patrick.net

bob2356 says

So let me get this straight in my mind how the security thing worked. First hillary claimed she lacked the skills to set up 2 email accounts on her blackberry so she had have someone set up a private server Why the same person couldn't just set up the blackberry with 2 email accounts is never explained. Then (and gentleman and then, sorry I just saw a great production of Pippin) as someone who has no IT training at all she was able to evaluate a gigantic, mutlinational, network with thousands of users and billions of dollars in hardware and software to determine the system was too insecure for her to use email on so she had to have someone set up a private server. How did she come to this realization? Woman's intuition? Did she have someone evaluate the system? Who was that and were is the evaluation? Oh right it is properly archived at the state department along with all of hillarys emails. Now that's funny.

This paragraph belongs to the best of Pat.net

Ironman says

How does the general public do a FOIA request on these THOUSANDS of work related emails that SHE deleted?

Stop changing the subject. You stated that the reason for her using a separate server for work email was to avoid people reading her work emails via the FOIA. Using a separate server may provide an inconvenience to people who want to read her email using FOIA, but it doesn't prevent them from doing so and doesn't provide HRC with any privacy.

Another topic: She deleted some work related emails. That was wrong. Was it intentional and done to hide some nefarious activity? Comey says no. I don't have access to those emails to see if they had more potentially damaging info, but Comey did, and he did not find that. If he did, then he would have gotten her for intent to destroy evidence. Perhaps they were mostly social emails with a work question thrown in. Who knows.

You go through hoops to try to prove her intentions for using a private email server, and fall on your face, because you cannot prove that. The ironic thing is that you are obsessed with HRC in the same way you complain about hydro or me being obsessed with Trump. The difference is that you are a broken record working with a limited set of transgressions and you are boring and trollish enough to spam Pat.net with the same lame pictures over and over.

Can they go back and get the 5 million emails that Bush deleted via the FOIA? No, they cannot. Did congress demand that the administration turn over all computers to the FBI so that those emails could be retrieved? Did they state that Bush was no longer fit to serve? Of course not. Is the canned ham a totally dishonest hypocritical asshole? Of course he is.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the_george_w_bush_email_scandal_the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/juan-williams/media-reaction-george-w-bushs-email-controversy/

Ironman says

Perhaps they weren't, but if they were just social emails, why delete them. Was Chelsea's wedding or yoga schedules a matter of national security?

Everybody has the right to delete personal emails. Did the FBI go back and scour everybody else's hard drive to find out which emails they deleted and see if there were any mentions of work related items? Of course not.

Do you have any proof that there was anything incriminating in those 3000 emails of HRC? Of course not. You have no facts or FACTS for that matter to back up your claims.

Ironman says

Can you tell me again which State Dept server they would be found on?

Doesn't matter as it doesn't relate to intent. Also, many people accidentally delete the wrong email once in a while. I doubt there are any people who were perfect in this regard. If HRC were really trying to delete the emails, why not use software to really remove the information from the hard drive? Better yet, why not create a new server with a fresh drive, move over all of the emails you want to keep and destroy the old drive. The fact is, she deleted the email. She didn't destroy all evidence. It's like getting rid of a body and failing to clean up the blood. The intent you ascribe makes no sense.

Here's what Comey said directly about those 3000 emails and intent:

FBI investigators found no evidence that any work-related emails “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them”, Comey said.

So you think Comey is either incompetent or a liar and somehow under Clinton's control. You are idiotman

YesYNot says

Everybody has the right to delete personal emails

Who checks to make sure they are personal, or is it a unilateral claim?

thunderlips11 says

Who checks to make sure they are personal, or is it a unilateral claim?

It's always a unilateral claim as far as I know. I've read that anyone can delete their personal emails even if they are on gov servers. There are probably hundreds of thousands if not more personal emails deleted from gov servers every day. No one is sitting behind them looking over their shoulders and trying to catch them.

You're an idiot. If she did destroy old hard drives, they wouldn't have gotten any emails. The Ironman says

lawyers cleaned their devices

The lawyers cleaned whose devices? Clinton's devices or the lawyers devices. They obviously didn't wipe the deleted emails.

Again:

FBI investigators found no evidence that any work-related emails “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them”, Comey said.

Ironman says

Just an accidental press of the "delete" button... SEVERAL thousand times??

