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.

 

State Department audit faults Clinton on email use

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I agree with you on the intent part.
The fbi will add this to the ever growing pile of evidence to seek an indictment against her.




posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

And as an OCA what was her job as it relates to information?
Did she mark it unclassified?


If the emails were for private use by the Clinton Foundation, does she have to mark it?

Yeah once again you prove your intellectual disingenuous nature.


Am I not asking pertinent questions? There are standards in place for classifying information and one of those standards relates to information having to be produced by or for the US government.

You can call me disingenuous all you like, but it appears you are attacking me because you cannot refute my assertions.

That...is disingenuous.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody

We've also learned that in other cases similar to this, no one was ever indicted.

You guys are getting yourselves worked-up over something that may not be much at all.


I find it interesting that you seem to pop up on every one of these threads about the Clinton email scandal (and other of her on-going scandals), and immediately dive in with "move along, nothing to see here."

Unfortunately for you , and all of the Clintons' (note the plural) apologists is that, the Democrat controlled, Obama Administration led State Department has just issued a totally fact-based damning expose of Hillary Clinton's wanton disregard for Federal Law and her own Department's rules and regulations.

Not the "vast right wing conspiracy", not the Far Right media - the Obama Administration.

The timing of the release of this report - and its content - will not (politically) be coincidental. The State Department has released its Audit of her email practices, and its condemnation of them (thus distancing itself from her), in advance of the final conclusions of the FBI Criminal Investigation - and subsequent DOJ Indictments.

While email practices were relatively lax under previous Secretaries of State, regulations and practices were improved by the time she took the chair.

1) She refused to use a Government-issued email account, and keep transmission within secure networks
2) She refused to accept and use a secure Government-issued Blackberry
3) She set up, without authorization, a private server to be used to send/receive all official correspondence
4) She continued to operate this lax system even after her private IT people knew it was being actively hacked
5) She did not turn over all Government records prior to leaving office - and instead decided on her own what to hand over and what to delete.

Sorry Introvert...and before we even get to the corruption involving the Clinton Foundation...an official Government Audit is saying that she broke the law - continuously - during her tenure.

She is going down.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I am in no way attacking you by calling you disingenuous with respect to Hillary Clinton. That would be like calling water wet being an attack.

The State Department has now publicly addressed the fact that Hillary broke the law while serving as Secretary of State. Let that sink in. How often has a sitting administration publicly filed a report stating that one of it own intentionally sought to break the law and then hide that fact?

You continue on with your feeble so did he, or confusing classification rules, or whatever other disingenuous crap you wish to stir up to cloud the situation. Her own administration has publicly laid her bare. It is over for her she just hasnt given up yet.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I think the "vast right wing conspiracy" has been upgraded to:

"The Vast Left Wing Reality" !!




posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale



I find it interesting that you seem to pop up on every one of these threads about the Clinton email scandal (and other of her on-going scandals), and immediately dive in with "move along, nothing to see here."


I have not said that. What I did say is that this revelation may not lead to an indictment.

This audit exposes issues within the Department itself and has highlighted that others have not been in complete compliance.



She is going down.


She may be, but let's get more info before we put the cart before the horse.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
A critical bullet for the deniers:


But the report singles out Clinton’s failures as more serious. The report includes numerous revelations, including that her server was at one point “attacked,” that Clinton declined to be interviewed for the audit and that Clinton never sought approval to use her personal account for government work.
...
The report touched on the security risks of this set-up as well, saying that in January 2011, a “non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system” told a department official he had to shut down the server because he thought someone was “trying to hack us.” The adviser later wrote that same day, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.”


www.foxnews.com...

So much for all of the denials that her server was never hacked.

and:

On another front, Romanian hacker Guccifer – who recently claimed he breached Clinton’s server – pleaded guilty in federal court on Wednesday to separate hacking charges.

