Home Politics

The 'latest' email nightmare? As of 0915.......

Gary MGary M Posts: 13,214 AG
Like I've said here......... almost every day, The American People find out more BAD things about hILLary. Will it ever stop? :huh

Now, it's been discovered that even as a private citizen, she still was sending out Classified info on her home brewed, UN-secured server!! Shouldn't that be a crime? Maybe we could ask Gen. Patraeous how he feels after his conviction for doing far less........

I guess that this now (at least) makes it 111 emails that she sent/recieved on her private server, even though she'd testified that she did not. Not even one. LIE.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/31/clinton-emailed-classified-information-after-leaving-state-dept/

Replies

  • DBRYANDBRYAN Posts: 4,415 Captain
    If she was no longer in the government exactly which email server was she supposed to use? Did she initiate the email or did she reply to a group of people within the conversation? This article is woefully short of facts, but how about you answer my first question?
  • mplspugmplspug Palmetto FloridaPosts: 12,508 AG
    DBRYAN wrote: »
    If she was no longer in the government exactly which email server was she supposed to use? Did she initiate the email or did she reply to a group of people within the conversation?

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    None of which would excuse her from sending the emails. At best it would implicate other people.

    But I get it. Most people are ok with this behavior.

    Captain Todd Approves

  • DBRYANDBRYAN Posts: 4,415 Captain
    mplspug wrote: »
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    None of which would excuse her from sending the emails. At best it would implicate other people.

    But I get it. Most people are ok with this behavior.

    What?

    If she was sent the email, then it was SENT to her, to that server and let me ask you if you know if the server is actually unsecured because I'm in the business and every business email server I know is encrypted and secured. Even a GMAIL account goes through encrypted and secured servers.

    One more thing. No server is 100% secure if it is attached to the internet. Certainly not the governments.

    She should have been indicted IMO because she used a server she wasn't supposed to, not that it was unsecured. That is a supposition tossed about like it was a fact, by the media with an agenda against her.
  • FinfinderFinfinder Posts: 9,999 Admiral
    Its not anymore complicated than she wanted to hide the connection ( corruption) of the state department and the Clinton Foundation. Its that simple.
  • DBRYANDBRYAN Posts: 4,415 Captain
    Finfinder wrote: »
    Its not anymore complicated than she wanted to hide the connection ( corruption) of the state department and the Clinton Foundation. Its that simple.

    This just begs to be expanded on. Please, go on.....
  • FinfinderFinfinder Posts: 9,999 Admiral
    DBRYAN wrote: »
    This just begs to be expanded on. Please, go on.....

    No it doesn't, you are just driving by this place, please enlighten us all with your new insight.
  • mplspugmplspug Palmetto FloridaPosts: 12,508 AG
    DBRYAN wrote: »
    What?

    If she was sent the email, then it was SENT to her, to that server and let me ask you if you know if the server is actually unsecured because I'm in the business and every business email server I know is encrypted and secured. Even a GMAIL account goes through encrypted and secured servers.

    One more thing. No server is 100% secure if it is attached to the internet. Certainly not the governments.

    She should have been indicted IMO because she used a server she wasn't supposed to, not that it was unsecured. That is a supposition tossed about like it was a fact, by the media with an agenda against her.

    The article clearly states she sent the emails, even if she was forwarding them. I don't care if they were secured or not, in fact I'd assume they were secured.

    I agree with the first sentence of your last paragraph, not the second though.

    Captain Todd Approves

  • rickcrickc Posts: 9,172 Admiral
    Get back to us when she is indicted
  • Gary MGary M Posts: 13,214 AG
    DBRYAN wrote: »
    If she was no longer in the government exactly which email server was she supposed to use? Did she initiate the email or did she reply to a group of people within the conversation? This article is woefully short of facts, but how about you answer my first question?

    It's not a question of which serever. We all now know that on the day of her Sec State confirmation hearings before a mostly Dem committee, that her private server was being set up in her home. The expensive NY home that they bought when the left the WH 'dead broke'.