Lawyers did the deleting. They sifted through 60K emails in a limited amount of time. This has been stated over and over again. How you go from that to accidentally hitting a button 3000 times is what makes you special.

YesYNot says

Anyone could ask for emails between Hillary and huma. State could get them off of their servers.

YesYNot says

Using a separate server may provide an inconvenience to people who want to read her email using FOIA, but it doesn't prevent them from doing so

Trees, trees, all those damn trees. There must be a forest here somewhere.

The way the FOI is supposed to work is you should be able to ask for hillarys emails. Not have to ask for emails of everyone hillary might have sent emails to then look for the ones received from hillary. As a public servant it is incumbent upon hillary to facilitate the FOI act not do everything in her power to circumvent it. We are back to it's ok because it's technically legal again. Next step is colin did it.

"I didn't get indicted"
Hillary for president 2014.

Ironman says

At what point is Johnny guilty of stealing?

Technically, he's guilty of stealing the first time he took something he didn't pay for. Technically, it's stealing if you walk off with a pen at the bank. Sometimes you absentmindedly do so. Guess what? No one is going to prosecute you for it. Intent and to some extent size of the theft make a difference. Comey explained all of this. If you weren't indoctrinated, you would see that.

bob2356 says

The way the FOI is supposed to work is you should be able to ask for hillarys emails. Not have to ask for emails of everyone hillary might have sent emails to then look for the ones received from hillary. As a public servant it is incumbent upon hillary to facilitate the FOI act not do everything in her power to circumvent it.

If you are saying that the forest is that she should have archived her emails better for the FOI, we can all agree with you. Even Hillary does. All I've been arguing is that the intent that everyone on the right has ascribed to her doesn't make any sense. Her behavior doesn't fit with that intent. The facts don't support it. She turned over the vast majority of her work emails and the ones that she withheld were not any more incriminating than the others, so that appears to the investigators to be an honest mistake.

Ironman says

You're so focused on "intent", which isn't in the statute.

I'm focused on intent, b/c that's what I've been arguing about in this whole thread. That's it. B/t/w, I believe that willfully is the part of that law that helped Hillary out. It's worth quoting again:

FBI investigators found no evidence that any work-related emails “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them”, Comey said.

So, it looks like she didn't break that law anyway. From a moral standpoint: It's the same thing as taking a pen out of a bank if you forget whose pen you are holding. Intent is important. It's the difference between murder and a fatal car accident.

Ironman says

LIED

Technically, lying requires saying what you know is untrue. Being wrong doesn't make someone a liar. That is fortunate for you. Otherwise, you'd be as bad as your fat cheeto hero. If the deleted emails were a mistake, it wasn't a lie. If she didn't remember sending classified emails on the wrong system, then her corresponding statement about that wasn't a lie. I know Hillary lies here and there like most politician. But, I don't know which if any of those things were lies (unlike you, I don't just fill in the unknowns with what I want to be true). The irony is that you can't even look at your cheeto hero and figure out he lies twice as often as Hillary. Sad.

For example, when Trump says that he will defend the 12th article of the constitution, that's not a lie. It's just ignorance. When he says that Mexico will pay for the wall and that the Mexican leaders are sending their bad guys over the border, those are lies. He's not that stupid.

Perhaps things work differently in Hillary's world..... But for anyone else, if you mix business and personal, you pierced the veil of protection for either. For example, if you use your business bank account to pay personal bills and your business gets sued.... You pierced the veil of protection that separates your business liability from personal liability. I remember a similar caution given my husband about his ex-wife. Be careful to keep business and personal separate or you risk everything being opened to discovery.

So why didn't she give up her right to personal privacy the moment she mixed business and personal emails? Are there any lawyers here who can explain why this is different? Because lawyers have repeatedly cautioned us against a very similar thing...

Ironman says

You can focus on your little dick for all we care.

Classic. You stopped even trying to connect your insults to anything at all.Ironman says

The question pertains did she willfully lie

You either don't know what intent is or don't know what willful means.

I've already answered this many times. I'll repeat:YesYNot says

FBI investigators found no evidence that any work-related emails “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them”, Comey said.

Last time I pointed this out, you said I had a small dick, and asked why I was focused on intent, which you said wasn't in the statute. Now, you are saying it's all about intent. You make Trump look intelligent even when he is promising to defend the twelfth article of the Constitution.

