Exactly ignore her guilt and focus instead on the possible intentions of Republicans. Pretty weak argument but in fairness to them, it's the only ones they have
And the truth comes out...
- Thread starter theiacowtipper
- Start date
And since she deleted "X" from her PERSONAL PC, we may never know what she sent (very deceitful of her). Does this not ring a bell with the Left or are you in so deep you just can't fathom it? I would love to see this board if this were a Republican in place of Hillary.
I agree that the Republicans are using this for political reasons to be honest. It's the old game of find a weakness and exploit it. The point is, she DID in fact break laws. Whomever is saying she didn't, doesn't know what the ##$ they are talking about. Any other person within the Federal government gets caught doing this, and it's their arse.
Except she still could have used a private account to send emails to "outside entities". And, as near as I can tell, it was legal. Might not have been smart but Colin Powell did it as SoS.
I can't stress enough that because one does it doesn't make it right - if he did then his emails should be pulled as well.
Putting the country at risk is ethically wrong.
There is a difference between arguing if what she did was smart and if it was legal. Tarheel isn't offering Powell up to prove the correctness of her action, just its policy precedent that her actions were allowed.
This was all in the open. She didn't sneak her server in, she didn't spoof her email and run it through a VPN. Everyone that ever emailed her knew it was going to a server that wasn't the one at the state department with the .gov extension. If you honestly think its illegal, then lets arrest everyone who participated in the crime by transmitting information to the email address too. Honestly there is nothing to see here, move on to your tax policy and beat her on something real.
Simply put - all could have been avoided if she didn't skirt the rules. The picture she has painted with this is that she is untrustworthy with information that could jeopardize the safety of the nation and its interests.
If this were a Republican I would be saying the same thing, can you say that?
Not if she was sending out emails that had classified information in them, and not especially since she shouldn't have had them on her private, non-government sever in the first place. That's what the argument is all about. Whether she was receiving emails back that had classified information in them, as in did her server house classified, or SCI level information that she shouldn't have had there.
Sending email to government networks and accounts is perfectly fine, as long as you use your common sense about what you are sending.
Her actions AREN'T allowed if she did in fact have emails with classified information on them. Something the intelligence community and the state department were said to have found. She can erase her emails on the server all she wants, she can't erase the fact that they were sent to it though.
No, I'd be doing exactly what you are doing. I'd be screaming how evil Powell is and how he is selling our secrets to the Chinese. Of course if this was anyone but Clinton, this story would have died from lack of oxygen long ago. And she did follow the rules, that was the point of the Powell reference. This setup was allowed.
Sounds like your beef is with the sender. Go arrest them.
No, her beef should have been with the sender. Apparently she didn't mind receiving them. She's clearly in the wrong here. If others did it, then so be it, but the fact of the matter is, she got caught. By the agencies charged with catching stuff like this no less.
She swears an oath just like every other Federal worker. She also is briefed on the do's and do nots of OPSEC.
Vroom.....all I am waiting for is something that shows Hilary acted illegally. Gossip and innuendo don't stand up in a court of law.
This whole Benghazi thing looks like a roost by the GOP because Hilary was the heir apparent a year ago. It was their (the GOP) only hope...and they rode it hard. Again.....lots of smoke and BS and little evidence of wrong-doing on her behalf. We will have to let this thing play out...and the GOP will ride it out as long as they can with their current field of dysfunctional candidates.
This would be so much simpler for people to digest if the items were separated.
Email address/Private Server; Appears to be in conflict with an Obama administration guideline regarding use of government email addresses for government business. Not sure if there is a path from breaking a guideline to breaking the law for this issue.
Classified data; Persons holding a security clearance are trained extensively and annually on all aspects of controlling classified data. It is incomprehensible for me to believe that the CEO of the State Department would not know what was or was not classified information. Meaning a person holding a clearance is required and duty bound to ensure that classified information is controlled at all times. Controlled primarily means that the information can only be "present" in the properly controlled environment. Meaning, electronic classified information must be stored in an offline storage environment. Access to the offline storage environment must have physical and electronic controls for persons to gain access based on clearance level. Verbal communications of classified information must be done over secured private communications paths or in secured rooms with eavesdrop protection. This is the real crux of the issue at hand. Several pieces of email stored on the private server have classified information. Several pieces of that information has been determined to have been classified at the time of its creation. Meaning a person made an electronic copy of classified information that they had knowledge of by way of typing that information into an email. If that process had occurred in the secured offline storage environment, there would be no issue. The problem is that the classified information was electronically stored in a public(meaning not State Department) storage environment not subject to physical and electronic controls to prevent access by people not holding the appropriate security clearance. There is a direct path to breaking a law for this scenario.
Again, believe me or not, I really don't care. But, please do some research on data protection. Talk to your banker, financial planner or someone in the education or health care industry about the laws that they must follow for the protection of sensitive data.
If you would be upset if someone was careless with your own personal data(HIPPA, Financial, SSN, etc.) then you should be really pissed about someone being careless with our Nations sensitive data.
Email address/Private Server; Appears to be in conflict with an Obama administration guideline regarding use of government email addresses for government business. Not sure if there is a path from breaking a guideline to breaking the law for this issue.