    It's the fact that as a private citizen that she was involved in Classified emails..........
  • Gary MGary M Posts: 13,214 AG
    DBRYAN wrote: »
    She should have been indicted IMO because she used a server she wasn't supposed to, not that it was unsecured. That is a supposition tossed about like it was a fact, by the media with an agenda against her.

    Wasn't supposed to use a private server? Ha! Her own Boss, the Pres of the US ordered her and everyone else to NOT use private servers! She defied her own Boss. She defies him again with regards to Sid Blumenthal but that's another matter.

    She tried to say "Well Colin Powell used a private server too." But he called her out on that LIE last week when he told People Mag that he told her that he only used his AOL email for private/personal emails and never for State Bbiz......
  • Gary MGary M Posts: 13,214 AG
    DBRYAN wrote: »
    This just begs to be expanded on. Please, go on.....

    Here, I'll help ya.

    1) If she emailed on the .gov server, all emails would then be available from a FoIA request. But that does not apply to her private server. This then allowed her to combine her SecState biz with her Clinton Foundation donors, favors and meetings.

    2)It was only after the Benghazi Investigation were her emails requested and THAT'S when The American People found out that she was using a private server
    [email protected].

    3) With her emails being requested, it was THEN that she attempted to wipe the server clean. Yes or no? Does that sound like somebody needs to hide something?

    4) It took about 150 FBI Agents over a year to analyze the server and the emails that were recovered. She used a high-tech product called BleachBit to attempt to wipe it clean. I have no clue how that entire computer system did not go on a one-way trip 500 miles offshore! Sometimes the Clintons are NOT so smart.......

    5) She promised/testified over and over that NO Classified info was EVER sent or recieved via that server yet now we all know that at least 111 email threads passed thru the server that were Classified or higher. She LIED.

    6) Now armed with a few more new facts, members of Congress are now comparing what she said under oath, to what we now have discovered. The word 'perjury' is now used in the same sentence as 'Clinton'. Nothing new there.........

    7) Under a judge's order, she has just been given 25 questions from Judicial Watch and she must answer them as if under oath by the end of Sept. A reporter that has seen the questions said that a few are almost framed as if JW already knows the answer. That to me, sounds like they are pinning her into a corner. If she tells the truth, she's nailed. If she lies and that's proven, it's perjury. She will be dealing with how to craft her answers to those 25 questions at the same time that she's prepping for her first Debate. The pressure on her injured brain must be incredible.........

    8) More that half of a long list of foreigners who requested meetings with the Sec State, were later found to be big donors to the C Foundation. One email from Foundation head, Doug Band to either Huma Weiner Abedin or Cheryl Mills (both Assts to Sec State Hillary) went somewhat along the lines of ".... this guy is a good friend of OUR Boss and wants to meet with her."

    9) It turns out that Huma was on four payrolls at once! State Dept, C Foundation, personally by Hillary and Teneo which is a Corp that had Slick deeply involved and who was also on the payroll.

    10) The head of the Foundation made over 150 personal phone calls to Hill's asst at State, Cheryl Mills. Why? Hillary sent Cheryl to NYC to personally interview a person to be on the staff at the Foundation. Why?

    Now, here's where all this intermingling between State Dept, Hillary and the Clinton Foundation come into play.

    11) When she was testifying under oath for her Sec Confirmation Hearings in early 2009, the mostly Dem Committee (I think it was headed by John Kerry!), MADE her SWEAR that as Sec State, that she would
    :

    A) Have NO conflict of interest between State and the Foundation. The Dems on that committee were very adamant about that as they could see how easy it would be.

    B) That there also would be NO APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest.

    We all know now, that she grossly violated both of her promises to that Committee. Some Dems on that original Committee are highly pizzed at her so I've heard, because it makes them look stoopid for confirming her..........
  • mikevmikev Posts: 10,822 AG
    Good stuff Gary. I didn't know this:
    7) Under a judge's order, she has just been given 25 questions from Judicial Watch and she must answer them as if under oath by the end of Sept.
    "The only people that tell you it can't be done are the people who haven't done it themselves."
  • rickcrickc Posts: 9,172 Admiral
    More Right Wing BS!

