Slashdot Mirror
Government Finds New Emails Clinton Did Not Hand Over
PolygamousRanchKid writes with this Reuters report that The U.S. Defense Department has found an email chain that Hillary Clinton failed to turn over to the State Department despite her saying she had provided all work emails from her time as Secretary of State.The correspondence with General David Petraeus, who was commander of U.S. Central Command at the time, started shortly before she entered office and continued during her first days as the top U.S. diplomat in January and February of 2009. News of the previously undisclosed email thread only adds to a steady stream of revelations about the emails in the past six months, which have forced Clinton to revise her account of the setup which she first gave in March. Nearly a third of all Democrats and 58 percent of all voters think Clinton is lying about her handling of her emails, according to a Fox News poll released this week.
Clinton apologized this month for her email setup, saying it was unwise. But as recently as Sunday, she told CBS when asked about her emails that she provided 'all of them.' The emails with Petraeus also appear to contradict the claim by Clinton's campaign that she used a private BlackBerry email account for her first two months at the department before setting up her clintonemail.com account in March 2009. This was the reason her campaign gave for not handing over any emails from those two months to the State Department. The Petraeus exchange shows she started using the clintonemail.com account by January 2009, according to the State Department.
Clinton apologized this month for her email setup, saying it was unwise. But as recently as Sunday, she told CBS when asked about her emails that she provided 'all of them.' The emails with Petraeus also appear to contradict the claim by Clinton's campaign that she used a private BlackBerry email account for her first two months at the department before setting up her clintonemail.com account in March 2009. This was the reason her campaign gave for not handing over any emails from those two months to the State Department. The Petraeus exchange shows she started using the clintonemail.com account by January 2009, according to the State Department.
"What difference, at this point, does it make?" I mean, sure, she lied, she exposed sensitive government information to foreign spies, and she may have covered up some "private" dealings. But, hey, doesn't she deserve to be president? She is a woman, after all, and she only really cares about us, the people! She can't save us if we don't cut her a little slack?
While the subject line specifically pertains to the email challenge for Clinton's campaign the pattern is the same. Say nothing until forced to, assume a disengaged electorate will forget, or not care to begin with, then crank out the next "talking point" all on her terms.
The laws only apply to the little people, not the Clintons. If Whitewater, the Tyson payoff through bogus "futures investing", the Vince Foster murder, the Ron Brown murder and all the rest didn't even touch her, then a little thing like breaking a bunch of national security laws and lying about it isn't going to affect here either.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
seriously. so the fuck what. this is the best the GOP's got on her?
it's like lewinsky all over again. spinning up a fucking tornado gushing crocodile tears like Tammy Fae over an email server and a blow job.
if you want me to vote for you how about this: tell me your plan to stop the manufacturing hemorrhage. I don't care about emails and blow jobs which may or may not have allowed the country to run more smoothly, noise about them are just bluster and smoke.
anything to distract from the fact that your best are losing to a reality TV megalomaniac with a bad toupee.
Either that or Hillary was smart enough to not let the real secrets out and only let out stuff that no one could verify or better still confused the hell out of them. By all means bring on another Bush or Trump war monger session we need more brainz in Washington, hell a good war will help the economy and help drive up the price of oil again. Whoaaaa what I great environmental thought elect a war monger so that oil is only used for war and domestically it has to be rationed. Heck even coal could become a strategic commodity during a bloody enough conflict. Who know a good war could really get the economy on the right track and make the 1% Lear jet set crowd really happy!
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
Seriously. If you're already involved in all sorts of funny business before you're even elected, I ain't even going to consider you.
Hope Sanders will win.
So is all this just a Republican witch hunt? sounds like it.
Nothing more than Republican hate witch-hunting!
that I have a problem with. It's (once again) the ease in which the Clinton's tell bold faced lies (I did not have sexual relations with that woman).
So this time they find a thread that she's forgot? I call BULLSHIT!
The whole family is dirty and was the cause of the 2008 failure, what's it going to take to get rid of this bitch?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
and found no wrongdoing. Why are we still talking about this?
