Hillary complied with all rules, went completely transparent

  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Mar 10, 2015 7:21 PM GMT
    Hillary just addressed the faux email scandal. No classified material. Said if she had to do it over she'd use two devices. She broke new laws or rules. And she did all of this while addressing the UN and rallying for women's equality.

    And this, 1.5 years BEFORE the election. Do you smell that? Smells like roses. Oh wait, that's just Hillary. icon_cool.gif
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4433

    Mar 10, 2015 7:31 PM GMT
    I'm sure the Repukes will still scream about it like they do everything else. It's all diversionary tactics to get voters to forget their man Bush killed more Americans than Bin Laden for worse than nothing and handed Iraq to Iran on a silver platter destabilizing the entire region. And now they want to set up another war with Iran. They have no plan for Iran but to bomb and no one thinks any bombing damage would set the Iranians back more than 2 years. And consolidate the Iranian public behind the religious conservatives. I think the Mullahs of Iran are more sane than the Repukes. And if you question the public at large in Iran, they really are very American friendly. We can make peace with Iran and probably would have by now if the Repukes hadn't pulled their "Axis of Evil" stunt just when they were covertly helping us after 911.
  • Muscles25

    Posts: 394

    Mar 10, 2015 8:06 PM GMT
    Anyone who believes HRC thinks with their vagina. She's Richard Nixon without the charm.

    She broke the rules and possibly broke laws. She's evil. She must be stopped.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Mar 10, 2015 8:11 PM GMT
    Muscles25 saidAnyone who believes HRC thinks with their vagina. She's Richard Nixon without the charm.

    She broke the rules and possibly broke laws. She's evil. She must be stopped.


    You managed to demonize Hillary AND make a misogynistic metaphor. Bravo. And speaking of charm (or lack thereof), you seem like a real catch.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 8:33 PM GMT
    From GeekWire, a techie website:


    http://www.geekwire.com/2015/why-the-clinton-email-server-story-matters-and-why-it-may-be-worse-than-you-think/

    Why the Clinton email server story matters — and why it may be worse than you think

    Commentary: Let me start by saying what this article isn’t.
    This isn’t an article about Hillary Clinton (in fact, for the rest of the article, I’m simply going to talk about the “Secretary of State” or “Secretary”). This isn’t an article about records retention and access and possible motivations around that. And it’s not about questions of the law.
    This article is about actions that we know the Secretary of State took, and what it means from the point of view of information security.
    Information security is the most important point in this whole situation, in my opinion. And because of the usual political nonsense, it’s getting lost and we can’t afford for it to get lost: it relates directly to critical matters of national security.
    From this point of view, the facts are nearly undisputed. The Secretary of State did not use an email account that was hosted on an official State Department server. Instead, she used an email account on an outside server. All accounts indicate that this email account was used exclusively: the Secretary never used an official State Department email account hosted on State Department servers. And reports indicate that this email account was hosted on a physical server that was not physically under government control or protection. Some reports have even indicated that it was located in the Secretary’s personal residence. Some reports have characterized this as a “homebrew” server, and that’s apt and accurate.
    These are the facts that we need to focus on from an information security point of view. Because if these facts are true, this can represent one of the most serious breaches in data handling that we’ve ever heard of.
    This matters for three reasons.

    Click link above for remainder of article.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Mar 10, 2015 8:35 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidHillary just addressed the faux email scandal. No classified material. Said if she had to do it over she'd use two devices. She broke new laws or rules. And she did all of this while addressing the UN and rallying for women's equality.

    And this, 1.5 years BEFORE the election. Do you smell that? Smells like roses. Oh wait, that's just Hillary. icon_cool.gif
    the hapless Hillary ho will say anything to make herself look good. She doesn't know what it is to be transparent. Dishonesty and distortion are her prime specialty. You are very naive about this power hungry bimbo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 9:49 PM GMT
    Well, this is awkward. Sean Davis at the Federalist wrote about a rather interesting development in the Clinton email saga by finding a State Department Inspector General report from 2012 highlighting that Scott Gration, then-Ambassador to Kenya, was booted from his position after he … set up a private email account for his office in 2011.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/03/05/that-time-hillarys-state-department-booted-an-ambassador-for-usinga-private-email-account-n1966097
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Mar 10, 2015 9:52 PM GMT
    HRC is not a "bimbo," she's a former US Senator, former Secretary of State, a lawyer, and an intelligent lady.

    tumblr_mx7g2sggsE1s8ml3ro1_500.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 9:55 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidHillary just addressed the faux email scandal. No classified material. Said if she had to do it over she'd use two devices. She broke new laws or rules. And she did all of this while addressing the UN and rallying for women's equality.

    And this, 1.5 years BEFORE the election. Do you smell that? Smells like roses. Oh wait, that's just Hillary. icon_cool.gif


    So why is Hillary taking money from countries where women:

    -Can't legally drive a car
    -Can't vote
    -Can't marry without permission from a male guardian
    -Can be physically abused and raped by their husbands.