    Trying for the perjury trap

    judge's ruling will be overturned
  • mikevmikev Posts: 10,822 AG
    Which part is BS Rick?
    "The only people that tell you it can't be done are the people who haven't done it themselves."
  • ResinheadResinhead Posts: 10,974 AG
    mikev wrote: »
    Which part is BS Rick?

    Clinton lying.
  • dragon baitdragon bait Posts: 9,089 Admiral
    7) Under a judge's order, she has just been given 25 questions from Judicial Watch and she must answer them as if under oath by the end of Sept. A reporter that has seen the questions said that a few are almost framed as if JW already knows the answer. That to me, sounds like they are pinning her into a corner. If she tells the truth, she's nailed. If she lies and that's proven, it's perjury. She will be dealing with how to craft her answers to those 25 questions at the same time that she's prepping for her first Debate. The pressure on her injured brain must be incredible......
    ...

    this will be appealed
  • mikevmikev Posts: 10,822 AG
    Appealed != Granted.
    "The only people that tell you it can't be done are the people who haven't done it themselves."
  • Gary S. ColecchioGary S. Colecchio Posts: 24,922 AG
    Judge Sullivan gave Judicial Watch until Oct. 14 to submit questions to Mrs. Clinton — three and a half weeks before Election Day on Nov. 8. Significantly, perhaps, he ordered Mrs. Clinton to submit her answers within 30 days of that deadline, meaning she could delay her answers until after the election. The deposition of the senior aide, however, will take place by Oct. 31.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-judge-emails.html?_r=0
    "If I can't win, I won't play." - Doris Colecchio.

    "Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick

    "All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
  • mikevmikev Posts: 10,822 AG
    Judge Sullivan gave Judicial Watch until Oct. 14 to submit questions to Mrs. Clinton — three and a half weeks before Election Day on Nov. 8. Significantly, perhaps, he ordered Mrs. Clinton to submit her answers within 30 days of that deadline, meaning she could delay her answers until after the election. The deposition of the senior aide, however, will take place by Oct. 31.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-judge-emails.html?_r=0

    Ok, so what's her move then? Does she wait those extra 30 days to respond? What kind of message does that send?
    "The only people that tell you it can't be done are the people who haven't done it themselves."
  • Gary S. ColecchioGary S. Colecchio Posts: 24,922 AG
    One that the crackpot conspirisists will not accept.
    "If I can't win, I won't play." - Doris Colecchio.

    "Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick

    "All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
  • navigator2navigator2 Posts: 22,511 AG
    mikev wrote: »
    Appealed != Granted.

    It is a FOIA so don't be too sure. On what grounds would an appeal be made on? :huh


    (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced it submitted questions to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning her email practices. Clinton’s answers, under oath, are due on September 29. On August 19, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch further discovery on the Clinton email matter and ordered Clinton to answer the questions “by no later than thirty days thereafter….” Under federal court rules, Judicial Watch is limited to twenty-five questions.

    The questions are:

    Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.

    Describe the creation of your clintonemail.com email account, including who decided to create it, when it was created, why it was created, and, if you did not set up the account yourself, who set it up for you.
    When did you decide to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and whom did you consult in making this decision?

    Identify all communications in which you participated concerning or relating to your decision to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and, for each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.
    In a 60 Minutes interview aired on July 24, 2016, you stated that it was “recommended” you use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business. What recommendations were you given about using or not using a personal email account to conduct official State Department business, who made any such recommendations, and when were any such recommendations made?

    Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested, or did you ever participate in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. For each instance in which you were so advised, cautioned or warned, in which such a suggestion was made, or in which such a discussion took place, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the advice, caution, warning, suggestion, or discussion.

    Your campaign website states, “When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience.” What factors other than convenience did you consider in deciding to use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer whether you considered federal records management and preservation requirements and how email you used to conduct official State Department business would be searched in response to FOIA requests.

    After President Obama nominated you to be Secretary of State and during your tenure as secretary, did you expect the State Department to receive FOIA requests for or concerning your email?

    During your tenure as Secretary of State, did you understand that email you sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA?

