Clinton Created Multiple Email Addresses On Private Server, Data Show

a reply to: xuenchen

Agreed it's a potential (albeit very stupid due to using her own name) way of launching a criminal conspiracy but can think of dozens of far more rational reasons why there's multiple ones than that - though having now read the posts on Federal law I realise I've still a lot to learn about US politics. Plus any criminal activity would be conducted face to face to remove any record/leak.

I'm more intrigued by what seems to be a 'paid for' hacker being used by a news outlet to circumvent US privacy law.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

At the moment I agree 100% with that, however the operative word is moment. There seems to be absolutely no proof whatsoever she actually used them yet - just speculation. If it does turn out she was foul of the law then she deserves the mud slinging and the sentence that comes with it - but until then it's innocent until proven guilty; if this is the worst dirt they can dig she must be pretty damn clean.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

At the moment I agree 100% with that, however the operative word is moment. There seems to be absolutely no proof whatsoever she actually used them yet - just speculation. If it does turn out she was foul of the law then she deserves the mud slinging and the sentence that comes with it - but until then it's innocent until proven guilty; if this is the worst dirt they can dig she must be pretty damn clean.

To me, the timing alone is enough to prove it's a big dustup over nothing. Isn't it odd how scandals always seem to come out during primary season?

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

At the moment I agree 100% with that, however the operative word is moment. There seems to be absolutely no proof whatsoever she actually used them yet - just speculation. If it does turn out she was foul of the law then she deserves the mud slinging and the sentence that comes with it - but until then it's innocent until proven guilty; if this is the worst dirt they can dig she must be pretty damn clean.

To me, the timing alone is enough to prove it's a big dustup over nothing. Isn't it odd how scandals always seem to come out during primary season?

She's counting on people saying just what you're saying. That's why the left is putting the "this is an election smear campaign" meme out there. Don't fall for it...primary season or not.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

At the moment I agree 100% with that, however the operative word is moment. There seems to be absolutely no proof whatsoever she actually used them yet - just speculation. If it does turn out she was foul of the law then she deserves the mud slinging and the sentence that comes with it - but until then it's innocent until proven guilty; if this is the worst dirt they can dig she must be pretty damn clean.

To me, the timing alone is enough to prove it's a big dustup over nothing. Isn't it odd how scandals always seem to come out during primary season?

She's counting on people saying just what you're saying. That's why the left is putting the "this is an election smear campaign" meme out there. Don't fall for it...primary season or not.

Yeah, I don't read the news, and I don't watch the news. I read an article about this particular issue and put two and two together, because I'm a rational human being.

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: ColCurious
a reply to: IAMTAT

Hm. Can I ask why this is news?

I read the source... it doesn't say why this is a big deal.
I'd say it's pretty normal to have several accounts, no?
Is it that the accounts may have been compromised?

(I'm not from the U.S.... is it forbidden to have multiple accounts as a U.S. politician? What am I missing here?)

Federal law is any email having to do with any government business by a government person whether it is on official or private systems is to be saved and archived.

Law is very specific and unambiguous about not concealing any email corrospondence whatsoever.

After multiple FOIA and Congressional requests and legal requests for issues such as Bengazi it has every appearence of willful concealment.

A felony charge that if convicted will prevent HRC from holding public office.

A very big deal

This answered in a easy to understand way what I wanted to know too. i am also not from Us and was wondering the same thing. My opinion may not be well suited to this issue, but i will just say what i feel. I am not surprised about any politician doing such a thing but for the post she held, she might have illegal corresponding with people she should'nt be dealing with. Its always expected but now that she got caught with the hand in the JAR,,,, She should be dealt with.. Every politician doing this does'nt make it any lesser crime, .

If the ones that are caught with evidence is scrutinized deeply and given harsh punishments it may slowly deter others. So, i hope she is dealt with according to the law. But, then again, TPTB are the LAW... Hmmmm

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

At the moment I agree 100% with that, however the operative word is moment. There seems to be absolutely no proof whatsoever she actually used them yet - just speculation. If it does turn out she was foul of the law then she deserves the mud slinging and the sentence that comes with it - but until then it's innocent until proven guilty; if this is the worst dirt they can dig she must be pretty damn clean.

