It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton Created Multiple Email Addresses On Private Server, Data Show

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: korkythecat
Why do I feel a suspicion that we are going to be drip fed anti-clinton propoganda.


Because we will be.

I'm furious about the fact that she refused to follow the official regulations, but to try to add to that with this stupid insinuation that she has used alternative emails to be covert, with no evidence whatsoever that those are HER email addresses OR that she used them while in office, is just more made-up crap to put on the pile.

Good luck, GOP! This just shows that they know they're going to lose in 2016 and so they're throwing every suspicion they can at her... Hmmmm... reminds me of what they did to Obama. It worked so well there! Typical GOP nonsense!


Well, she either used her email accounts or the official sanctified email account. If she refused to follow the official regulations, it's pretty safe to say she used her own personal accounts. She sent in approx. 5,500 her staff deemed "official" for review that weren't in her official government account. This isn't rocket science.




posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I'm furious about the fact that she refused to follow the official regulations, but to try to add to that with this stupid insinuation that she has used alternative emails to be covert, with no evidence whatsoever that those are HER email addresses OR that she used them while in office, is just more made-up crap to put on the pile.


Don't let your political preferences blind you. You imply that we should just accept that she used her private email account and move on without looking deeper into the matter.

Clinton blatantly disregarded the rules of her position. This wasn't some sort of naive accident. Every piece of information needs to be analyzed to figure out why she did this. If she was hiding something, it needs to be discovered.

This behavior reveals a lot about her character. If a GOP candidate did the same thing, I'd feel the same way. I dislike and distrust all politicians equally.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Why, oh, why we most ask how a public figure with the background of Billary, I mean Hillary gets to do all the crap she does and get away with it.

Because when the crocks get into the power of politicians and law makers they know very well that is always that portion of the population that still trust them blindly, even while they are craping on everybody else they still think is manna from heaven.

Sadly this is the face of Americas political system and what we the people are ruled by.

Billary, Hillary will do as she whishes like she has done before and this scandal will just be sweep under the carpet like the others.

The sad thing again, she knows nothing is going to be done about it.

The arrogance of the political trash in America is unspeakable.

Her repertoire of scandals just gets bigger and bigger and to think this hag wants to be a president.


edit on 6-3-2015 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Sometimes what you say can come back to bite you...

"As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I —- I don’t even want -— why would I ever want to do e-mail?" she's seen on tape telling Peter Paul on home video captured at a fundraiser.

"Can you imagine?" she said.


Tell me those aren't the words of someone trying to keep secrets.
edit on 3/6/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Sadly secrecy is the middle name of most politicians this days that are corrupted to the core.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
It would appear that she did use the email server, housed in her home, for official SOS business. The email domain was also, apparently, used by her staff.

So did Jeb Bush, though he would not have had access to the level of classified material that Clinton would have at the time she was the SOS.

www.cnn.com...

Sarah Palin used a Yahoo.com email address, which was hacked.

https://__._/wiki/VP_contender_Sarah_Palin_hacked

And Mitt Romney used a Hotmail email address, also hacked.

gawker.com...

The use of either of those email domains for personal, let alone official government business, is hysterically inept.

The server was, apparently, housed in her home and the domain was, apparently, registered to a non-person. This is not an uncommon practice for domain registration where obfuscation is implemented as a security mechanism.

www.breitbart.com...

This is a fairly common practice and parallels my businesses set up, which is HIPAA compliant. The question of legality pertains to whether or not she followed industry specific security and archival / backup practices.

As far as the email trail, a subpoena could easily be submitted to review the transaction log file of the email system, which would be hard to corrupt without leaving any traces, easily recognizable by an experienced forensic's team.

Now this is the weird part. Lets assume that she did, in fact, use the email server and domain for classified communications while serving as the US SOS. Why are we only hearing about this now? Did everyone she emailed just not notice the sending domain?

There is, or was not at the time (I am unclear as to the specifics) no law in place preventing her from using a personal email server for public business.

So, my conclusion, based on the currently available evidence, is that this is just political posturing, stoked by the GOP political machine that is Fox News, who was the recipient of the leak from an alleged "hacker" that apparently touts government cyber-security experience on his resume.