Under a deal struck with the federal government, he has agreed to cooperate with federal authorities in the future. The plea agreement does not mention the FBI investigation of Clinton's email practices or his claims that he accessed her private server in March 2013. Such agreements typically do not stipulate how a defendant will aid the government.

.
edit on 5/25/16 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
I think the "vast right wing conspiracy" has been upgraded to:

"The Vast Left Wing Reality" !!



Not everyone on the left has been in denial!

Just those trying to correct control the record!



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody



I am in no way attacking you by calling you disingenuous with respect to Hillary Clinton. That would be like calling water wet being an attack.


You've also called me a liar, yet have yet to show where I lied. I've provided examples to prove my point. So you attack because you cannot refute them.



The State Department has now publicly addressed the fact that Hillary broke the law while serving as Secretary of State.


The report hasn't been released yet. If we go by the info given in the OP, it does not state she broke a law.



You continue on with your feeble so did he, or confusing classification rules, or whatever other disingenuous crap you wish to stir up to cloud the situation. Her own administration has publicly laid her bare. It is over for her she just hasnt given up yet.


I haven't confused anything. You have yet to refute my assertions. Perhaps you are confused?

Powell is important in this issue because it gives us precedence. If they are about to indict Hillary over this issue, are they also going to indict Powell? He is accused of skirting the same guidelines.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah


he thought someone was “trying to hack us.”


He thought.

That is hardly proof.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I work in IT.

If you think someone is trying to hack you, it's because someone is trying to hack you.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You realize those "federal records rules and cybersecurity guidelines" she "flouted" are in place as a result of the Federal Records Act?

I have been skeptical about her, but with this new report, anyone with any experience in a classified / sensitive environment sees the writing on the wall.

Did Powell have Top Secret / SAP info on his server? Be prepared for a lot of flak once this thing gets to the indictment recommendation stage.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: introvert

I work in IT.

If you think someone is trying to hack you, it's because someone is trying to hack you.


Is that your proof?



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

My point was which law did she break? She would have had to given emails ,like Petraeus did, to a third unauthorized party. Otherwise she broke some inter office rules.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Not to mention the fact that if he can't recognize a hack, he shouldn't be a sysadmin.

Meanwhile, back at the topic:


The report also said that department officials “did not — and would not — approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business.”

It also added new detail about Mrs. Clinton’s motivation for using the private server, which she has said was set up for convenience. In November 2010, her deputy chief of staff for operations prodded her about “putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.” Mrs. Clinton, however, replied that she would consider a separate address or device “but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”


New York Times

It's ALL on Hillary.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert



The report hasn't been released yet. If we go by the info given in the OP, it does not state she broke a law.

Oh really?



“Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,” the report states. “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act." Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Federal Records Act....I'm not sure but I think that is a law....

Oh and this.....


Clinton and her top staff did not cooperate with the investigation, which was requested by current Secretary of State John Kerry. She, her former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and top deputies Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin are among those who declined interviews. Kerry and his predecessors Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, however, did interviews. Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Colin Powell is cooperating unlike Hillary and her minions.

She is in big trouble.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The proof is in the report.
If you want to keep denying, you are going to have to hide your head under your pillow.
If you open your eyes, the truth is right there in front of you. You can't continue to avoid it.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   


Hilley's time is coming!



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor



I have been skeptical about her, but with this new report, anyone with any experience in a classified / sensitive environment sees the writing on the wall.


That's a logical fallacy. Doesn't mean squat.



Did Powell have Top Secret / SAP info on his server?


Irrelevant. It appears that this report was not concerning that. If Clinton is indicted for "flouting" these rules, it is logical to assume Powell would be as well. Has anyone indicated Powell is going to be indicted.



Be prepared for a lot of flak once this thing gets to the indictment recommendation stage.


I've not said Hillary is guilty or not guilty. All I've said is that we need a lot more information to come to any conclusion. IF she is indicted, so be it. At least we will have more info.

If she is not, a whole lot of people will look like fools.

Either way, I'm in the clear.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join