What's good for the gander would appear to be good for the goose!
But then, I suppose is depends on what your definition of "is" is, doesn't it ?
Right, so that's the best Fox could dig up? Email from before she was in office? Before her duty to keep all the emails!
"The emails with Petraeus also APPEAR to contradict the claim by Clinton's campaign that she used a private BlackBerry email account for her first two months at the department"
*Appear* is a get out word here, because if she had 2 email accounts, and continued to use the Blackberry as her main email till she took office that would also fit the bill, without any MASSIVE CONSPIRACY.....
And Fox then tries to pad it with a push poll. Which is just political marketing.
Seems a bit thin, watch them do a 180 on Trump when Trump gets chosen as the Republican candidate. They'll be fawning all over him.
Read the comments in this thread.
Let's see, someone is saying Clinton bad, we need Bush. Then we're treated to the entire BJ lie once again - as if the person who brought it up has any idea what actually transpired. Next up, we get the "Well, at least she's better than Trump" as if American really needs someone to head this country who is qualified because they are seen as being marginally better than a cock-sure moron.
But then we have people parroting Fox News lines and have to wonder how many pennies they get to pretend they are engaging in a discussion instead of pushing the designated line from their boss.
In the final analysis, what this country needs is a leader; an Eisenhower, a John F Kennedy, a Roosevelt (either one would do) but instead we get to choose between the moron and the psychopath.
Demand better. We deserve it.
...correspondents who themselves presumably were trained in maintaining the integrity of secret communications -- ie, some kind of self-awareness of who the recipient of the email is and whether the address is considered to be secure?
If I'm Petraeus, wouldn't I have had second thoughts when replying to an email address of "hillary@hillaryisawesome-votehillary2016.com"?
Or did he just blindly go ahead -- "Dear Mrs. Clinton (I *think* this is your address), here is a list of all the special forces guys in the field as of right now. Just FYI, we're super busy right now so if something urgent happens in Libya, we probably won't get to it until next week. Also, I'm helping this woman named Paula Broadwell on a book about me so I cc'd her on this. We're into it "real deep" (LOL) but don't tell me wife anything about it, I kind of want it to be a surprise."
Anyone in the US reading this should vote for Bernie Sanders.
Captcha: Ethical. Can't make this shit up.
Emails from before she went into office? It's pretty weak....
Claim she didn't use her Blackberry account because Clintonmail existed before March.... 2 email accounts, transitioned from old to new like everyone else.
Fox is struggling here.
honestly, it's just not a big deal. of course it's wrong, but it's minor level crap. it's trumped up because people hate her. which is irrational hate because hillary is quite boring milquetoast, there's nothing to be upset about her or excited about her
furthermore, we do not need another clinton or bush in the white house. we do not want dynasty politics in the usa
personally, i'm rooting for sanders v trump. sanders can't beat a empty suit like rubio, too many americans are too stupid for their own good when it comes to style v substance. but sanders can beat a trump
how fucking wonderful would it be to have bernie sanders as our president?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No more politics crap. Nerd news.
For the love of country or whatever supreme monster being you believe in do NOT VOTE TRUMP fellow AMERICANS!!!
you betcha. fair and balanced, right?
No more Clinton's what? You used an apostrophe and the letter "s" which denotes possession. I supposed you knew that since you didn't write donut's.
this is the bad thing.. when faced with the truth people are denying it.. this can only lead to more troubled years ahead if people vote for her.. No one in the Government ever goes to jail for what they actually did.. they are always caught on some other technicality which has lesser penalties but the fact is .. if she did this then it was a felony.. she probably will never do jail time but it will exclude her from holding office and her ability to practice law.