    During your tenure as Secretary of State, how did you manage and preserve emails in your clintonemail.com email account sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business, and what, if anything, did you do to make those emails available to the Department for conducting searches in response to FOIA requests?

    During your tenure as Secretary of State, what, if any, effort did you make to inform the State Department’s records management personnel (e.g., Clarence Finney or the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records) about your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business?

    During your tenure as Secretary of State, did State Department personnel ever request access to your clintonemail.com email account to search for email responsive to a FOIA request? If so, identify the date access to your account was requested, the person or persons requesting access, and whether access was granted or denied.

    At the time you decided to use your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business, or at any time thereafter during your tenure as Secretary of State, did you consider how emails you sent to or received from persons who did not have State Department email accounts (i.e., “state.gov” accounts) would be maintained and preserved by the Department or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests? If so, what was your understanding about how such emails would be maintained, preserved, or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests?

    On March 6, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to your Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, that he “cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, you approached Assistant Secretary Boswell and mentioned that you had read the “IM” and that you “get it.” Did you review the March 6, 2009 Information Memo, and, if so, why did you continue using an unclassified BlackBerry to access your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Copies of the March 6, 2009 Information Memo and March 11, 2009 email are attached as Exhibit A for your review.

    In a November 13, 2010 email exchange with Huma Abedin about problems with your clintonemail.com email account, you wrote to Ms. Abedin, in response to her suggestion that you use a State Department email account or release your email address to the Department, “Let’s get a separate address or device.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after agreeing on November 13, 2010 to “get a separate address or device?” Include in your answer whether by “address” you meant an official State Department email account (i.e., a “state.gov” account) and by “device” you meant a State Department-issued BlackBerry. A copy of the November 13, 2010 email exchange with Ms. Abedin is attached as Exhibit B for your review.
    Email exchanges among your top aides and assistants in August 30, 2011 discuss providing you with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or State Department email address. In the course of these discussions, State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull wrote, “[W]e are working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued BlackBerry to replace her personal unit which is malfunctioning (possibly because of her personal email server is down). We will prepare two versions for her to use – one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests).”

    Similarly, John Bentel, the Director of Information and Records Management in the Executive Secretariat, wrote, “You should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and [be] subject to FOIA searches.” Did you request a State Department issued Blackberry or a State Department email account in or around August 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your personal device and clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business instead of replacing your device and account with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email account? Include in your answer whether the fact that a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email address would be subject to FOIA affected your decision. Copies of the email exchanges are attached as Exhibit C for your review.

    In February 2011, Assistant Secretary Boswell sent you an Information Memo noting “a dramatic increase since January 2011 in attempts . . . to compromise the private home email accounts of senior Department officials.” Assistant Secretary Boswell “urge[d] Department users to minimize the use of personal web-email for business.” Did you review Assistant Secretary Boswell’s Information Memo in or after February 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer any steps you took to minimize use of your clintonemail.com email account after reviewing the memo. A copy of Assistant Secretary Boswell’s February 2011 Information Memo is attached as Exhibit D for your review.

    On June 28, 2011, you sent a message to all State Department personnel about securing personal email accounts. In the message, you noted “recent targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries” and directed all personnel to “[a]void conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after June 28, 2011, when you were advising all State Department Personnel to avoid doing so? A copy of the June 28, 2011 message is attached as Exhibit E for your review.

    Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned about hacking or attempted hacking of your clintonemail.com email account or the server that hosted your clintonemail.com account and, if so, what did you do in response to the advice, caution, or warning?
    When you were preparing to leave office, did you consider allowing the State Department access to your clintonemail.com email account to manage and preserve the official emails in your account and to search those emails in response to FOIA requests? If you considered allowing access to your email account, why did you decide against it? If you did not consider allowing access to your email account, why not?

    After you left office, did you believe you could alter, destroy, disclose, or use email you sent or received concerning official State Department business as you saw fit? If not, why not?

