That made everything alright...as long as someone else did previously then it is perfectly fine to do it also...

This is not the case?

As long as others did it/are doing it. Regardless of the actual rules in place.

Got it.

Somehow I do not think I would get a very sympathetic ear from my boss if I told him following the rules was just too much of a burden to do, so I decided not too. Plus the folks in the lab next door don't follow the rules so why should I.

...it gets thrown around here every day, and it is garbage.

Please provide a link to a credible source for this assertion that it's all about a cover on a TPS report.

It all the time in court, and every time the defendant said something so stupid, the judge would get this look on his face at how appallingly stupid it is and then begin to chastise the person for being a "numbskull".

Man, those were great days.

only ones that broke laws.

She conducted state department business on a private server, this has nothing to do with private email. The report concluded that she mishandled information by storing it on a private server.

You can keep trying to debate this, but I'll make you look foolish.

Including the current SEC Defense: he should have someone help him with his
records and pay a fine if need be. The law that was passed 2014 gave
direction a clarity as to what was must be done with electronic records.


Hillary was single out for political attack only

I just never assumed "small,"though.

80% of the gov't had hacks set up servers in the basement bathrooms?

and Hillary was not singled out. she screwed up and got caught

and who knows how many others...

80% of the Government conducted all of their official business on their own private servers?

Do tell.

Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 02:52 PM - Edit history (1)

...is English your second language?

Well in any case, you don't know a GD thing about whether 80% have or have not handed over their records in compliance with the law and with whatever agreement each of them signed on with.

But we do know that Clinton did not hand over one. single. email. until it became obvious to others that she had not left them at State as she was supposed to have done in the first place.

So there is that.

Perhaps you should refrain from digging yourself any further into the easily fooled pit.

ambiguous: Hillary told the truth!: a law was passed after
Hillary left in 2014. Still the report said 80% of the government was
not in compliance with the laws or rules.


HIllary was single out for a political attacks

PERIOD.

Whether you know it is classified or not is irrelevant. And as SoS, and a candidate for POTUS, one should have the judgment and knowledge to be able to discern what should be classified anyway. Playing stupid is not an acceptable defense.

while many other government servers were.

and I'm done with arguing with someone who hasn't bothered to read all relevant source documentation.

"Sorry, your honor. Someone else robbed a bank before, so I have to allow this one to slide too."
"Nope, other people have killed without consequence, so I'm afraid this murder is a nothing burger"

what she did.

And no, nobody else ran an unsanctioned, private server. Email and servers are two different things.

know what everyone did because they were not politically attacked:
also the current Sec Def has broken the law and he is not being attacked
because he is not running for President. The FBI have not said anything: and
with this report they are unlikely too.

"Secretary Clinton: By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the Department’s guidance was considerably
more detailed and more sophisticated. Beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the
Department revised the FAM and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the
obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not
doing so.

Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of
these more comprehensive directives."

Pick your excuse.

This was before any change in rules and before it was an issue.

Not to mention, had HRC just left her SD emails when she left, no one ever would have known of her strange setup.

Politically attacking Hillary.

You have some serious circular logic going on.

I was asking if that was the belief. If you want to believe this is a political attack, you have to believe she was attacked by Obama, Kerry, and the FBI all based on political motives.

I don't mind a little spin for your candidate, but wouldn't it make sense to educate yourself on the terms and factors before trying to spin it? It makes for a lot of foolish, embarrassing posts around here.

A sarcasm tag. God I hope no one posting here is actually that stupid lol

You know.

I totally get it lol

And that is very bad. So a clean sweep has to start. Clinton means no change in that. Sanders might (no guarantees). Be a start, at least.

...nor did any previous SOS conduct ALL of their official State Department using their own private email account, much less using their own podunk, improperly secured private server.

Will they pull her before the California Primary?
Will that allow the media to ignore Sanders?
Will the Third Way appoint Blow Dry Joe
and Liz Warner VP at the Dem National Convention?

Trumps fascism.

Not on other issues, and email use is not an issue that I care about, since it has no effect on anything. But if some obsessed people on the right want to try to make a scandal of it, then the fact that it was done by two SoSes before her basically puts an end to it.

[img][/img]

... going forward.

We deserve better representation in our government. Much better.

mouth when caught doing something wrong: "But mom, all the kids do it." Mom's response is inevitably, "I don't care what all the kids do. You should know better."

Incredibly weak excuse for a kid and simply inexcusable when discussing the actions of a presidential candidate.

Hillary's Iraq war vote is the first among several reasons I won't support her in a Democratic primary, but the only way I would equate this email scandal with war crimes is if the emails revealed complicity in war crimes.

I'm also concerned this scandal could enable Trump to beat her in the general election.

...ha ha, that's rich.

Remember: this is a person who wanted to string Edward Snowden up by the balls, for "electronic information misconduct". Because, according to her, he endangered national security by revealing secrets. While all the time, she herself was endangering national security by (a) using a private email account on a private, poorly secured server for all of her official State Dept. business; and (b) using an unsecure Blackberry for most of her communications, including email, even while she was traveling to other countries -- after she had been specifically warned of the security risks that entailed.