  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Mar 10, 2015 9:56 PM GMT
    Quoting "The Immortal Bard" A.K.A. William Shakespeare: "Much ado about nothing".


    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 10:21 PM GMT
    She's SUCH a lying POS! And, anyone who fall for her lies is just plain dumb!

    Not that she's that smart, either. Clever, yes; most lawyers are, even those, like her, who've never passed a bar exam. But, her rationale for keeping so many of her emails under lock and key betrays her essential, calculating coldness and inability to emote, thus showing a certain lack of broader intelligence:

    "I chose not to keep my private, personal emails — emails about things like planning Chelsea's wedding, my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations," Clinton said. "No one wants their personal emails made public, and I think most people understand that."

    You got that wrong too, sister. By disclosing these you might have disabused at least some people of their opinion of you as a selfish, power-hungry machine, incapable of genuine human emotion except the false variety played to the hilt when pressing flesh for cash. That you chose not to shows just how evil you are - and you'll never even realize it.

    Good Tuesdays are becoming a pattern for me: last week, Bibi; today, this termagant. Can't wait to see what comes next week!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 10:25 PM GMT
    I assume this is about her emailing. I only looked into that briefly. If I understand it right, she did basically what Secretary of State Four-Star-General Colin Powell did, only him before regulation and her after.

    What I'm not sure about is the difference between Federal law and Federal regulation. I read something about not all regulations being very enforceable whereas I assume if this was breaking a law that there'd be charges by now.

    So do I have this right that her action does not rise to the level of breaking Federal law? And what is the basic difference between laws and regulations particularly in this regard?
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Mar 10, 2015 10:46 PM GMT
    As a general matter, law is binding whereas regulations are not. Typically, Congress will pass a law that says "the agency shall promulgate and implement regulations to make flight safe, fares cheaper, and jobs increase." So those words are the law.

    The relevant agency, in this example the FAA, sits around a table and says: Okay, we have our goal, we need to figure out how to get there. Let's promulgate two (it can be as few as zero or as many as thousands or more) regulations to advance the law. Regulation 1, we forbid price setting collusion and specifically the CEO of two airlines to be in the same 10 x 10 area. Regulation 2, we want inspections on every aircraft before it takes off.

    Now say the CEO of American Airlines and the CEO of Delta inadvertently take the same flight, and are seated within 10 feet on one another, just two rows apart. There was no conversation, and no price-setting, but they VIOLATED Regulation 1. A party with 'standing' could sue, and the court would hear the case. Generally, courts give strong deference to an agency's regulations, but sometimes a court says a regulation is stupid or too far reaching, or otherwise impermissible. Here, if the court said "Regulation 1 is smart, and it was violated," then the CEOs DID violated federal law. If the court says "Regulation 1 is too far reaching and infringes on the 1st Amendment right to associate," then the CEOs did NOT violated federal law.

    Practically, while it's inadvisable to ever contravene a regulation, regulations are not 'law' in the strict sense. And larger picture, sometimes Congress SPECIFICALLY lists permissible and impermissible actions. For example, Congress in the law instead of broad goals, could have also added "and CEOs shall not be in the same 10x10 area." If Congress specifically adds that language then that IS law. Regulations are the result of government minions trying to interpret a statute, come up with a regime, and to implement the aims of Congress. It's a VERY gray area, filled with lawyering.

    So while regulations have the "force of law" because they're adopted by a person with proper authority, they aren't necessarily law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 11:08 PM GMT
    Thank you. In this case, does the regulation amount to law?

    Here's her explanation before the UN

    http://youtu.be/NZbRU10JUqk?t=1h16s
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 11:34 PM GMT
    No one ever needed to send her a classified email?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 11:52 PM GMT
    The row seems to have so far had little impact on her political standing.

    A new poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal found that 86% of potential Democratic primary voters could see themselves supporting Clinton, while only 13% could not. Her 73% net approval rating was more than twice that found for any other potential presidential candidate in her party.

    Clinton is viewed positively by 44 percent of registered voters surveyed, and negatively by 36 percent.

    Jeb Bush faces similar levels of opposition, with 34 percent saying they view him negatively. But just 23 percent say they view the Republican positively.

    http://www.ketv.com/politics/poll-clinton-strong-bush-has-work-to-do/31704448
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2015 12:01 AM GMT
    Clinton email domain shows effort for security and obscurity, say experts
    Former secretary of state’s ‘clintonemail.com’ was no ‘homebrew’ system: creators appear to have worked to shield data

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/07/hillary-clinton-private-email-domain-security

    The State Department's diplomatic cables were WikiLeaked. Hillary's emails never were. Perhaps she was not so stupid after all.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 11, 2015 12:10 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    And this, 1.5 years BEFORE the election. Do you smell that? Smells like roses. Oh wait, that's just Hillary. icon_cool.gif


    And how many years have the State Department and Hillary concealed the truth about her not using government email? A hacker had to give the information to NYT 2 weeks ago.