If, upon official review, it is determined that she willfully deleted emails that belong to the public, tried to hide her trail by having someone doctor the transaction log file, or failed to follow government mandated archival and security practices, though that might not be as big a deal as the previous two possibilities, she is not going to have a good time.
edit on 6-3-2015 by sstech because: Punctuation.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: StoutBroux
Well, she either used her email accounts or the official sanctified email account.


Or she used her ONE personal account.



This isn't rocket science.


No. It's the exact same # people did to Obama the year before the election. Unsubstantiated suspicion, assumption, conjecture, imagination and opinion, to form charges that are unfounded.


originally posted by: Answer
Don't let your political preferences blind you.


Don't let your assumptions blind you. I don't want her to be president. And I'm not a Democrat. Never have been.



You imply that we should just accept that she used her private email account and move on without looking deeper into the matter.


I do not. I suggest you DO look deeper before forming conclusions (as everyone here is doing)


If she was hiding something, it needs to be discovered.


I absolutely agree. But the FACT that she used her personal email is a FACT (which definitely should be investigated). This list of email addresses is just that. NOTHING about whether they were created by her, someone imitating her, some she had over many years or anything like that. It's automatically assumed that she used them in her official business and should be brought down because of it. And there's NO evidence of any of that.

edit on 3/6/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

This list of email addresses is just that. NOTHING about whether they were created by her, someone imitating her, some she had over many years or anything like that. It's automatically assumed that she used them in her official business and should be brought down because of it. And there's NO evidence of any of that.


The accounts were created on her personal server that she apparently kept near her home so yeah... they were created by her or someone close to her. They certainly weren't random accounts that had nothing to do with Clinton. It's not like the email address is "HillaryClinton1234@yahoo.com."

In your first post, you slammed the GOP for these "attacks" when the stories are on all the major news outlets, not just the usual GOP suspects. For that reason, I made the call that you're showing political bias. If that's not the case, why are you so quick to jump on the "this is an unjustified attack" bandwagon? We don't know if it's justified or not, yet.


edit on 3/6/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I agree with what someone else said. I'm kind of surprised that this is just now becoming news. Didn't anyone notice the address during her stint as SOS? Nobody said anything to her? Her own people thought it would be OK, even the White House staff?

Obviously this was "allowed" to happen, as very sharp people that are very good at their jobs get hired as aides to people like Hillary and Obama.

Nothing these people do is on accident. It's pretty obvious this is being used intentionally. Get it out now boys, get it out now...by 2016 no one will care or remember. Way to shoot your ammo before you can see the whites of their eyes GOP.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
The accounts were created on her personal server that she apparently kept near her home so yeah... they were created by her or someone close to her.


Like her aides, perhaps??? From the OP source (but not posted in the thread)



It’s not known how many of these multiple addresses the secretary herself may have used, nor whether some may have been assigned to close aides entrusted to communicate with her on the clintonemail.com domain.




In your first post, you slammed the GOP for these "attacks" when the stories are on all the major news outlets, not just the usual GOP suspects.


Like FOX News, The Daily Caller, Townhall? It's the Benghazi committee that found out about this.


For that reason, I made the call that you're showing political bias. If that's not the case, why are you so quick to jump on the "this is an unjustified attack" bandwagon? We don't know if it's justified or not, yet.


I didn't say it was unjustified to dig into it or talk about it. But read the thread. "She's evil!" "Throw the book at her" and so on... They've decided that this is reason to lynch her.



This information is just coming out and most people posting in this thread want to know what those accounts were used for. You're the main person that's clinging to a solid assumption of "these accounts don't mean anything."


You've put words in my mouth again. I didn't say, "this is an unjustified attack" OR "these accounts don't mean anything". If you want to discuss something with me, and especially if you're going to use quotes about my position, I suggest you use my exact quotes and STOP ASSUMING!



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I agree with what someone else said. I'm kind of surprised that this is just now becoming news. Didn't anyone notice the address during her stint as SOS? Nobody said anything to her? Her own people thought it would be OK, even the White House staff?


That's the thing... Hillary had to know from the start that she wasn't supposed to use her personal email for government business.

This isn't a matter of "nobody told her." This is a matter of "she knew but ignored it and did what she wanted."



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

And the thing is, she's smart enough to know if this would really hurt her or not. If she wants to be president, she would be thinking these kinds of things even when she was SOS. As I said, these people have reasons for everything they do.

