well, at least you agree Hillary has no integrity

True to form, your response has nothing to do with what you are quoting.

Ironman says

the list,

What list are you talking about? I'm talking about the list Bob provided, which is who and what I responding to.
Obviously a .gov account was offered to her and was a possibility for her to use.
As far as commercial servers go, I doubt they all retrain deleted emails indefinitely. That would be stupid.

HydroCabron says

bob2356 says

until she got caught with her private server 6 years later.

You are on a soapbox of indignation and dudgeon about an email server.

Proud?

Irrelevant. Another clueless one comes out of the woodwork. The server is irrelevant. The emails on the server that were never turned over to be archived until hillary was caught hiding them is the issue. Hiding public records, no matter where or in what medium, from the public should be cause for indignation and dudgeon for every citizen of the country.

We only have Hillary's word they were personal. The volume of them, combined with her long-known poor grasp of technology, suggests that she either emails more than the most popular cheerleader in the 10th Grade, or that they weren't all personal.

YesYNot says

Obviously a .gov account was offered to her and was a possibility for her to use.

Not a possibility, mandatory. To use non-government emails for State Department business, she was required by the Record Law and State Department Policy to ask permission, which she never did.

She's Hillary, the law doesn't apply, and if you think it does, you're a member of the Right Wing Conspiracy and a Misogynist.

YesYNot says

I know what the difference is, but the preference is not clear. Securely setting up an email server is not trivial, but privacy is not guaranteed on a commercial service. Clearly the preference is to use .gov accounts, and let the correct people deal with security issues. But that wasn't on the list.

Irrelevant. Privacy/security on the email server is not the issue. Pop Quiz. Who do you think it would be easier for investigators to get a full set of records from. Choice a) commercial email servers like gmail, earthlink, yahoo, etc. Choice b) a private server hidden in the clintons house that no one ever knew about? That would be a server that once it was actually discovered after 6 years clinton herself personally decided which emails were relevant.

Tough choice. You can cheat and ask a friend if you need to.

Obama Admin hypocrisy - book thrown at lower level employees:

It turns out that at least two of the emails which traversed Hillary Clinton’s personal email account and server were “top secret,” according to the inspector general for the Intelligence Community as reported by McClatchy. To describe that as reckless is an understatement given that, as AP notes, “There is no evidence she used encryption to shield the emails or her personal server from foreign intelligence services or other potentially prying eyes.” The FBI has now taken possession of that server.

When it comes to low-level government employees with no power, the Obama administration has purposely prosecuted them as harshly as possible to the point of vindictiveness: It has notoriously prosecuted more individuals under the Espionage Act of 1917 for improperly handling classified information than all previous administrations combined.

NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ’s claims that he “mishandled” classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, “a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials” despite no “evidence he intended to distribute them.” Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.

In the light of these new Clinton revelations, the very same people who spent years justifying this obsessive assault are now scampering for reasons why a huge exception should be made for the Democratic Party front-runner. Fascinatingly, one of the most vocal defenders of this Obama DOJ record of persecution has been Hillary Clinton herself.

Unlike Hillary's several top secret emails sent on a private, unencyrpted, unsecured server in a bathroom, none of Manning's emails were Top Secret

YesYNot says

.bob2356 says

Simply not turning them over was technically not illegal until 2014. You were supposed to turn them over, but there was nothing in the statute that set a deadline to do it.

Ok then. You also agree it was not technically illegal. It was just tardy.

Being 6 years tardy is pretty bad. Since marcus wealsed out and passed on the question repeatedly I'll give you a shot at it. When do you think she would have actually delivered her emails to be archived, as required by law, if her hidden email server was never discovered? No fair using geologic time scales.

I've always agreed it was not technically illegal. Hillary spent a lot of time figuring it out how to circumvent the law while being not technically illegal.

So not technically illegal is the standard of integrity that you believe appropriate for the president of the country? That's certainly a high bar.

thunderlips11 says

Obama Admin hypocrisy - book thrown at lower level employees:

I can imagine this is the sort of thing that went down when Hitler was coming into power.

bob2356 says

Since marcus wealsed out

I didn't weasle out. I rested my case, on this:

marcus says

You can write an entire book. It doesn't make you look any less silly, if people simply consider the accepted fact that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to not use a private email account for at least some of his or her official (State Department) business done by email.

And on your disproportionate emotion over the way Hillary handled some of her email. The most pathetic aspect of this is that you can't see how much of your out of proportion emotion and arrogance about this is purely political bias.

I stand by my position that it was a mistake, but not nearly as significant as you make it out to be. It doesn't reflect bad ethics or corruption, and it is not nearly as bad as a policy blunder (that is, as a factor in my voting decision).