    And not only has she not surrendered the servers themselves that she used as Secretary of State she as inferred that she will not.

    She and others need to refresh on Nixon making that same argument about his PRIVATE audio tapes from the Oval Office.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 11, 2015 12:14 AM GMT
    Meanwhile I was watching MSNBC to get their spin on this---

    They're making a joke of it. And they wonder why they get a 7% trust rating.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2015 12:34 AM GMT
    StephenOABC saidNo one ever needed to send her a classified email?


    I doubt they would be permitted to send classified information by email, even via the .gov email system. Classified info is normally communicated by other means (i.e. via an entirely separate and highly secure encrypted system).
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Mar 11, 2015 12:45 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidHRC is not a "bimbo," she's a former US Senator, former Secretary of State, a lawyer, and an intelligent lady.

    tumblr_mx7g2sggsE1s8ml3ro1_500.gif
    That is exactly what she is a bimbo. As for being a US senator, she did absolutely nothing for the people of New York except make a big name for herself. As for her performance as secretary of state, she was clearly mediocre as evidenced by her incompetence in handling the incident at Benghazi. She is no brighter than a dim 30 watt lightbulb.
    Now you need to stop supporting her and go find a more qualified democratic candidate for 2016. Get your head out of your ass.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Mar 11, 2015 12:52 AM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidThe row seems to have so far had little impact on her political standing.

    A new poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal found that 86% of potential Democratic primary voters could see themselves supporting Clinton, while only 13% could not. Her 73% net approval rating was more than twice that found for any other potential presidential candidate in her party.

    Clinton is viewed positively by 44 percent of registered voters surveyed, and negatively by 36 percent.

    Jeb Bush faces similar levels of opposition, with 34 percent saying they view him negatively. But just 23 percent say they view the Republican positively.

    http://www.ketv.com/politics/poll-clinton-strong-bush-has-work-to-do/31704448
    Those polls are meaningless bullshit because people are very fickle. Furthermore only a tiny fraction of people are polled so that does not prove anything except with what that small group of voters think.To assume that everyone else agrees is very unrealistic and false. The campaign hasn't even started yet and these stupid pollsters are already jumping to conclusions. Probably it is time to outlaw all these ridiculous polls.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 11, 2015 12:53 AM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    Svnw688 said
    And this, 1.5 years BEFORE the election. Do you smell that? Smells like roses. Oh wait, that's just Hillary. icon_cool.gif


    And how many years have the State Department and Hillary concealed the truth about her not using government email? A hacker had to give the information to NYT 2 weeks ago.

    And not only has she not surrendered the servers themselves that she used as Secretary of State she as inferred that she will not.

    She and others need to refresh on Nixon making that same argument about his PRIVATE audio tapes from the Oval Office.


    While I agree that she should turn over all the data, I don't know about "concealing the truth". For four years she was sending emails from a clintonmail.com domain, presumably to everyone with whom she communicated. Everyone who ever sent her an email knew she wasn't using a .gov. Assuming most people are oblivious to such things, that still leaves hundreds if not thousands of people who aren't.

    If she was doing anything nefarious, and I will be pissed for example if it's shown that she was trading favors as secretary for campaign contributions, having her own server would be too obvious. If she wanted to hide something, I don't think this is how she'd go about it.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 11, 2015 1:19 AM GMT
    I'd like to agree with this "If she wanted to hide something, I don't think this is how she'd go about it."

    However, from day one she and the State Department have both been less than forthcoming about emails and refused to surrender them. Knowledge of her private servers did not become public until a hacker went to the NYT. She made no effort to surrender the entirity of the emails to the government at the end of her term as Secretary of State. She waited almost 2 months after she left the state department and did not turn over emails but paper copies of what she herself chose to surrender. That was not and is not a luxury of her tenure as Secretary of State.

    And let us give Hillary Clinton credit for being extremely politically intelligent. In her press conference today she started by excusing her behavior and use of a non government email server as a matter of convenience and not having to carry two devices. For her to have said this means we must forget that she's extremely politically intelligent and that she's airheaded enough not to have foreseen the implications of what she was doing.

    Had she been intent on operating in a transparent fashion she'd have never thought twice of the minor inconvenience of carrying two devices for email and calls. You can find thousands if not millions of career professionals, business owners and carry two devices.

    If we can believe that Hillary Clinton was simple minded enough to put a supposed minor inconvenience ahead of any doubts of complete transparency then we have to also admit she was too simple minded to have ever been Secretary of State and certainly president.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2015 1:32 AM GMT
    i guess all the republicans can move all their email to private severs , and the democrats and liberals will applaud now right ?