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.

Comments

Face facts, she is not going to admit anything

[OffTheLip]

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.

Nothing to see here, move on

[frovingslosh]

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.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[msobkow]

^^^ This is the sad truth.

Not only won't she be held accountable, people are still willing to vote for a proven fraud and liar. Good Lord -- Nixon got the boot from office for less than this woman has done, and yet there are millions of American Idiots willing to vote for her!

'twould be a sad, sad day were she to win the election.

Almost as sad as it would be to see Trump prevail.

Sanders is really looking like the best bet the US has for an honest President, but I think he's a pretty long shot, unfortunately. He's not flashy enough and "out there" enough to win enough votes. :(

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[squiggleslash]

Bill Clinton was impeached over a minor sex scandal using a superficial and extremely dubious "perjury" hook. I Have no idea what the "Tyson payoff" was, but the other scandals you mention are fabricated. Whitewater was extensively investigated by a special prosecutor hostile to the Clintons (the one that eventually changed the subject to Monica Lewinsky because he couldn't find anything in Whitewater - the weird bit is that this should have been obvious from the beginning, the Clintons were victims, not beneficiaries, of Whitewater.) Foster was a close personal friend of the Clintons and there's no evidence or reason to believe he did anything other than commit suicide. Ron Brown is just another name thrown in by the lunatics who were trying to invent the Vince Foster accusations.

I'm surprised you didn't throw in a Benghazi for extra credit.

Two notable observations one can make:

1. Evidence thus far is that the Clintons are held to a higher standard than most other politicians. That's true in emailgate too. Clinton followed previous secretaries of state in not using government email. And right now this article is worded to make what was probably an oversight look like a grand conspiracy because Clinton. If every lunatic accusation made by some fringe wacko ends up with sizable numbers members of Congress demanding investigations, that's not an example of "the laws (not applying to) the Clintons". That's an example of someone being persecuted.

2. The fact that clearly fabricated conspiracies are invented every five minutes by Clinton's opponents, and brought up over and over again long after they've been extensively debunked (or look ridiculous from the start. Vince Foster, really?) is why at this stage, if a real conspiracy came to light involving the Clintons, the chances are it would be laughed out of the public arena.

emailgate appears, thus far, to be a nontroversy, a made-up conspiracy whose advocates cannot show anything beyond minor issues of judgement (and then only dubious issues) as bad for Clinton (or Clinton's staff.)

Give it up. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton for President. Alas, oddly enough, most of those reasons apply to progressives, Republicans probably wouldn't have an issue with 99% of them...

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[msauve]

Hillary already tried the whole "it's a vast, right-wing conspiracy" against us thing. It didn't work for her then, and it's not working for you now.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[drinkypoo]

At least Trump didn't kill a bunch of people and is willing to do something about those mexicans.

Trump only hasn't killed people for lack of opportunity, and he's not going to do shit about Mexicans. We Mexicans are doing something about you, though. We're outbreeding you. Mexican-Americans are the single fastest-growing demographic in the USA. Guess what? Now, go ahead and complain about people descended from Native Americans (albeit central America) taking over the country. I'll wait. I'll be over here, eating a churro

Re: Nothing to see here, move on

[Anonymous Coward]

Proud of fulfilling the ugly stereotypes? That's disappointing. How about not doing all the shitty things that make people not want to live with you in the first place?

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[jader3rd]

remember that the people of America actually elected a self-confessed ex-drunk like GWB into that office

What's wrong with voting for a self-confessed ex-drunk? I don't see it being bad at all for a imperfect person running for office to say "I used to have a problem, but I no longer have the problem, or am at least managing the problem". I can see a problem with an alcoholic who lies to himself and doesn't believe he's an alcoholic; I can see a problem with an alcoholic who hides it from the public and lies about it when confronted. But someone who's reformed? I don't see the problem.

Re: Nothing to see here, move on

[sumdumass]

Nope. Mexico would be no different today even if the US left it completely alone.

The problem is not the US doing anything to Mexico, it is Mexico and it's leadership. It has been corrupt and lacking in freedom since before the french owned your asses. Today, you have drug cartels that have been allowed to exist so long that they are more powerful than the government in many regards. You have people relegated to subsistence farming instead of an open market where they could actually farm something profitable and sell. The government rarely invests in highways or infrastructure outside a small few areas in which they have an economic interest in. The same is almost universally true with education (although Mexico has some very competent universities)

Yes, the problem with Mexico is Mexico- not the US.