YesYNot says

If you are saying that the forest is that she should have archived her emails better for the FOI, we can all agree with you. Even Hillary does. All I've been arguing is that the intent that everyone on the right has ascribed to her doesn't make any sense. Her behavior doesn't fit with that intent. The facts don't support it. She turned over the vast majority of her work emails and the ones that she withheld were not any more incriminating than the others, so that appears to the investigators to be an honest mistake.

The forest is the big picture that you guys keep missing because you keep delving into irrelevant minutia. She turned over the vast majority because she got caught. She never would have turned anything over she didn't get caught. That is intent was to bury as much as possible from the FOI act. Yes they could be found with great effort. That doesn't exactly jive, to say the least, with the intent of the Freedom of Information act. The bullshit that it's ok because she finally turned them over after getting caught in a political shit storm it doesn't cut it. Technically legal vs being ethical by following the intent and spirit of the law just aren't the same thing no matter how much you and marcus wish it to be true. That is the facts.

Ironman says

See the word "additional", that means the original ones WERE intentionally deleted.

You unbelievably moronic asshole: The additional means in addition to the 30000 that she turned over on her own. The FBI found 3000 additional work related emails, and they found no reason to think that they were intentionally deleted with an effort to conceal them. Go read your link. You are either a complete moron with zero reading comprehension skills or you are a serial liar. They may have been intentionally deleted or may not have. But there is no evidence that they were intentionally deleted with an effort to conceal something. In other words, they didn't have any specific information that would have been particularly damaging to her. All it means is that the records she turned over only contained 90% of all of the emails she sent.

The republican congress critters have been harassing the Clintons with useless investigations in various efforts to grandstand and improve their own standing / chances of reelection and in an effort to smear the Clintons. This should be horribly embarrassing for them. One reason that they continue is that morons like you lap this shit up like dingleberries off of Trumps Cheeto taint. Some people think that these idiots keep thinking that the next investigation will pay off. I don't think that they are anywhere near that stupid. They know it's going nowhere. The thing is that these assholes are usually from some brainwashed shithole where people will idolize them for taking on the Clintons. Take this douchebag: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trey_Gowdy. He's from Greenville, SC. I can guarantee you that asshole is scoring political points even if HRC makes him look like an idiot.

Gowdy is a walking waste of resources and an embarrassment to humanity. Take your head out of your lyin ass and you will be amazed at what you see.

Ironman says

Why do you continually make up lies? The true fact was "Several thousand" emails. The TOTAL email count on the server was 50,000+, she only turned over 30,000 that SHE claimed were work related. Nobody but HER knows what was on the other 20,000.

The others were deleted, and were not likely work related. Only in your rancid imagination can you convict someone based on your own sick presumptions. 30,000 is roughtly 90% of the [work related] emails sent. I should have stated work-related. My error. Back to the main point:

FBI investigators found no evidence that any work-related emails “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them”, Comey said.

Ironman says

We weren't discussing any of them here. Why do you ALWAYS go off on some lame brain tangent

It's completely germane, because it is the source of bullshit that you read. If asshats like Gowdy didn't waste everybody's time and money, your fucked up news sources wouldn't have the demented stories that you and T-Rex-a-dimbulb like to read and propagate here.

I hope Trump stays on this message of trying to make Hillary a villain. Heaven help us if he actually put forward rival policy that made sense and could be seen as a serious alternative. Of course, I think that likelihood is pretty small. Thoughtful speaker and statesmen is not really Donald. Cannot wait to see who his 'lucky' VP will be! Gonna be yuge!

Ironman says

Ha Ha ha... EXACTLY what you did above.

Yes. People are presumed innocent in our country. Perhaps article 12 of the constitution makes an exception for Clintons.

Rew says

I hope Trump stays on this message of trying to make Hillary a villain. Heaven help us if he actually put forward rival policy that made sense and could be seen as a serious alternative. Of course, I think that likelihood is pretty small. Thoughtful speaker and statesmen is not really Donald. Cannot wait to see who his 'lucky' VP will be! Gonna be yuge!

This already happened. Did you miss Hillary's Statement a few weeks ago detailing her W part 2 foreign policy in response to Trump leveraging us out of NATO and not willy-nilly destabilizing dictators?

YesYNot says

Perhaps article 12 of the constitution makes an exception for Clintons.

Good one.