    In late 2014, the State Department asked that you make available to the Department copies of any federal records of which you were aware, “such as an email sent or received on a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State.” After you left office but before your attorneys reviewed the email in your clintonemail.com email account in response to the State Department’s request, did you alter, destroy, disclose, or use any of the email in the account or authorize or instruct that any email in the account be altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? If so, describe any email that was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used, when the alteration, destruction, disclosure, or use took place, and the circumstances under which the email was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? A copy of a November 12, 2014 letter from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding the State Department’s request is attached as Exhibit F for your review.
    After your lawyers completed their review of the emails in your clintonemail.com email account in late 2014, were the electronic versions of your emails preserved, deleted, or destroyed? If they were deleted or destroyed, what tool or software was used to delete or destroy them, who deleted or destroyed them, and was the deletion or destruction done at your direction?
    During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

    Identify all communications between you and Brian Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in your clintonemail.com email account, including any instruction or direction to Mr. Pagliano about the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of emails in your account when transferring the clintonemail.com email system to any alternate or replacement server. For each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.

    “These are simple questions about her email system that we hope will finally result in straight-forward answers, under oath, from Hillary Clinton,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

    In his opinion ordering Clinton to answer written questions under oath Judge Sullivan wrote:

    The Court is persuaded that Secretary Clinton’s testimony is necessary to enable her to explain on the record the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business.

    In its July 2016 request to depose Hillary Clinton, Judicial Watch argued:

    Secretary Clinton’s deposition is necessary to complete the record. Although certain information has become available through investigations by the Benghazi Select Committee, the FBI, and the State Department Inspector General, as well as through Plaintiff’s narrowly tailored discovery to date, significant gaps in the evidence remain. Only Secretary Clinton can fill these gaps, and she does not argue otherwise.

    ***

    To [Judicial Watch’s] knowledge, Secretary Clinton has never testified under oath why she created and used the clintonemail.com system to conduct official government business. Her only public statements on the issue are unsworn.

    Judge Sullivan also ordered that Judicial Watch may depose the former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”) John Bentel by October 31.

    The questions and deposition arise in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before Judge Sullivan first filed in September 2013 seeking records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

    Judicial Watch has already taken the deposition testimony of seven Clinton aides and State Department officials.

    :applause:devil
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • mikevmikev Posts: 10,822 AG
    One that the crackpot conspirisists will not accept.

    Well, maybe. Maybe not though. If there isn't anything to hide, put it to rest and get on with winning the election. Don't give the "crackpots" as you put it a reason to say anything.
    "The only people that tell you it can't be done are the people who haven't done it themselves."
  • navigator2navigator2 Posts: 22,511 AG
    mikev wrote: »
    Well, maybe. Maybe not though. If there isn't anything to hide, put it to rest and get on with winning the election. Don't give the "crackpots" as you put it a reason to say anything.

    JW issued the questions Tuesday to be answered by Sept 29. She's got to either fish or cut bait now.

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-submits-email-questions-hillary-clinton-written-answers-oath-due-september-29/
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • rickcrickc Posts: 9,172 Admiral
    navigator2 wrote: »
    JW issued the questions Tuesday to be answered by Sept 29. She's got to either fish or cut bait now.

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-submits-email-questions-hillary-clinton-written-answers-oath-due-september-29/

    the ruling will be appealed and overturned by a higher court sometime in the future
  • ResinheadResinhead Posts: 10,974 AG
    rickc wrote: »
    the ruling will be appealed and overturned by a higher court sometime in the future

    On what grounds? That she shouldn't have to answer them?
  • rickcrickc Posts: 9,172 Admiral
    Resinhead wrote: »
    On what grounds? That she shouldn't have to answer them?

    good enough for me
  • ResinheadResinhead Posts: 10,974 AG
    rickc wrote: »
    good enough for me

    That says ALOT about you.
  • 1982mako2241982mako224 Posts: 412 Deckhand
    Democrats have no moral compass. Always keep that in mind if you try to debate them. They will accept and excuse any illegal, unethical or immoral activity so long as they are winning in their own sick twisted minds.
  • rickcrickc Posts: 9,172 Admiral
    Resinhead wrote: »
    That says ALOT about you.


    Hell it worked for **** and Jr.

    where was your outrage then?
Sign In or Register to comment.