Re: Nothing to see here, move on

[sumdumass]

Lol.. Blame it all on everyone else while the local corruption is glossed over. No, the drug cartels gained so much power because the PRI or Partido Revolucionario Institucional- allowed and cooperated with them. If you had to blame anyone outside of Mexico for the increased violence, you could blame Pablo Escobar who arranged for the Colombian cocaine to be shipped through Mexico in their own heroine and marijuana smuggling tracks.

Now that the PRI is out of power, the new political parties want to break up the cartels to gain aid and other gifts from the US which was a key component of NAFTA in which Mexico benefits more so than any other country involve. Fox pretended to care about the cartels and at one time actually stated it was the powerful cartels he wanted gone, not the drug trafficking.

Systematic poverty and poor education is blamed largely for enabling this situation. That is brought about because of oppression of government and illegal activity being about the only real way of advancing out of poverty for the majority of Mexican citizens.Among the OECD countries, Mexico has the second highest degree of economic disparity between the extremely poor and extremely rich. The bottom ten percent in the income hierarchy disposes of 1.36% of the country's resources, whereas the upper ten percent dispose of almost 36%. OECD also notes that Mexico's budgeted expenses for poverty alleviation and social development is only about a third of the OECD average.

You can blame anything you want. But the only way to effect change is to understand the problem at it's roots and you seem to be ignoring that.

beat the dead horse

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not the server

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Lots of folks here on Slashdot are serious IT professionals. We deal with things like security policies and instances every day. A private email server in a basement somewhere, managed by a what the fuck yahoo, and totally not being able to be audited . . . that's grounds for firing in most companies is this world. If you ask your security folks, "What is the biggest security threat to your company?" They will answer, "The loose nuts behind the keyboard!"

Hilary Clinton is like Leona Helmsley, if anyone here is old enough to know who she was. She and her husband cheated left and right on their taxes, and then gave as an explanation, "Taxes are for little people!". Security policies are for little people. Yeah, but not for folks with sensitive knowledge of our foreign policy.

That is more or less what Hilliary said: "Yes, the government of the USA has security policies for employees, but they do not apply to me, because I am Hillary Clinton, and I am important!"

Sorry Hillary, if you are sending and receiving email on my server, you will abide by the rules, like everyone else, whoever you are. If you want to do government business on an unsecured email server . . . why don't you send your mail direct to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un . . . ?

Re: For the love of donuts..

[The Grim Reefer]

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.

Re:it's a tempest in a teapot

[PopeRatzo]

I am sorry but the Pope is largely ignorant about most of the 'issues' he talks about.

Unlike Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, let's see, who'm I leaving out?...Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich...

It would have been wiser to arrange a CIA hit, than invite him to speak to congress.

If someone had said that about another religious leader and dangerous propaganda spewing fool, say, Benjamin Netanyahu, you would piss yourself in fury.

Re:Not the server

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Except if the server were hacked, we would have read the emails months ago.

When kiddies hack the server . . . they brag about it on Facebook. When professionals hack a server . . . they don't say anything, so they can keep getting intelligence from the server.

I find it the most stupidest thing in the world, that when people say, "Hey, Hillary's mail server was safe . . . otherwise we would have heard about it!"

Idiots.

The best spies in the world . . . you have never heard of . . . because they didn't get caught. If you rob the Bank of America of 10 million dollars . . . you don't brag about it it online in Facebook.

Do you think the Secret Squirrels in Russia or China would brag about hacking Hillary's emai? No, they will rather keep reading it.

I didn't inhale these emails

[seniorcoder]

Nor did I have sex with these emails.

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?

Re: Get all the facts straight

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You want to know what's wrong with US politics?

[Bing Tsher E]

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.

Systematic sexual harassment at the workplace. If every 16 year old female who has sex with a 19 year old male was 'raped' then the law should be enforced evenly. When a Chief Executive engages in sexual relations with a subordinate, the power dynamic is clearly in play.

Why do the rules change when the horndog happens to be a Liberal hero?

Are they voting for her or agaisnt reps ?

[aepervius]

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'.

Re: For the love of donuts..

[sumdumass]

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.