To me, the timing alone is enough to prove it's a big dustup over nothing. Isn't it odd how scandals always seem to come out during primary season?

Wasn't the liberal New York Times responsible for breaking the story? It wasn't the GOP.

Morning Joe: NYT Reporter Fearing 'Retribution' From Hillary Camp for Email Story?

Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski have wondered out loud whether Michael Schmidt, the New York Times reporter who broke the story about Hillary using private email during her time as Secretary of State, might be fearing "retribution" from Hillary's camp.

newsbusters.org...

originally posted by: ~Lucidity


Where is the law that says she had to use a work email or email at all and if there is such a law, when was it passed?

I would bet that half of the old farts in Congress don't use their own work emails or give their passwords to their aides, thus violating security.

It sure is hard to use Google, I tell ya...

The New York Times set off a Clinton bomb when it revealed Monday night that Hillary Clinton, when she was secretary of state, used a personal email account instead of a government account for all of her official business. The newspaper reported that Clinton had turned over 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department—yet only after her aides had vetted the massive collection of emails and decided which ones to give to the agency. And it noted that the probable 2016 candidate "may have violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record."

This rule is clear: If Clinton used personal email to conduct official business—which apparently did not violate any federal rules at the time—all of those emails had to be collected and preserved within the State Department's recordkeeping system. That makes sense: The whole point of preserving official records of government business is to have this material controlled by the government, not by the individual official or employee. Yet in this case, Clinton and her aides apparently did not preserve all her emails within the system.

The State Department has had to rely upon Clinton and her aides to ensure it now has a complete record of her emails.

Source

The issue isn't about whether or not she used her personal email. The issue is the record keeping system that was bypassed by her doing so... and now she and her staff get to decide what is actually seen by the State Dept.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

The more I read about this whole "scandal", the more I question whether she actually did anything wrong at all! LOL!

I would like to thank IAMTAT and the other posters here for encouraging me to do more research. There's no evidence whatsoever that she has done anything illegal, and little evidence, if any, that she broke any rules.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
Like that time Obama didn't want to show the whole country his birth certificate?

Yes, EXACTLY like that! LOL!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: ~Lucidity

The more I read about this whole "scandal", the more I question whether she actually did anything wrong at all! LOL!

I would like to thank IAMTAT and the other posters here for encouraging me to do more research. There's no evidence whatsoever that she has done anything illegal, and little evidence, if any, that she broke any rules.

You may want to keep digging, then.

The issue is not whether there was a law against what she did. The issue is, every email account used for government communication was supposed to be archived by the Dept. of State whether it's official or private.

Clinton's email server was not archived or monitored and now, she and her aides are vetting every email before the Dept. of State sees them.

a reply to: Answer

Again, where is that written? That issue?

A Clinton aide said that "anything that pertained to her work there" was given to State.

"So if she emailed with her daughter about flower arrangements for her wedding, that didn't go in," the aide said, "but if she emailed one of the 100 State Department officials she regularly corresponded with, State had it in their servers already and HRC's office replicated that to ensure it was all there."

How do you know this isn't true?

Source

originally posted by: Answer
Clinton's email server was not archived or monitored and now, she and her aides are vetting every email before the Dept. of State sees them.

She turned over her emails from her time as SOS in October of last year.

In October 2014, 18 months after Clinton left, the State Department was engaged in the process of updating its records preservation policies. The State Department asked every secretary of state dating back to Madeleine Albright to provide records, including emails, from their time in office. Clinton responded to the State Department's request for emails, providing the department with over 55,000 pages of emails. She did so months ago. Clinton has been fully transparent and has asked the State Department for these emails to be made public.

Source

Not only that...

Mitt Romney used his private email account to discuss political business, and when he left the governor's office, his administration destroyed records rather than turn them over to state archives.