For me its not about what is in the emails but the very fact she used a private server for public service. Does she really value serving the public when she has to be so secretive? Yea, I get many public servants have private email and I am fine with that. But its already been proven Clinton mixed in government communications with private ones then proceeded to delete them on her own supervision. This to me is a conflict in itself. Its like asking a criminal to investigate and collect their own crime scene. Not to mention if you keep claiming you have nothing to hide. Then why all the delay turning over the server and also deleting emails? A open and unabated release would most certainly have muted this for Hillary in indeed she had nothing to hide. But I think its clear she did and tried to clean it up. Probably rather poorly as the FBI seems to be finding stuff on the server. Hillary is the poster child for what we should not want in government. A person who hides behind private emails, does not really serve the people as a whole. Besides treating the public as fools who will believe anything. Her whole public service is self fulfilling and we should never elect her to another office period.
Any poll or utterance from Fox News is bound to be corrupt, biased, lies.
the email where she asked and got mad at aids and others due to she wanted emails sent from top secret closed goverment network was a crime soon as she requested someone to do this ..there are people in jail for less then this but its okies its hillary
Zuck real smart. But me have doubts. Internet for evreybody, that sound like a lot of clocks zuck. Mebbe Zuck think twice about this.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
"Only" hope?
Obviously Someone has not heard about John McAfee 2016.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Long live Bernie Sanders.
Did you mean until or perhaps 'til?
...they are all Cankles supporters. Supporters who, despite the giant barrels of evidence, will defend her even after she follows the same path as Petraeus.
This happened.
Several emails contain people email back saying: Sorry, can't send you that info on an insecure email account.
Problem with today's American politics right wing america has gone batshit crazy.
No. The problem is that the wing-nuts on BOTH the right and left have gone batshit crazy. They make 99% of the noise but account for 5% of the population, if that. The rest of us are somewhere in the center and can't get a damn word in in edgewise.
They did. But, that doesn't cover all the internal e-mail to her staff that used the same server (Huma), or e-mail to anyone not using a U.S. Government computer.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Whose boxes should they look in? Who all did she send confidential information to? Should they look at my email and yours to see if she sent us information which was classified? Her powerful friends over in Saudi Arabia , should investigators look in there computers to see what she sent them?
He's an interesting mix between European-style big-government and libertarian-style individual freedom. I'm not sure that this would work out practically, as a large government is also harder to corral and keep in check. But he's definitely not fascist. The Republican he most resembles is probably Rand Paul. Take away Bernie's giant government checkbook and the two sound very similar.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
LoL Obama is a centrist and the Republicans have gone so far right its not funny.
Trump is center-left, and the Democrats have gone so far left-totalitarian they're putting stock in a literal communist (Sanders) because their current more-equal pig is getting caught in her sty.
But they didn't report it...?
Email is just one of many communication tools. Just like sending a postcard, making phone calls, sending text messages, smoke signals, hand signals, twitter, Internet Relay Chat, HipChat, WhatsApp, or just plain using your voice to talk to someone face to face.
Did you know that Hillary had also been using a telephone (*shock*), to actually talk to people using her voice over long distances?!?!. Why aren't the Republicans demanding full audio recordings of every phone call she has ever had since 2009 (like they are demanding of her emails)? She _could_ have given classified information to her powerful friends in Saudi Arabia using this fancy telephone invention, you know.
It is no wonder that politicians see nothing wrong with the invasive spying that NSA does against American Citizens -- the politicians are being conditioned on the inside that there is no such thing as privacy, and that Republicans must have legitimate access to every fucking piece of data about Hillary that they can get their hands on as part of their fishing expedition.
Americans have the political memory of a puppy. And a loud investigation only happens when it is convenient. Example below
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the_george_w_bush_email_scandal_the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/
There are plenty of reasons to not elect Hillary, this is such a minor one.
They did. But, that doesn't cover all the internal e-mail to her staff that used the same server (Huma), or e-mail to anyone not using a U.S. Government computer.
It also doesn't cover the face-to-face meetings she had with her staff, the phone calls with her staff, etc. The "missing emails" amount to 0.003% of all the communication that she did. Even if you had every last shred of every email she has ever sent, you would still only have about 5% of all the communication that she has done.
Email is just one of many many communication mechanisms that people use, and it is nowhere near being the most popular form of communication either.