Is one of the sources of your out of proportion emotion on this that you are trying to muster up enough of a reason to vote for Trump ?

bob2356 says

So not technically illegal is the standard of integrity that you believe appropriate for the president of the country?

With respect to how one handles emails ? Yes. It's just slightly worse than taking home office supplies. Actually, maybe not worse, because that is technically unethical, unless the supplies are only used for work that you take home.

Of course not. That's what lawyers are for

-----------

Oh dear

Are these people actually allowed to vote?

No wonder people say we're fucked

marcus says

bob2356 says

Since marcus wealsed out

I didn't weasle out.

Then answer the really simple question. You've had 4 chances already. When do you think hillary would have complied with the law if no one had discovered her secret email server? Another 6 years? 10 years? 20 years?

marcus says

I stand by my position that it was a mistake

Pretty seriously proactive and carefully planned "mistake". I think the only mistake that happened was she got caught.

marcus says

bob2356 says

So not technically illegal is the standard of integrity that you believe appropriate for the president of the country?

With respect to how one handles emails ?

Irrelevant once again. Wow, the best tap dance I've seen since fred astaire. Damn, it's all those pesky trees again. There must be a forest here somewhere. No not with respect to how one handles emails. The standard of integrity with respect to how well one complies with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Actually not one law, 4 different federal laws. Pretty amazing you can't address or acknowledge what the overall issue is, never mind make any kind of meaningful argument about it.

marcus says

Is one of the sources of your out of proportion emotion on this that you are trying to muster up enough of a reason to vote for Trump ?

Nice try at misdirection. If you can't defend your position impugn the other persons motives.

No I would never vote for trump, he is totally and completely temperamentally unsuited for any elected office of any kind. Hillary is ethically unsuited for elected office. I had decided that long before emailgate. My opinion was formed watching hillary totally inappropriately, although once again technically legally, (anyone see pattern here) mixing the clinton foundation business with being sec of state. FWIW I voted for hillary in her 2000 senate run. It's what she has done as a public servant since then that presents the problem for me now. Hillary serves hillary, not the people.

I'm going to be making a third party protest the system vote this election. There is no emotion involved in this decision at all. Unless having a firm belief in candidates possessing integrity and good character, at least as well as these terms can be applied to politicians, is an emotional issue. I take voting very seriously, throwing away my vote not a lightly taken choice. This choice is solely derived from my observations and analysis of the actions and history of both candidates. You are the one so emotionally involved in being a hillary apologist you refuse to address issue after issue. Instead you reply time and time again with irrelevant trivialities either through blind devotion to hillary or a complete inability to grasp the larger issues and why they matter.

bob2356 says

Hillary is ethically unsuited for elected office. I had decided that long before emailgate.

Really ? I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you. Who could have guessed that you weren't capable of looking at this email issue objectively.

If HIllary was nervous about email privacy, it would seem that proved justified in a weird way. Although obviously far more secrecy would have been protected had she kept them on State Dept Servers.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/04/wikileaks-releases-clinton-war-emails/

bob2356 says

Choice a) commercial email servers like gmail, earthlink, yahoo, etc. Choice b) a private server hidden in the clintons house that no one ever knew about?

I'm pretty sure that if she deleted emails from gmail, earthlink, etc. then 6 years later, no one would be getting those emails. If the gov wanted to get the emails bad enough in real time (while she were working there), they could have gotten the ones from her server too. The thing is, no one cared enough to do that at the time even though clearly everyone who had her email address knew what she was doing.

bob2356 says

That would be a server that once it was actually discovered after 6 years clinton herself personally decided which emails were relevant.

This part is bullshit. IIRC, the domain was something like clintons.com. Whatever it was, it is trivial for the gov to figure out where the server is without asking Clinton. Do you really think this was a big secret all those years?

thunderlips11 says

We only have Hillary's word they were personal.

Since each email starts somewhere and goes to somewhere else the only ones that could have been secretly deleted are those going from her to another government official or to someone else in the US using a private server. Plus, they would have to collude about each email to delete. I have not heard that any such conspiracy has occurred. Plus, emails are not secure in the first place. Anyone really paranoid would have to be encrypting messages, which she wasn't doing.

bob2356 says

When do you think she would have actually delivered her emails to be archived, as required by law, if her hidden email server was never discovered? No fair using geologic time scales.

She was probably going to wait until she was prodded. Perhaps it wasn't a top priority thing for her. Perhaps, she wanted to sift through and delete the personal ones.

I've always said that her decision to commingle personal and public business was stupid. The rest of us don't do that. She has infinite resources, and it wouldn't have been hard for her to fit a different colored blackberry in her pantsuit.