I have a feeling we're going to see this backfire in the GOP's face. This very well could be a carefully laid trap by Hillary's people to make the GOP look really stupid in the coming weeks/months. Hillary is wickedly smart, and I wouldn't put it past her to have planned this whole thing from the beginning.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

I agree with you on this. But using her own personal email and using multiple emails in a concerted effort to hide something are two different topics. The first, I'm appalled by. If I ever would vote for her, that's a deal-breaker for me. The second (what THIS thread is about) is unknown. And until it is, I won't be making a judgment.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic


You've put words in my mouth again. I didn't say, "this is an unjustified attack" OR "these accounts don't mean anything". If you want to discuss something with me, and especially if you're going to use quotes about my position, I suggest you use my exact quotes and STOP ASSUMING!


You said:


but to try to add to that with this stupid insinuation that she has used alternative emails to be covert, with no evidence whatsoever that those are HER email addresses OR that she used them while in office, is just more made-up crap to put on the pile.

Good luck, GOP! This just shows that they know they're going to lose in 2016 and so they're throwing every suspicion they can at her... Hmmmm... reminds me of what they did to Obama. It worked so well there! Typical GOP nonsense!


"Stupid insinuation"

"made-up crap"

"This just shows they know they're going to lose..."

"Typical GOP nonsense"

Now you want me to believe that my insinuation about you is wrong when I say you think these accusations are bogus. Don't accuse me of making assumptions when you have so clearly stated what you believe.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I've had my own domain and my own email before. I could create as many emails with the domain as I wanted. Who's to say that all of these other emails weren't for people on her staff? Perhaps some of the emails were for specific types of work, so that it was sorted and easy to manage? Not everything always has to have some nefarious purpose behind it.

Hillary's been in politics far to long to be stupid enough to let this ruin her. She has people on her team that make Doug from House of Cards look like Barney the Dinosaur. There's no way this is just some lucky mistake the GOP stumbled across to use against her.
edit on 6-3-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Answer

I agree with you on this. But using her own personal email and using multiple emails in a concerted effort to hide something are two different topics. The first, I'm appalled by. If I ever would vote for her, that's a deal-breaker for me. The second (what THIS thread is about) is unknown. And until it is, I won't be making a judgment.


The multiple accounts are not as egregious as Clinton using her personal email in the first place.

If she did utilize multiple accounts, it just adds more mystery to her already suspicious behavior.

The reason I'm not so quick to dismiss the multiple accounts as harmless is the use of "hdr" followed by numbers on each of them. Typical company email addresses obviously don't repeat the same initials for every user's emails. If all of those accounts actually belonged to staff, why did they all start with "hdr"?



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I've had my own domain and my own email before. I could create as many emails with the domain as I wanted. Who's to say that all of these other emails weren't for people on her staff? Perhaps some of the emails were for specific types of work, so that it was sorted and easy to manage? Not everything always has to have some nefarious purpose behind it.


Except that I'm quite certain you didn't use your own initials for employee accounts. That's why it seems nefarious.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

If you're working for a person why not use that person's initials. HRC or HR is a "brand" -- she is a political product being sold to the people.

She may have a ton of staff that need emails quickly.

"Here's your email address guys... your HR43, and you're HR44. Everyone just gets a number because its easier and faster to setup". IT people can be pretty lazy sometimes. Head on over to stackoverflow.com



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Answer

If you're working for a person why not use that person's initials. HRC or HR is a "brand" -- she is a political product being sold to the people.

She may have a ton of staff that need emails quickly.

"Here's your email address guys... your HR43, and you're HR44. Everyone just gets a number because its easier and faster to setup". IT people can be pretty lazy sometimes. Head on over to stackoverflow.com


Come on, Mystik... you're reaching.

I've worked for plenty of companies with a brand and they don't assign email accounts that way. Your account is typically your own name or initials followed by "@superbrand.com."

Assigning email accounts that way would create a nightmare every time you receive a message "crap... HR44, 45, 46, and 47 just emailed me, now I have to go look up who I assigned those numbers to."
edit on 3/6/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I still think the numbered email addresses could be for different projects or different topics. Having ALL the email for a SOS come to one email account might be a bit overwhelming.

I still also think that the GOP is running headlong into some kind of carefully designed trap. Clinton has been in the game far to long, and has some of the best people on the Hill on her team. There's no way this would be allowed to happen if there weren't very good and specific reasons.

It really is that simple. People at her level of politics plan every move many steps in advance.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join