State Department audit faults Clinton on email use

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.

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.

Aww Gee.

How similar were they?

gmail isn't private server with top secret info.

And the others never lied did they.

a reply to: xuenchen

The audit found that the non-compliance over personal email went beyond Clinton, and that former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican, also failed to preserve government-related emails when he was secretary of state.

The State Department asked Powell to try to receive relevant emails from his internet provider, but “as of May 2016 the Department has not received a response” from Powell, the audit said.

Is Powell under threat of indictment if he doesn't comply?

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.

You could be correct except Hillary had Top Secret, secret and confidential information on her server. Did the other SOS have top secret information on their servers? If so, then they too should be prosecuted.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

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.

You could be correct except Hillary had Top Secret, secret and confidential information on her server. Did the other SOS have top secret information on their servers? If so, then they too should be prosecuted.

We know very little about the content that triggered those classifications. From what we know so far, they have classified an email for simply containing a link to a news article about drone strikes. They also classified emails containing information the Clinton Foundation had on their interests in foreign countries. It was not classified information that the US govt had control of and was only classified when they got their hands on it for the purposes of the investigation/FOIA.

a reply to: introvert

That is not true.
There have been no cases similar to this one.
The IG spoke of Colin Powel and an Ambassador.
The ambassador resigned before being disciplined.
I doubt the ambassador sent classified info via unsecure means.

This report shows she has no back up in the current administration.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

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.

You could be correct except Hillary had Top Secret, secret and confidential information on her server. Did the other SOS have top secret information on their servers? If so, then they too should be prosecuted.

We know very little about the content that triggered those classifications. From what we know so far, they have classified an email for simply containing a link to a news article about drone strikes. They also classified emails containing information the Clinton Foundation had on their interests in foreign countries. It was not classified information that the US govt had control of and was only classified when they got their hands on it for the purposes of the investigation/FOIA.

Now you are just lying.
She was the OCA. She doesnt get to claim retro classification.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Powell hasn't complied with their request. Is he under threat of indictment?

This audit shows that the problems are not just with Clinton or Powell themselves, but the Department's procedures as well.

The report says the department was "slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications." It cites "longstanding, systemic weaknesses" related to communications that started before Clinton's tenure.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

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.

You could be correct except Hillary had Top Secret, secret and confidential information on her server. Did the other SOS have top secret information on their servers? If so, then they too should be prosecuted.

We know very little about the content that triggered those classifications. From what we know so far, they have classified an email for simply containing a link to a news article about drone strikes. They also classified emails containing information the Clinton Foundation had on their interests in foreign countries. It was not classified information that the US govt had control of and was only classified when they got their hands on it for the purposes of the investigation/FOIA.

Now you are just lying.
She was the OCA. She doesnt get to claim retro classification.

I did not lie. That is exactly what happened.

The email that received a TK classification contained a link to a publicly-available news article about drone strikes and the Blumenthal emails contained information about dealings the Clinton Foundation had in foreign countries.

a reply to: introvert

lol now you are down to somebody else did it so its ok.....


yeah sure that always works for a defense

If you can show where Powell actively sought to escape FOIA laws and show where Powell via email directed anyone to remove classified headers and send classified info via nonsecure network then I will be happy to listen.

Otherwise your defense of Hillary is a joke.

a reply to: introvert

LOL

The issues are about Hillary.

Why do you think the SD (Obama LLC) threw the other into this?

The proof is verified now.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Impeachment does not equal automatic removal from office.

Don't believe me? Ask Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton--both were impeached (by the house), and later acquitted (by the senate).

I mean, if ManClinton can't even be successfully impeached, what chance do we have with WomanClinton?

a reply to: introvert

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

originally posted by: UnBreakable
Incarcerated? Most likely not. Forced from office in embarrassment? See Nixon.

You're assuming that she doesn't have a massive case of denial and narcissism that would negate a normal human being's feeling of embarrassment. Not to mention that it would just be the right thing to do, and we all know that she's not real big on that, either.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

lol now you are down to somebody else did it so its ok.....


yeah sure that always works for a defense

If you can show where Powell actively sought to escape FOIA laws and show where Powell via email directed anyone to remove classified headers and send classified info via nonsecure network then I will be happy to listen.

Otherwise your defense of Hillary is a joke.

He has not handed-over what was requested. Is that proof he is actively seeking to escape FOIA laws?

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?

a reply to: introvert
lol
Keep standing there and telling me "tis but a sctatch"

Do you deny she has been reported by the dept of state to have broken the law?
Do you deny there is a current fbi investigation looking into her email problems?
Do you den there is testimony being taken UNDER OATH about her problems with FOIA and her emails?

"tis but a scratch"

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.

I see the waters are being clouded by trying to derail the main thrust of conversation.

And that is that the State Department has determined that former Secretary Clinton did this of her own volition:

The report said investigators found “no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server.”

OP source link

Clinton did not accidentally set up a private, non-secure server for convenience in order to circumvent FOIA law.

There is the intent right there.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I have not read the report, but the link in the OP does not state she broke any laws. It says she "flouting federal records rules and cybersecurity guidelines" and goes on to show how others have done the same and that it is a problem within the department itself.

Therefore, we should be able to look at similar cases for legal precedence. Was Powell recommended for indictment, even though he has not complied with requests?