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: 7
24
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

I remember back further than that, as in when the government used Lotus Notes and never backed a damn thing up. And that was not so long ago. Email should not be used for anything vital enough to get this crazy about. Full stop.

ETA: If people are this upset over emails, just imagine how insane they could get about all the burner calls and backroom private deals that go one with no email involved! *Gasp
edit on 3/7/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

I remember back further than that, as in when the government used Lotus Notes and never backed a damn thing up. And that was not so long ago. Email should not be used for anything vital enough to get this crazy about. Full stop.

ETA: If people are this upset over emails, just imagine how insane they could get about all the burner calls and backroom private deals that go one with no email involved! *Gasp


That is why Nixon knew he had to step down, that man was a maniac and hated everyone. No wonder why they only aired some of his tapes after he was dead.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: SheopleNation

JEB is about as bad politic wise,maybe not such a liar, AND HE might GET his party's nomiination


Most in Florida do not like him, they would be insane to nominate him after he admitted he was for Amnesty. Let alone another Bush will never win. Not unless its Laura lol.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

Yep. Smart people don't usually keep records of anything that could incriminate them, unless it's as insurance or blackmail, in which case it probably would be in an email, or at least not in an email anyone could find that easily anyway. And love them or hate them most of these people are pretty smart. But if people want to get all in a tizzy about it...have at it.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
When I was the IT director for a real estate firm in Manhattan I had to ensure we were compliant with both Sarbanes-Oxley and SEC archiving requirements, since publicly traded entities invested in assets they managed.

I placed a "tap" on the MTA service on the MS Exchange server, and EVERY message, internal and externally transmitted was forwarded to a second Exchange server that nobody touched and was of course part of the backup regimen. All emails forever, I didn't prune this database when the retention rules allowed. This policy was fully supported by management, since they were HONEST guys, and they felt they were protected by this message retention, since it would prove they acted either in good faith, or made the best effort, or whatever legalese protects you in the event of some lawsuit brought by a tenant.

I can state from experience that the attitude is the opposite in the public sector. They want to delete it all as soon as legally allowed. And what they save is in printed form, just to make it harder to search through. Just how HRC supposedly provided the emails, all printed in a pile. Probably intentionally out of chronological order, and with an inkjet printer, delivered during precipitation. Since this is deemed as minimally "compliant". I think I can safely assume this is universally the case, with no thought given to protecting gov entities from lawsuits. Remember, if you sue a county, village, state, etc and you "win", you still lose since it's taxpayer money.

They are worried about their butt, not national security, not taxpayer money, nothing else just their butt. If she had nothing to hide, she would provide a backup of the database with transaction logs that show what was deleted if EVER, or even a copy of the virtual machine it runs on. She would also have a verifiable retention policy in place and be able to produce ANYTHING, and be able to prove that she is fully compliant. Don't hold your breath.....



And THAT is why this is a problem.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 04:02 AM
link   

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.



So, what you're saying is, "what difference does it make?"?



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I know. Take me for example. I'm so upset, about an email (actually an email Address, actually a Number of email addresses), that I made a post on a message board! I'm steamin!



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

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?

Seriously... help, please? What is the issue here?
Your politics are sometimes cryptic to foreigners.



It's not the fact that she has multiple emails, it's the fact that all of those email addresses are the ones she used to do official business and that the server is her private property that is not open to the public for scrutiny. When government officials do official business, it has to be transparent so everyone can see how she handles things. This way if she were to go against department regulation, we would have the proof. The fact that it is her private server means she could have deleted any incriminating evidence against her, something she couldn't do if she was using .gov email, which is managed and administered by a govt employee.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Is this how desperate the right has become?



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258

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?

Seriously... help, please? What is the issue here?
Your politics are sometimes cryptic to foreigners.



It's not the fact that she has multiple emails, it's the fact that all of those email addresses are the ones she used to do official business and that the server is her private property that is not open to the public for scrutiny. When government officials do official business, it has to be transparent so everyone can see how she handles things. This way if she were to go against department regulation, we would have the proof. The fact that it is her private server means she could have deleted any incriminating evidence against her, something she couldn't do if she was using .gov email, which is managed and administered by a govt employee.


Very well put. For people not to understand this is baffling to me. I understand why some of our foreign posters think this is no big deal, but for an American not to see the ramifications of this is just silly partisanship. This is not a right/left issue, but a Politician Gone Rogue/We The People issue. Those are our records. They belong to the American people and OUR archives. We live in dangerous times, especially since 9/11, and We The People have a right to know what the Secy. of State was up to while in our employ.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
The 800lb gorilla in the room that everybody seems to ignore.....


Any government official who responded to her unofficial email address is just as guilty as she is. Everybody knows that official emails are supposed to be used, regardless of what agency they work for.

If Senator Joe Schmow responded to Hot.Hillary@NoMoreClintonsemail.com, then he is just as stupid and complacent as she was.

Just my two cents.

I'd really like to see a list of any government officials who corresponded to her at an email address of anything other than .gov

Maybe I should just email John.Kerry@KetchupHubby.com for a list.
edit on R372015-03-09T11:37:56-05:00k373Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa
I gave you a star just for this....



John.Kerry@KetchupHubby.com



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
This is just another political football that the GOP will fumble. My prediction is that Clinton will claim that using her own Email server was actually a means to provide a more "secure" site than even the government could provide. She will claim that she was actually going above and beyond the governments requirements, all for the sake of transparency. Get ready for a obscene dose of Doublespeak.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Just watched some of her live responses. Such bull poo!



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
This is going to get turned around on the GOP. . .

Hillary's jaw will unhinge and she will devour the Republicans in one huge bite. For some reason I have a feeling she's baited them into throwing a fit to make them look stupid.

HRC isn't dumb enough to think using a personal email would fly as Sec. of State. . . there's more to this than we're being told.



new topics




 
24
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join