But lets have an "email-gate" and pretend that Hillary was the head of some big/scary conspiracy, while ignoring the fact that the government does not even try to record the vast majority of communication that their own employees do.
Wouldn't it be nice (a naive thought) if we had a politician who:
1. We could trust
2. Put the country's best interest above his/her own
3. Wasn't in the pockets of the rich
Instead we have trump and clinton.
Maybe they should get married.
They both are the exact opposites of points 1 thru 3 above.
I wonder why people are feeling they are not represented?
Great....Now, I can get partisan rhetoric and little interesting facts from a bunch of self-proclaimed nerds and blow hards.
Discuss laws and politics that affect us in a real manner such as regulating how we do business. But, attacking for political (and, far too often, inaccurate or debunked) reasons should be limited to DISCUS of FOX News and not here.
Let's not turn /. into DICE DISCUS debacle and reverse course.
I think McAfee is awesome and he and I have a lot in common, actually. However, I'd absolutely be unwilling to vote for him. He's crazier than I am and that's quite an achievement. I mean, yeah, I might vote for him because I enjoy "lulz" but, honestly, were I a caring individual who wanted to exercise his rights to help form a better society then, by no means, would I consider actually voting for John. I'd party with him. I'd snort hookers and screw blow with him. I'd even go out target practicing with him or travel with him for a while. Vote for him? The only reason I'd vote for him is because I'm secure and don't actually like my fellow citizens a great deal.
In my defense, in the past 15 years my fellow citizens have elected Bush twice, Obama twice, and now Trump and Clinton are both 'serious' candidates. I don't like my fellow citizens because they're astonishingly short sighted and stupid.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No again.
The problem is that too many believe they know what's best for everyone, nationwide.
I wonder who would try to minimize this. I guess we found out. Has it occurred to you that the issue may not be the totality of her communication but, rather, the ethical and potential legal violations this insinuates or proves? No? I'm not surprised.
I don't think I've ever accused anyone of being a paid shill on the internet before and I've often looked down on those who do make such accusations. However, that post looks like it might be from an idiot or from someone being paid to be an idiot. I'm sort of hoping it's the latter.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It has ALWAYS been illegal to store classified information on an unclassified IS. Do you think State Department business is ever classified? A single shred of classified information means the whole thing has to be classified. Was the home server an approved classified IS? Of course not! That is a lengthy, cumbersome process that is achieved by following the RULES.
This matters because Hillary thinks she is above following the rules that millions of gov't workers follow every day and she is lying through her teeth to get out of it.
She should be in jail right now which is where you or I would be if we had done the same thing.
".... according to a Fox News poll .."
Well, that says it all, nothing to see, move on.
Did you happen to read even the first line of the summary? This report came from Reuters, not a right-wing media outlet by any stretch of the definition.
Only CT people still think that it was murder. There is no evidence of murder in both cases.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
If you have the choice between the devil which lies to you, and the perceived greater devil which lies to you and might make your situation more miserable (by removing benefits, by de-funding planned parenthood, by holding the government hostage and stopping its funding etc...etc...) then maybe people do not vote FOR democrats as much as they vote AGAINST republican. Just sayin'.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
LoL Obama is a centrist and the Republicans have gone so far right its not funny.
Trump is center-left
Trump is a troll, his policy positions aren't really relevant to his appeal.
and the Democrats have gone so far left-totalitarian they're putting stock in a literal communist (Sanders) because their current more-equal pig is getting caught in her sty.
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
I stole this Sig
Nobody in the whole universe knows what a socialism is, not even socialists themselves. No matter how you define it there will always be somebody who says you're wrong. They won't even accept the definition given by recognized socialist organizations.
Anyway, Hillary has described herself as a "progressive" in the old sense (meaning early 20th Century). Anybody care to define THAT?
Clinton broke the law regarding how those emails should be handled and she very likely knew she was breaking the law. She did it anyway because it made it easier to keep the emails out of the public record and all it takes is some random aide to type a dumb line in an email and you have a big campaign scandal. This is a strong enough motivation that it sounds like many other people on both sides in similar positions had done very similar things.