This is a person who claims all she was doing was "preserving her privacy", and yet her attempt to do that resulted in her not protecting sensitive and classified information -- i.e. she sure as shit wasn't protecting the privacy of the U.S. Government.

Furthermore, this is a person who wants to initiate a Manhattan Project specifically to allow our government to more effectively spy on all of us. What about our personal privacy, Madame Secretary?

Yeah, sure, "email misconduct"... cute turn of phrase, but, BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

All the way from the opening line to the BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT

Have a great weekend

I'm not defending Hillary Clinton across the board for the myriad of issues you brought up.

I'm just saying that her use of a private email server -- in and of itself -- does not compare to Bushco's war crimes -- unless the emails revealed complicity in war crimes.

You can BZZZZZZZZZZZZT all you want, but it doesn't make your argument any more relevant to the point I was making.

In Washington DC, it is referred to as "Hillary's War."

The Sydney Blumenthal emails are all about Libya.

Honduras was, at the least, a crime of "regime change," and though it didn't involve outright war, it has resulted in many murders and other brutality against environmental and pro-democracy activists in Honduras, many of whom are women. LGBT's have also been targeted. One of the victims, murdered this March--Berta Caceres, winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize--blamed Clinton for the coup before she was killed. Clinton admitted in one email her determination that the elected president of Honduras would NOT be restored. Instead, she installed the fascists in power, using our money and our State Department for that purpose.

Maybe some things that were embarrassing, but probably nothing that would have hurt her more than the blow up over her e-mail practices has. That is one of my biggest problems with her - her almost Nixonian paranoia and secrecy. Remember 2008, when she let Obama hit her for months about not disclosing her tax returns, when it turns out the only thing that was really potentially embarrassing was that she was worth a lot more than people thought? She would have been better off just releasing them and not letting Obama make an issue of it. At least she learned that lesson this time around.

I think there is a case to be made that in some ways, we expect too much disclosure from politicians these days. Even as a public figure, I think she has some right to privacy, including sending truly private e-mails to her friends and family about non-work-related matters. But she went a few steps further than that by setting up a private server and deleting a bunch of e-mails without giving anyone the opportunity to determine what was and was not personal (which could have been done by software without any humans reading her private e-mails if she had followed procedure).

He has owned small businesses the last 20 yrs. No interest in text, no interest in email and doing just fine. I would take his knowledge and experience over his desire to step into the tech world anytime. How stupid to throw him away because he chooses to continue on, and doing just fine without that knowledge.

...that is, if you think he deserves praise for being a Luddite; but your response is 100% non sequitur.

The difference is this: your dad apparently did not use text or email. Hillary Clinton did, and she set up the email on her own private, improperly secured server, and then proceeded to use it for all of her official business as the U.S. Secretary of State. You claim she did this because of antiquated systems, and yet others at State somehow managed to use those systems to conduct their business in a secure fashion.

You may not see the problem there, but many of us do.

Now, I am off, celebrating the forward progress of our youth. A cheer to all the graduates of 2016, onward go. And hopefully they will not be even as little closed minded as you.

Anyone reading this exchange can see that is the case.

Your post did not address one. single. issue. All you said was your dad is highly successful and does not use text or email. 100% non responsive; IOW, 100% non sequitur.

...then you are simply irrational.

TTFN

I know why she did it. She's been at the receiving end of witch hunts her entire political career, basically her whole life. She wanted to, for better or worse, keep control over her communications. It was a bad idea because it was bound to come out. I think she justified it because other SoS's did use private email occasionally. I think she just got really terrible advice. But I do think that she vetted it and considered it legal at the time and I do not see any remote chance of an indictment coming down.

The difference between what Bush did and what Clinton did is that Clinton is being vetted by several agencies, lawsuits, and an entire unveiling of 99% of her emails. Bush lost millions of emails. Gone, destroyed. No FBI involvement, no one got put in front of committees, no one got hours and hours of news footage talking about how they could be indicted. And in the end all that's going to come out is the implication that Clinton did it to keep her data out of the hands of the right wing she's rightly paranoid of giving data to. No one will say it though, and Clinton certainly won't admit to it, but that's it.

Hell a bunch of them voted for Dubya's stupidest idea, invading Iraq, specifically including the current leading Democratic candidate.

Why in the hell being fooled by C+ Augustus isn't a complete disqualification for a Democratic candidate I have no idea.

...she endangered national security by allowing sensitive and classified information to be stored on an improperly secured server.

Perhaps she ought to rethink her position on Edward Snowden's transgressions.

She better come up with a better defense than that or we'll have a right-wing con man for president.

Those people who choose to vote in the nine remaining Democratic primaries and caucuses will decide the relative importance of this issue and to my way of thinking, that's just as it should be in a representative democracy.