I'm personally willing to let the FBI decide if it was illegal.

errc says

Oh dear

Are these people actually allowed to vote?

Would you defend yourself in a murder case? If not, you probably agree with me. If so, you are an idiot.

marcus says

If HIllary was nervous about email privacy, it would seem that proved justified in a weird way.

This is why I've said emails are not secure or private in any way. If you care about privacy, encryption is the only way to go. She obviously did not use encryption, and her private server did not provide any privacy or secrecy, which pretty much removes any nefarious motive.

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

Except this was the mechanism by which she delivered state secrets to the PRC Army, the Russians and various numbers of her sponsors.

And provided Blankfein with hours of operation of the SoS glory hole.

bob2356 says

When do you think hillary would have complied with the law if no one had discovered her secret email server? Another 6 years? 10 years? 20 years?

I will tell you my opinion on this, if you will answer this question. How do you reconcile your outrage and indignation about Hillary's emails with this fact ?

marcus says

the accepted fact that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to not use a private email account for at least some of his or her official (State Department) business done by email.

anonymous says

extremely careless

Good quality for a Prez, don't you think.

Billfuck sucked Loretta Lynchs dick, and they got Obama to agree to funnel some more of our Nations valuable information to Huma Abedin, so that she can pass it along to her Saudi family, promising that it will reach ISIS.

It's a small price to pay, to sweep another Clinton transgression under the rug

Why did Hillary host on a private server? She's already explained why:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/hillary-clinton-2000-wanted-email-29397129

Anti-Transparency. She put American National Security at risk for political purposes.

YesYNot says

bob2356 says

That would be a server that once it was actually discovered after 6 years clinton herself personally decided which emails were relevant.

This part is bullshit. IIRC, the domain was something like clintons.com. Whatever it was, it is trivial for the gov to figure out where the server is without asking Clinton. Do you really think this was a big secret all those years?

Irrelevant. Where the documents were stored has no bearing on whether she turned them over or not. Why would anyone go looking for her server or even know she was hosting a private server? . Everyone would assume that a secretary of state would be archiving their correspondence as required by law. She certainly could have used a commercial email service and done the same thing. Using her own server just gave her that much more control and privacy. Something hillary is fanatical to the point of psychotic about.

marcus says

bob2356 says

When do you think hillary would have complied with the law if no one had discovered her secret email server? Another 6 years? 10 years? 20 years?

I will tell you my opinion on this, if you will answer this question. How do you reconcile your outrage and indignation about Hillary's emails with this fact ?

marcus says

the accepted fact that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to not use a private email account for at least some of his or her official (State Department) business done by email.

I refuse to believe anyone with such a low comprehension level and complete inability to grasp the subject matter could possibly be a teacher. Lets go over this really slowly and carefully. I will try to type as slowly as possible and use very small words. Obviously all my prior attempts to explain the issues were made at a level considerably beyond your reading comprehension abilities. My error.

I have NO outrage or indignation ( you used those 2 big words so I'm going to think you know what they mean, maybe) at all about emails, hillary's or anyone else. It doesn't matter if hillary or kerry or any other sec of state used emails or made marks (this is called scribing, I will try to improve your vocabulary ((that means how many words you know)) as we go along) on wet clay with a sharp stick (either way. email or clay, it is called correspondence). What matters is what she did with what she wrote (this is called content) after she wrote it. The content (see previous sentence) in whatever form needs to be turned over to the federal government (that is who hillary works for) and put away somewhere (that's called archived) so the people (that's called the public) can look at them if they want to. This is a rule made by the government (this is called a law).. Kerry followed that very simple rule. Hillary didn't. Hillary kept the content of her correspondence (see previous sentence for both words) to herself on her private server (this is a place emails are kept) for 6 years until someone found out they were there but never turned over. If she had used clay tablets instead of emails and hid them in a shed in her back yard I would be just as outraged (that means not happy with what she did).. The issue is the content, not the medium

So there is absolutely nothing to reconcile other than why you can't understand simple declarative sentences.

If you can find a moment to tear yourself away from masturbating to pictures of hiillary in orange jumpsuits feel free to offer your opinion on when hillary would have actually turned over the content of her correspondence, emails or clay tablets, to be archived as required by law(s) if someone hadn't discovered they had not yet been turned over after 6 years. Some type of basis supporting whatever conjecture you come up with would be nice, but I think the odds of world peace are considerably better than you producing anything to support it. I'll be waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting.

Ornathal James Simpson was cleared of the Ron and Nicole murders

Mozillo was cleared of fraud in Countrywide

I would never vote for either of them for any public office either