I'm also dubious this would be a firing/jailing offence for "little people". This is equivalent to finding an upper level manager who's had their division doing something against company policy for a while. If it really went sideways they might get fired, but much more likely the company just says "you're not supposed to be doing that so stop". It's not like she was covering it up, the non-government email was obvious to anyone who got an email from her.
As for how it affects people's political support. On the Democrat side the only real alternative is Bernie Sanders, and while he is picking up a lot of support he might be too far left to win an election. And on the Republican side the party has frankly gone insane. The best candidate they seem to have to offer is Jeb Bush, the little brother of someone who was arguably one of the worst US presidents is history. That doesn't mean Jeb would be the same but I'd wager that most people on either side would happily take Dubya over any of the current Republican candidates.
So it's perfectly sensible for people to say they're very against what Clinton did and think it was illegal, but they'll still vote for her because they don't have any alternatives.
I stole this Sig
Hillary has claimed that when she assumed the Secretary of State position she didn't spend a lot of time thinking about what email she would use, with the clear implication being she was too busy to think about such things... Meaning she wants us to believe she was 'so busy' that she arranged for a private email server, hiredxsomeonevto managevit, and paid a monthly stipend/salary for services rendered because it was easier than using a state department email account .
Reminds me of the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, wherein it was claimed the reason the IRS workers were asking so many probing, illegal questions of certain tax-exempt organizations was because the office was simply over-whelmed with applications. As seen in the email server scandal, the claim is that their natural reaction when overwhelmed with work is to take on additional, in some cases illegal, additional work...
And there is an alarming segment of the population that will parrot those illogical claims as a defense of possible illegal, at best improper actions.
Ken
...no matter how hard they try to make it into a mountain.
What Clinton said is not really the issue per se; it is that she used a channel (personal e-mail server) that is not allowed. If she discussed the most top secret material using the government's e-mail servers or a government-approved secure phone line, none of this investigation would be occurring.
However, by using a personal e-mail server, there is now an investigation to ascertain whether she transmitted secret information to others. Clinton has repeatedly said that nothing classified was sent using her personal e-mail server and it looks like it's a lie. (What a big surprise. A dark cloud of corruption has followed the Clintons in every government job they've ever had.)
I don't remember if Clinton offered sworn testimony but, if she did, then she has also committed an act of perjury.
I suspect you almost vote Democrat or, if not, you have a grudge against the Republican party.
This investigation matters because Clinton has potentially transmitted state secrets over an unapproved, unsecure channel. This is against written government policy, which she knowingly violated.
What would you do if a government official stored the blueprints for the U.S.'s most advanced nuclear weapons technology on Mega.com, in unencrypted form? While we're at it, let's put the blueprints for the B-2 bomber, too.
Do you think that the government official who does such a reckless thing should be investigated? Or do you need to know which political party he belongs to before you make that decsion?
Are you really that stupid? Or do you think everyone else is?
We didn't get single payer healthcare because the democrats lost their majority in the senate and they had to pull tricks like erasing a bill already passed by the house in order to put obama care into it and then using reconciliation rules which is reserved for budget bills to get the PPACA passed and on the desk of Obama before Brown took office and blocked it. Just because they were limited and couldn't jump through hoops enough to get what you wanted doesn't mean they are not far left. There was supposed to be a single payer option that got left out of the bill that passed due to the shenanigans they had to employ in order to pass it. Hell, if you bothered following any of it, you never would have made that statement. I suggest you do know better which is why you posted AC. The democrats almost never got the PPACA passed in the first place.
Putting this conversation back at least partly into the nerd domain,
So, can anyone explain to me why the US government (top executive levels) doesn't have a standard secure e-mail communications system?
I honestly don't get it.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
No, the posting is from one of many useful idiots that blindly support both political parties. Hired shills are much more skillful in redirecting attention elsewhere.
