patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

On June 20, 2007, Hillary Clinton complained about Bush officials shredding the US Constitution by having secret email accounts.

So, she was smart enough to recognize the problem in 2007.

Call it Crazy says

Two years later, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a secret email account and secret servers in her basement for all of her official business.

In 2009, she isn't aware that this could be a problem.

Makes perfect sense.

It's so awesome we have the Benghazi committee looking into it.
They have such a great track record of producing....ummm....

Easy question to answer: How many previous Secretaries had their own email accounts? From what I've heard, Powell did not use the system, Condi did not use email at all, and only Kerry uses the assigned account.

I'm thinking that future political criminals on the right must be pretty torn about how much of a big deal they want to make about this. Watch for the result of this, because it's precendent for the future.

Are there laws about text messages ? Files can be attached to text messages.

marcus says

"If you use a private email you must print it out and have it preserved or forward it to an official email account."

So, this makes it pretty much up to the individual to archive it. Right ?

Which hillary didn't. Pretty hard to believe someone that claims to be an educator doesn't understand the meaning of the word MUST. The law is clear, I'm sorry your worship of a sleazebag like hillary means you can't understand it.

So when does this probe widen? Every public official who has used private email for anything possible related to government business, must be rounded up. Jeb Bush runs a private server, hosting accounts for family and friends. This could the tip of a very big iceberg. We'll need to build some more prisons.

bob2356 says

marcus says

"If you use a private email you must print it out and have it preserved or forward it to an official email account."

So, this makes it pretty much up to the individual to archive it. Right ?

Which hillary didn't. Pretty hard to believe someone that claims to be an educator doesn't understand the meaning of the word MUST.

I guess when you're making up your facts and you're only on here to insult people you don't know (and when your IQ is way below average) you just can't help yourself.

Like you, I've seen a few stories on this. But unlike you, I'm objective and don't have a huge hatred for the CLintons, so I actually don't know about how the law will eventually effect her on this. But here are some things that I think I do know, from the small amount I've read on this (infinitely more than you have gotten from Fox news, or the Drudge report).

1) The word 'must' archive has been used. But it doesn't say when.

2) Last fall when the records law was updated, Archived email records were requested from Hilary and other past secretaries that used their own email accounts. Hilary provided records at that time. She also provided Benghazi related emails back at the time of that oriinal investigation.

3) It's 2014/2015. People have hard drives and back ups of data such as emails. SO if a regulation says you must archive (with printed copies) but one instead archives on a hard drive,(able to print copies at any time) this does not seem like a big problem to me. Especially if the law does not explicitly state a time frame in which private emails must be printed.

Excerpt:

“In the process of updating our records management — this is something that’s sort of ongoing given technology and the changes — we reached out to all of the former secretaries of state to ask them to provide any records they have,” she said.

Clinton was the only former secretary to send back e-mail records in response to the department’s request, Harf said.

She also said that the department has “no indications” that Clinton used personal e-mail for classified information.

“She had multiple other ways of communicating in a classified manner, including assistants or staff members printing classified documents for her, secure phone calls, or secure videoconferences,” Harf said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-use-of-personal-e-mail-at-state-dept-violated-obama-directive/2015/03/03/454d7938-c1b9-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html

This may be bad for Clinton politically. But I doubt it will be that bad. If the end result is to tighten up rules about government emails, then maybe that's a good thing. But I think the typicla Fox news watcher has no idea what the state of the art is in communication of sensitive information. They're just on another one of their stupid witch hunts.

IS this the best dirt they're going to be able to trump up against Clinton ?

This why we should vote Republican, they have never even seen an email.

North Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is considering a 2016 White House run, but apparently won’t have to worry about his bid getting sidetracked with an email controversy like Hillary Clinton’s has.

Graham, a Republican, acknowledged Sunday that he has never sent an email, either on his congressional or private account.

“I don't email,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “You can have every email I have ever sent. I've never sent one.”

I have read the Kool-Aid leaves, and it doesn't look good.

CaptainShuddup says

This why we should vote Republican, they have never even seen an email.

So the ideal person for government office, are rednecks so ignorant they can't find the SEND button.

Boss Hogg basically.

marcus says

I guess when you're making up your facts and you're only on here to insult people you don't know (and when your IQ is way below average) you just can't help yourself.

What facts am I making up? The federal records act? My IQ may be below average but I can understand things like MUST and know the federal records act has existed for 65 years.

marcus says

Like you, I've seen a few stories on this. But unlike you, I'm objective and don't have a huge hatred for the CLintons, so I actually don't know about how the law will eventually effect her on this. But here are some things that I think I do know, from the small amount I've read on this (infinitely more than you have gotten from Fox news, or the Drudge report).

Your reading skills are pretty sub par for someone with such a high IQ. I don't have any huge hatred for the clintons. Bill was a pretty good president. Hillary was a fair to middling senator and sec of state (I think she would be a terrible president). That doesn't mean bill and hillary aren't total and compete sleazebags who push the edge of legal without any shame whatsoever at all times. Obviously you can't understand the meaning of the word dichotomy either. Sorry but I'm not a fox news or drudge report reader. Most of what I've read has been from reuters and the NY times.

marcus says

1) The word 'must' archive has been used. But it doesn't say when.

2) Last fall when the records law was updated, Archived email records were requested from Hilary and other past secretaries that used their own email accounts. Hilary provided records at that time. She also provided Benghazi related emails back at the time of that oriinal investigation.

