NYT: Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email at State Dept

[homersapien 11,373]

The problem is not who is taking foreign cash. The problem is that everyone is taking foreign cash, both in the form of campaign donations and, lobbying.

Most people haven't come to the realization that corruption has become legal in our system.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The problem is not who is taking foreign cash. The problem is that everyone is taking foreign cash, both in the form of campaign donations and, lobbying.

Most people haven't come to the realization that corruption has become legal in our system.

it is NOT legal to accept money from a foreign govt when you are the sitting SoS. No way to spin that one homie...its just NOT!

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Are you suggesting that, David Petraeus is a victim?

Petraeus was not a political insider. If he had been they would have protected him.

So you're saying that some people are more equal under the law than others? George Orwell would be proud. Hilary wont be protected because the job of SoS is far too high profile with too high of a security clearance for serious violations to be winked at by Congress. Hell, she's been issued a bunch of new subpoenas in the last 48 hours.

If BlueVue starts a sentence with "So you're saying......." he has conjured up a straw man argument to end the sentence.

Every. Single. Time.

Some people are more equal, right? Isn't that the big flaw in society?

Are you suggesting that, David Petraeus is a victim?

Petraeus was not a political insider. If he had been they would have protected him.

So you're saying that some people are more equal under the law than others? George Orwell would be proud. Hilary wont be protected because the job of SoS is far too high profile with too high of a security clearance for serious violations to be winked at by Congress. Hell, she's been issued a bunch of new subpoenas in the last 48 hours.

If BlueVue starts a sentence with "So you're saying......." he has conjured up a straw man argument to end the sentence.

Every. Single. Time.

Some people are more equal, right? Isn't that the big flaw in society?

Actually its not a straw man if you read Itchy's post wherein he asserted that Hillary would be protected because she was a political insider. My statement was perfectly consistent with itchy's reasoning. However, in this case it is a false assumption for a number of reasons. With the position of SoS comes a security clearance that is equal to that of the President. The fact that she conducted State business on an unsecured personal server that was subject to easily being hacked is no small matter of protocol that is going to be quickly dispatched into yesterday's news cycle. It also is not helpful that the Clinton's claim was proven false that they were not accepting foreign govt contributions to their foundation while she was SoS and from countries that sponsor terrorism no less.

I do not recall ever having made such an assertion. Could you point it out for me please?

[TheBlueVue 177]

"I do not recall ever having made such an assertion. Could you point it out for me please? "

You specifically said that David Patraeus was not an insider but they would have protected him if he was. Seeing how the thread is about Hillary Clinton its safe to assume that you believe Hillary would be protected because she was definitely a political insider as the SoS. Its a couple pages back, you can find it if you look, its there

[homersapien 11,373]

The problem is not who is taking foreign cash. The problem is that everyone is taking foreign cash, both in the form of campaign donations and, lobbying.

Most people haven't come to the realization that corruption has become legal in our system.

it is NOT legal to accept money from a foreign govt when you are the sitting SoS. No way to spin that one homie...its just NOT!

That wasn't my point.

My point was that if you want to get around the laws, there are ways to do it. That's not a good thing nor a defense of Clinton.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

"I do not recall ever having made such an assertion. Could you point it out for me please? "

You specifically said that David Patraeus was not an insider but they would have protected him if he was. Seeing how the thread is about Hillary Clinton its safe to assume that you believe Hillary would be protected because she was definitely a political insider as the SoS. Its a couple pages back, you can find it if you look, its there

You sir are nothing but a liar. You are the most pathetic liar in this forum.

A. That is not what I said.

B. That is not in this thread.

C. What does that have to do with HC (you made one hell of a leap)?

If you are going to "quote" me, please use the quote function. I understand you have little regard for the truth but, I do.

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.realclear...al_opinion.html

When Mika tells you you are on another planet...

DAVID BROCK: Yeah, because the piece didn't stand up to scrutiny after it was published. There's an allegation very prominent in the subhead of this article yesterday that Hillary Clinton may have broken federal law. The only named source they have to support this allegation, Jason Banks who was the highest ranking lawyer in the national archive, said after the piece was published that no law was broken. So the story is wrong. It's based on a false premise.

The reporter seems to be digging his heels in and now giving his opinion that Hillary Clinton broke the law, but they don't have any independent legal authority that we did see to make that case. I think the article was really sloppily done, it had innuendo in it that was false, we're saying New York Times, look at your journalism, and if you find problems, you know, let readers know and correct this as prominently as it was splashed on the paper yesterday.

That is right out of the mid 1990s dodge and spin used over and over again by Gore when he was trying to explain why he received foreign cash during the 1996 campaign. he blamed the lack of a "independent legal authority" that he could go to to get the law explained to him. Folks, this so weak...