The country's going to shit and both groups of useful idiots deserve everything they're going to get.
> it was not illegal at the time
Releasing classified information has been illegal since before laws were written down. Caesar would have executed her. At one time Hilary tried the defense that she didn't MARK the emails "classified". Failure to mark the document properly doesn't make releasing the information legal. Never did.
Mishandling of classified information has been illegal since the 1920s. I'm not trying to maximize it, I'm trying to be realistic about it. It should be fairly well known that I'm not, by any means, a Republican or a Fox News viewer. I have no motivation to dislike her because of who she's affiliated with (I loved Bill, for example) but I dislike her because of who she is, what she stands for, and how she behaves.
The "they did it too" argument was childish and ignorant before. Parrot it some more. Also, FOAD and please don't vote. You're not qualified.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
So you think that we shouldn't even bother recording any government actions because the majority of it cannot be recorded and opened to public inspection anyways?
Lets get crazy and see how silly this sounds when we apply it to murder. We will never catch a certain percentage of murderers so investigating all of them is pointless. We will never document all illegal aliens so lets get rid of the legal process and ignore them altogether. Hmm.. sounds silly right? Almost as silly as ignoring Hillary's emailed that she took steps to hide from view because she has other ways of communicating whatever it is that she wanted hidden.
She is a Democrat, so no one will call out the hypocrisy of those defending her. If she were a Republican, everyone would be trying to pin this on her whole party.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Except there are specific laws/rules in place for specific types of communication mediums.
If there was a procedure that all her verbal communications were to be recorded by, say, the NSA, and instead, she decided to record all her verbal communications herself and just hand over 'relevant' communications to the NSA, the same thing would happen.
There was a rule in place and she chose to not follow it. Why would you want there to be no consequences for breaking it, regardless of which party breaks it?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
give me a fucking break
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Well we have single payer for the poor and elderly. But the public option was killed by conservative democrats.
And you're wrong about reconciliation being used to pass the ACA. It was passed with a supermajority in the Senate and a majority in the house.
No it was not. The democrats did not have a super majority at the time. They relied on 2 independents to get pass the filibuster.. The house didn't like the senate bill and only agreed to pass the senate version of the bill by using reconciliation to amend the law before sending it to the president. This is because Brown had taken office and would have provided the vote necessary to filibuster any future votes on the amended law. The reconciliation process bypassed the ability to filibuster the amendments which allowed a simple majority of democrats to pass it.
That's just the facts. You are entitled to your opinion but not your facts. The democrats used out of the ordinary tactics to get the PPACA passed into law and had to do it in ways that would bypass legislative norms in order to get around the republicans. Hell, even wikipedia has an accurate accounting of it. Try reading a bit before believing whatever idiot told you different.
anon coward defending the undefendable, and getting modded up
I wonder who it is hiding.....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
she now lied under sworn testimony that she handed over all documents
this proves she did not
she is not fit to be the leader of this country
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
No it wasn't. Bills were passed in both houses, but neither bill was signed by the other. Something came out of reconciliation, but this was not signed by either house.
Another problem is the "moderates" who complain about the perceived affronts of the "extremes" (i.e. everyone who isn't "moderate") and then, instead of coming to their own conclusions on right and wrong, simply declare that "the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle" and then try to implement precisely the average of the worst extremes.
The truth is that the truth is what the truth is. It doesn't lie anywhere it just is the truth. A lie is not the truth, by definition. Word-play aside, the truth is not bound to the spectrum between any two claims. There is no virtue in defining your philosophy by boundaries set by the claims of others and splitting the difference.
This catches any organisation that doesn't have centralised control over all emails.
First, when it's subpoenaed, you can't stop looking for them. "I can't find it" isn't an answer. "It's been destroyed" is the answer.
So you need to re-create the full body of emails on an email server, here's where you look, listed in order of importance and difficulty:
1) The email server.
2) Backups of the email server.
3) The email servers that talk to that server that you control.
4) The backups of those servers.
5) The individual PCs of the persons involved in the conversations.