3) It's 2014/2015. People have hard drives and back ups of data such as emails. SO if a regulation says you must archive (with printed copies) but one instead archives on a hard drive,(able to print copies at any time) this does not seem like a big problem to me. Especially if the law does not explicitly state a time frame in which private emails must be printed.

1. Actually there now is a time frame, that was what the 2014 amendment to the law did. There was no time frame specified in the law previously. But the law specifies that each agency must develop a records disposition schedule for all documents. The state department has such a schedule which should specify the time frames for all employees, including the secratary. Judges have held that the laws intends records to be recorded promptly. Providing SOME records 2 years after leaving office and only after getting caught is hard to justify as being in the spirit of the law or within the meaning of the word promptly even for you. Objective? I think not.

2. Hillary provided records she felt were relevant. She used a private email to avoid the freedom of information act. The law is clear, even if you haven't bothered to look it up or understand it , ALL correspondence relating to official duties must be archived and available for FOI requests.

3. Records must be in government possession and accessible to the agency. Again the law is clear. Having the records backed up on a server at the clinton's house doesn't cut it.

Rah, Rah, Rah, go hillary.

marcus says

IS this the best dirt they're going to be able to trump up against Clinton ?

This isn't dirt. This is the best example of how arrogant hillary is and why she does not have the integrity to be president. Not that integrity has been associated with the last 3 presidents. Instead of promptly apoligizing to the public for violating the law and the president for violating his specific directive she has declined comment on why she did it, says trust me I've turned everything over, and came up with a strawman about classified documents which has nothing at all to do with the records act.

Hilliary's private email in with it's own is not serious sour issue.

BUT!!! That combined with the tight lipped, closed fist, yell louder than them way she and the Libtard damage control handled every one of her blunders, especially Benghazi, makes it... ah how was that Mr. McGoo Biden put it? Ah yes.... "A Big F*cking deal!"

The only thing people are going to hear buzzing in their ear, is all of the idiots that blew past all transgressions of this administration by yelling "Benghazi!!!!" interchangeably, every time Obama screwed up or was caught lying, AGAIN!.

Nobody is going to want 4 more years of oppressive KGB commie Idiots. They've been so good at, the originals want to kick our buts for stealing their schtick. In fact, we've been so blazing at being a bunch of pinko commies, the originals are reverting back to their ways.

Thanks OBAMA!!

CaptainShuddup says

her blunders, especially Benghazi

Ah-hah: BENGHAZI! Where several investigations determined no negligence.

Much worse than when she voted to send boys to die in Iraq to satisfy the blood-lust of retarded wingnuts and save her politial skin!

BENGHAZI!

One thing: she has not been rude on climate change, like that arrogant Al Gore, who insinuated that some people might be wrong, thereby hurting their fee-fees.

This Idiot is not the NEXT president of the US and king of the Idiots.

months' exist in Hillary Clinton emails
Washington Examiner
By Kelly CohenPublished March 08, 2015
Facebook1 Twitter1 Email Print
Months long gaps exist in Hillary Clinton's emails, according to Rep. Trey Gowdy.

The South Carolina Republican, who is also the top Republican on the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Sunday emails Clinton's camp has given to the committee have significant gaps in them.

"There are gaps of months and months and months," Gowdy said on CBS's Face the Nation Sunday.

"And if you think to that iconic picture of her on a C-17 flying to Libya, she has sunglasses on and she has her handheld device in her hand. We have no emails from that day. In fact, we have no emails from that trip," he added.

bob2356 says

1. Actually there now is a time frame, that was what the 2014 amendment to the law did. There was no time frame specified in the law previously.

Oh you mean after she left the state department ?

bob2356 says

She used a private email to avoid the freedom of information act.

This is one of your made up facts.

bob2356 says

Records must be in government possession and accessible to the agency.

Didn't you just say that the time at which they must be in govt possession was established after her tenure as Secretary of State ?

turtledove says

Just look at how the military feels about adultery among its officers. If caught, there are consequences. Why wouldn't the Commander in Chief be held to the same standard?

You mean "among enlisted men." If you're a General-grade officer, at worst, will get you your pension. If you're an enlisted man, you'll get demoted, disciplined, and very possibly dishonorably discharged.

But you can be an AG and engage in adultery and get wrist slaps even if you do it with an enlisted person directly under your command.

Brig. Gen. Bryan T. Roberts publicly warned his troops at Fort Jackson, S.C., last spring that he and the Army had “zero tolerance for sexual harassment and sexual assault.” Here’s what the Army didn’t tell the soldiers: At the time, Roberts himself was under investigation by the military over allegations that he physically assaulted one of his mistresses on multiple occasions.

Or with High School age recruits:
http://www.adn.com/article/20141018/national-guard-documents-detail-chronic-misconduct-among-recruiting-leaders
http://www.adn.com/article/20140904/general-resigns-parnell-assails-culture-mistrust-alaska-national-guard

When you deal with Officers, you should subject them to thrice the caution you would anybody else. It is a Kiss-ass Culture of mutual Coverups, where promotion is 100% subjective and based on the opinion of your superiors, and yet they go around presenting themselves as Paragons of Virtue. I find this common in outfits that thrive on "honor" and "uniforms".

I won't even mention Betrayus, who gave journals he shouldn't have been keeping in the first place, full of classified info, to his girlfriend-biographer. He lied to the FBI about it too, before admitting he gave them to her. His punishment is a fine, he'll keep his clearances and his ability to MIC contract himself to millions on top of his generous pension.

Actions talk, bullshit walks.