Classified data; Persons holding a security clearance are trained extensively and annually on all aspects of controlling classified data. It is incomprehensible for me to believe that the CEO of the State Department would not know what was or was not classified information. Meaning a person holding a clearance is required and duty bound to ensure that classified information is controlled at all times. Controlled primarily means that the information can only be "present" in the properly controlled environment. Meaning, electronic classified information must be stored in an offline storage environment. Access to the offline storage environment must have physical and electronic controls for persons to gain access based on clearance level. Verbal communications of classified information must be done over secured private communications paths or in secured rooms with eavesdrop protection. This is the real crux of the issue at hand. Several pieces of email stored on the private server have classified information. Several pieces of that information has been determined to have been classified at the time of its creation. Meaning a person made an electronic copy of classified information that they had knowledge of by way of typing that information into an email. If that process had occurred in the secured offline storage environment, there would be no issue. The problem is that the classified information was electronically stored in a public(meaning not State Department) storage environment not subject to physical and electronic controls to prevent access by people not holding the appropriate security clearance. There is a direct path to breaking a law for this scenario.
Again, believe me or not, I really don't care. But, please do some research on data protection. Talk to your banker, financial planner or someone in the education or health care industry about the laws that they must follow for the protection of sensitive data.
If you would be upset if someone was careless with your own personal data(HIPPA, Financial, SSN, etc.) then you should be really pissed about someone being careless with our Nations sensitive data.
Wrong, the state department confirmed she had classified information on her emails. A huge no, no. There is no debate on this. She's guilty. You can't just have that sort of information sent to a privately controlled server. This isn't rocket science here.
I believe you and I worked with sensitive information for four years. Everything you said here was spot on.
Perhaps she is part of a sort of 'gotcha' agenda here.
That doesn't change that she failed to adhere to operational security protocol.
It especially doesn't look good considering Russian hackers were allegedly trying to get into her server.
http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/russian-hackers-tried-to-infiltrate-hillary-clintons-home-server/
This link details exactly what you spoke of in your last sentence.
WASHINGTON — Hackers with links to Russia tried to infiltrate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s home email server at least five times — even as other emails show her making cavalier jokes about Chinese hackers, according to the latest emails released by the State Department.
The scammers sent Clinton five infected emails disguised as New York speeding tickets on Aug. 3, 2011.
New York State Police had warned of the scam in July 2011, saying the messages would implant computer viruses when unsuspecting users opened them. The ruse had been linked to Russian hackers and could have been caught by most commercial anti-virus software.
Police directed victims to delete the emails, but Clinton preserved them.
The hack attempts were revealed in 6,000 pages of emails released Wednesday by the department as part of its monthly Clinton document dump.
A Clinton spokesman maintains there’s zero proof that her home server was ever breached.
Interesting that you didn't disagree with my points. In any event, let's assume for the moment that Hillary broke the law. At what point will the Republicans in Congress initiate an investigation into the use of taxpayer funds in an attempt to bring down a political candidate. We have that as an admission from a leading Republican. Those on the right don't hesitate to call out Obama on alleged abuses of power, and have investigations with multiple committees on those abuses of power.
Could you post a link to this that talks about something other than info that was on her server that was classified after the fact? TIA.
You're quite welcome at present.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/0...in-hillary-clintons-email.html?referrer=&_r=1
Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.
On Monday, the Clinton campaign disagreed with the conclusion of the intelligence review and noted that agencies within the government often have different views of what should be considered classified.
^^^^Pay special attention to the sentence just above. Why? Because.....No, they don't have different views, the standard is universal throughout OPSEC protocol amongst DOD, DHS, and any other Departments. That's BS, and she knows it.
Last edited:
When you run for the highest position in the world, you are going to have your every move investigated.
Did Powell use his private email exclusively? Sounds like - no:
Like Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State Colin Powell also used a personal email account during his tenure at the State Department, an aide confirmed in a statement.
“He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State,” the statement says. “He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends.”
Her sad excuse of "not wanting to use 2 phones" is such a load of crap - you can have 2 different accounts on the same phone, one that you do work related communication on and the other can be your personal account.
I simply point out that her exclusive use of a private server (she retains full control of said server - had it been a gmail account, that is different) raises eyebrows across the spectrum and exponentially with her opposition. Then she pulls a "Bill" on "I did not violate the letter of the law" similar to Bill's testimony regarding Monica and the what the definition of the word "is" is.
Sure if you want to use the standard that receiving classified email at a private server is a crime, then sending it must be too, right? It's not like Hillary didn't tell everyone who sent her anything they were sending it to her personal address. Each person (or their staff) would have made the choice to punch that address in the computer and associate it with her account. Nothing was spoofed or hidden or redirected.
I agree with your point about how stupid the excuse of two devices sounds. I have a half dozen email accounts on my phone. But I also have one email account that must be accessed through its own client so it's not completely out of the realm that there are reasons why her excuse might not be correct. Like maybe the state department refusing to allow multiple accounts on a device that can access their server. Still a poor reason IMO.