6) The backups of those PCs.
7) Old, retired PCs in storage.
8) Any backups of those PCs.
If you, as an organisation are told by a court to find the emails, you hunt through _all_ the systems you control to find them. This is why organisations have centralised control over documents and emails with defined document destruction schedules. Otherwise, you get caught like Microsoft did in the Netscape trial where an email that was supposed to have been destroyed was found on someone's PC.
This does not mean that there was an intent to hide anything, only that it takes longer to build up the entire list.
I see zero problems with a private email servers, private cell phones, or private carrier pigeons.
However, I see a major problem with how supposedly "secret" information was retrieved from the classified network and leaked into an unclassified network (regardless of what that other network is).
Somebody's head is going to roll if it is proven that this unclassified network (her private email server) was storing already classified information. How the hell did it get leaked out of the classified network?
They do - she chose not to use it.
Trump is centre-left? Christ, no wonder the majority of US commenters on here seem to think that socialism=communism. Most other places in the world, Trump would be extreme right, next-door to the "kick all the foreigners out and burn their houses to the ground" type!
The information was not classified at the time either. The information was classified _after_ it was already on her server.
Oh BS, you didn't get single-payer healthcare because the insurance companies donate millions to political campaigns, not to mention all the democratic voting worker-drones they would be putting out of work.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
lol.. Believe what you want. I mean I guess facts have no basis in some people's reality.
There was a single payer option in the original PPACA law in the senate but it was removed to get around a filibuster. There simply was not enough support for it as there was not enough support to pass the law without manipulations in the process.
You were also responding to that 5%, just on the left. Radicals don't know they're radical.
Really? Hillary or a Republican? Isn't Bernie Sanders running too? What's your problem with Bernie? Not a big enough liar? Not dirty enough? Poor Bernie, too much integrity to be nominated by the Democrats.
Sorry, but if nobody was prosecuted over gwb43.com, why is this an issue?
Putting this conversation back at least partly into the nerd domain,
So, can anyone explain to me why the US government (top executive levels) doesn't have a standard secure e-mail communications system?
I honestly don't get it.
OK
1. Government run Email systems are secure and are backed up regularly to prevent data loss, as required by law.
2. Government run Email systems are subject to Freedom of Information requests, as required by law.
3. Freedom of Information requests, for information stored on Government run Email systems are fulfilled by third party Government administrators without regard to whether it about embarrassing, immoral or illegal activities of a Former Sec of State, as required by law.
Hillary Clinton is a control freak, the idea of anybody else controlling information about her other than her is enough to cause her to meltdown.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Yeah, it's scandalous how Obamacare was pushed through with no debate or discussion. You'd think Congress would have noticed by now, and we'd have heard something about attempts to reverse that.
> it was not illegal at the time
Releasing classified information has been illegal since before laws were written down. Caesar would have executed her. At one time Hilary tried the defense that she didn't MARK the emails "classified". Failure to mark the document properly doesn't make releasing the information legal. Never did.
Plus, if her only defense is that while she should have known the information she was sending was classified, but since it wasn't marked as classified she though it wasn't, then she is essentially arguing that her incompetence should excuse her from the crime. That doesn't bode well for her qualifications for President.
If the laws are complex and subject to interpretation, which they appear to be in this case, then YES, those with the deepest pockets can afford the best lawyers to navigate the legal spaghetti.
I'm not sure of an easy fix, however, other than maybe taxing the rich heavily. Is somebody "evil" just because they can afford better lawyers than you and I?
You can argue that wealth has made the Clinton's callous such that they dance at the edge of the law. But most got rich by doing that. Bill Gates etc. didn't get rich by playing nice and safe. They danced on the edge. Truly honest politicians rarely get very far, because they get trampled by the more aggressive who are not afraid of the edge.
Table-ized A.I.
I see zero problems with a private email servers, private cell phones, or private carrier pigeons.
However, I see a major problem with how supposedly "secret" information was retrieved from the classified network and leaked into an unclassified network (regardless of what that other network is).