Scott Walker's County Executive's office used a secret email system, which investigators determined was being used to engage in campaign work on county time and to avoid public records disclosure laws.

Mike Huckabee's office had files, including emails, cleaned and physically destroyed, including "travel records, calendars, call logs, and emails."

Why hasn't their behavior been scrutinized over and over again? Because their last name isn't Clinton.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The whole email issues is hilarious on every level. In government, as in corporations, no one every writes anything in an email that they can then be held accountable to later. It's management/executive 101. All important conversations take place in person or on scrambled phones, not via email.

And then there's this too.

Like I said before, most of them probably don't even use their government emails at all.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I have a feeling that those of you that are not seeing the real issue and the deeper ramifications of what this means would have no problem seeing it if the name was changed to Dick Cheney instead of Hillary Clinton. You would be foaming at the mouth mad.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I have a feeling that those of you that are not seeing the real issue and the deeper ramifications of what this means would have no problem seeing it if the name was changed to Dick Cheney instead of Hillary Clinton. You would be foaming at the mouth mad.

Your feeling is dead wrong. Unlike those who pretend to be non-partisan, some of us really are and always have been. This is simply not a unique occurrence, as I have mentioned to you before. But it is kind of funny to watch some people foam at the mouth just because it's her, who, before you go off having more "feelings,] I have no feelings about either way, by the way.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I have a feeling that those of you that are not seeing the real issue and the deeper ramifications of what this means would have no problem seeing it if the name was changed to Dick Cheney instead of Hillary Clinton. You would be foaming at the mouth mad.

Your feeling is dead wrong. Unlike those who pretend to be non-partisan, some of us really are and always have been. This is simply not a unique occurrence, as I have mentioned to you before. But it is kind of funny to watch some people foam at the mouth just because it's her, who, before you go off having more "feelings,] I have no feelings about either way, by the way.

BS.

The only thing that is going to stall the thorough investigation of this breach is the same thing that always stalls these things: the attitude that this kind of stuff has always been done and is not a unique occurrence and the complicit media that circle the left's wagon every time they are exposed.

originally posted by: queenofswords
I have a feeling that those of you that are not seeing the real issue and the deeper ramifications of what this means would have no problem seeing it if the name was changed to Dick Cheney instead of Hillary Clinton. You would be foaming at the mouth mad.

Do not trust your feeling. Actually, I only learned about the 2007 Bush email scandal where as many as 22 MILLION emails were deleted while researching Hillary today. So, no, I wouldn't be foaming at the mouth at all. In fact, I was pretty upset about Hillary until I really looked into it today and calmed my suspicions.

The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose.

Source

Just because some people are partisan to the core (and foaming at the mouth about lawsuits, etc.) doesn't mean everyone is... I'm going to withhold judgment on this until an investigation is done and some real proof comes out. Suspicion and assumption isn't the way I make decisions or judgments.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I am baffled by the inability of some to comprehend that the president's directive to use .gov email accounts was issued in 2009 and that Hillary just blatantly ignored it. Not only did she ignore it, but she took steps to set up a private server and email account.

Whatever George Bush and any other sneaky politician did in times past should not even be a concern as far as this particular matter at this particular time goes.

Is reading comprehension really that poor? Just sayin'.

a reply to: queenofswords

So let them off eh? that's why we don't see outrage from you when it was Bush and co doing things.
Just like the lack of outrage you have shown towards the 13 times embassy's attacked and 60 dead when Bush was in charge.
Blimey you are obvious.

originally posted by: korkythecat
a reply to: IAMTAT

So what??

Why do I feel a suspicion that we are going to be drip fed anti-clinton propoganda.

political agendas are really tedious.

1) Yes, we are going to be drip fed anti-clinton; anti-bush; propaganda for the next 18 months.
2) American politics are really tedious and pointless.

Unless you're a member of a special interest group, (black: gay: etc.) or unless you've figured out how to profit from the election cycles, I'd strongly recommend you tune it all out. And the first thing to tune out is the news channels.