You seem to be thinking of this from the perspective of a lower-level employee, like some IT guy or something. Clinton was the Secretary of State--she's capable of creating secret/classified information. She doesn't need to get secret info from a classified network. And she was trained to be an "Original Classification Authority"--she's supposed to know whether what she's writing is classified or not. She claims nothing she wrote/emailed was classified. However, others who reviewed the email afterwards have said that they certainly should have been classified.
Hillary was intimately involved in the efforts to trash every woman who Bill harrassed. One of Bills secretaries is on the record claiming he raped her. One of his campaign helpers also claims to have been raped by him when she asked him for a paid position in the immediate aftermath of her husband's death. Hillary was involved in trashing ALL the women, not just Ms Flowers and Ms Lewinski who became famous but did not allege rape.
Hillary also famously went to the media pushing the story, which all the Democrat journalists gobbled-up, that this was all just some "vast right-wing conspiracy". Lies. All of what Bill-n-Hill said the the public from start to end was lies. Remember when they pressure Bill's entire cabinet to go out into the Rose garden to publicly announce that he was innocent? Hillary was involved in orchestrating that too.
For all you liberals, you have a far more honest and respectable choice in Bernie Sanders. I disagree with most everything he believes in, but he is never-the-less an honorable and honest man FAR more suitable for the White House than Hillary. Same for Biden - he MAY be a howling left-wing extremist and a bit unstable, but NOT dishonest and dishonorable.
Hillary's ONLY actual "qualification" for president in 2016 seems to be her unspoken campaign slogan: "I have a Vagina!"
"kick all the foreigners out and burn their houses to the ground"
That's an extreme leftist (totalitarian/communist) position.
Four legs good; two legs bad.
No. The idea of the ACA was, and is, to destroy employer provided healthcare, so folks can suffer, and scream for the Democrats to put IN single payer healthcare. It was deliberately engineer to impoverish Americans further.
Your maths is appalling.
because that ruins plausible deniability
Whether that is true or not does nothing to the fact that the original senate bill contained a public option. In fact, that little fact actually works with your grand conspiracy because if the public option was actually included, you would have an easier transition once it achieved that goal and they could boast about all the people moving to the public option.
The facts and your summation are not incompatible.
What's wrong with Jonny Carson? I think he's a stand-up comedian!
The democrats used out of the ordinary tactics to get the PPACA passed into law and had to do it in ways that would bypass legislative norms in order to get around the republicans.
Hey dumbass. The only reason needing a supermajority to bypass a filibuster is necessary is because republicans have made it the norm to filibuster everything they don't want rather than voting like real legislators.
The reconciliation was another way to get the bill TO A VOTE, and avoid the republican filibuster like you say. It's only "out of the ordinary" because the cry-baby republicans were throwing up out of the ordinary roadblocks to the very ordinary majorities the democrats had in both the house and senate.
True. You are not entitled to your own facts. As Fox and you have shown us, you can still spin the fuck out of facts until they end up an unrecognizable mess.
I wish i had points, i'd vote you up.
"removing benefits only hurts those who arent working" wrong, many benefits also help those who are working, but are working job which do not pay much. Those mcdonald working guy which get food stamp ? What do you think food stamp are ? Then there are all the retired people which worked their WHOLE life crappy job and never got enough money to spare. Want to kill them early ? Those are also benefits (medicaid/medicare). By your standard why should you pay for schools if you have no children. See the idiocy of this ?
As for PP, it has been demonstrated time and time again that unwanted pregnancy lead to children having on average a more miserable life, and on average, more criminality, which you pay with far more expansive prison. A few cent of your tax goes toward PP, costing per person maybe a few dozen dollar total. A prisoner cost far far more and the damage they do to the economy too.
I am guessing you are a republican and almost certainly somebody out of touch on what are the TRUE benefits of maintaining people above a certain poverty level by givings them benefits. Hint : the damage they would do to the society and economy by trying anything just to survive without those benefits would be much higher.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"their".