Brock is being disingenuous by playing semantics.

He's purposely trying to focus on a possible implication made by the New York Times, not a literal implication made by the New York Times. That's a reader's interpretation. Brock and mediamatters are digging in deep with this angle. Calling the New York Times article sloppy. Claiming the New York Times is "doubling down" while wait for it... mediamatters is doubling down. They don't want to focus on the lack of transparency. It's all about deflection to make people think the New York Times falsely implied Clinton broke the law, not literally broke the law.

Here's another mediamatters tidbit they are trying to push:

http://mediamatters....story-is/202766

David Brock Warns Media: Clinton Email Story Is "Republican Operation From Top To Bottom"

Also Exposes Media's Double Standard In Covering Clinton's Email Release Vs. GOP Candidates' Sketchy Private Email Conduct

[DKW 86 7,423]

All that from Media Matters? Say it aint so!

Media Matters is now doing exactly what it was made to do. Defend certain pols, from the press, unto the last word.

[DKW 86 7,423]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/08/lanny_davis_vs_chris_wallace_did_clinton_break_the_law.html

Designated Clinton "Spear Catcher-Damage Control Artist" Lanny Davis tries to explain that when Clinton ordered ALL DOS employees to stop doing business on personal email accounts IN 2011 that the reason she did not comply with her own work rules was that govt email accounts are not accessible over seas.

KID YOU NOT...

MONEY AT 1:11 Have to feel sorry for someone that KNOWS he just completely lost any good he was trying to accomplish and that he will be answering that same question for the rest of the election.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Hillary has more than a few issues raining on her political parade right now not the least of which is having to answer questions about accepting millions of dollars from Middle eastern countries that have horrible histories of misogyny.

375]"MIAMI — It was supposed to be a carefully planned anniversary to mark one of the most important and widely praised moments in

Hillary Rodham Clinton

’s political career — and to remind the country, ahead of a likely 2016 presidential campaign, about her long record as a champion for the rights of women and girls.

375]Instead, as Mrs. Clinton commemorates her 1995 women’s rights speech in Beijing in back-to-back events in New York, she finds herself under attack for her family foundation’s acceptance of millions of dollars in donations from Middle Eastern countries known for violence against women and for denying them many basic freedoms."

375]

http://www.nytimes.c...women.html?_r=0

Aside from the obvious hypocrisy which, in itself is, staggering it seems abundantly clear that the Clintons are merely influence peddlers and the rules dont apply to them.

[AURaptor 1,123]

I saw Lanny trying to explain that it was easier for Hillary to access other e-mail accounts. It was really odd.

I guess he's got a point though. If Hillary had her own server, maybe she didn't need a password, so that would make things easier.

Lanny really did sound like a guy who had no idea of how to work the electronic mail.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

It seems to be go unnoticed but she could have changed servers somewhere along the way and there are some undiscovered e-mails on another server somewhere (or destroyed).

[AURaptor 1,123]

It seems to be go unnoticed but she could have changed servers somewhere along the way and there are some undiscovered e-mails on another server somewhere (or destroyed).

Unlike Lois Lerner's claim that " all was lost " when her computer crashed and it was then vaporized, Hillary , being in possession of her own servers, very well could have have replaced them, and had the incriminating ones taken to an industrial sized shredder, much like she's done in the past w/ certain files.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Exactly.

[DKW 86 7,423]

There is a secure log in available on the Internet for any .gov email.

Guys, this was so straight forwardly a grab to control the paper trail it really should just be obvious to anyone.

[WarTim 3,456]

There is a secure log in available on the Internet for any .gov email.

Guys, this was so straight forwardly a grab to control the paper trail it really should just be obvious to anyone.

Obvious to anyone capable of rational thought.......

[DKW 86 7,423]

https://iservices.state.gov/login/FormBasedLogin.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fdefault.aspx

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

More questions/discussion about Hillary's server (s).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/09/exclusive-el-sisi-urges-arab-ready-force-to-confront-isis-questions-if-us/

[cooltigger21 0]

This may actually be the thing that finally brings her down. She is not likable. If it was Bill he could just laugh it off. Whatever you may think of Bill and his policies he is a guy who you can like as a person. Hillary, not so much.

[TexasTiger 12,869]

If she goes down, which Dem rises?

[AURaptor 1,123]

If she goes down, which Dem rises?

Hillary or Monica ?

[DKW 86 7,423]

If she goes down, which Dem rises?

Heard a discussion on the talking head shows that as HRC's campaign has slowed, the development of another Dem primary candidate, O'Malley, whoever he is, takes over first place. I honestly cant tell you i had even heard his name, and that he was actually registered for even one primary. They described him as milquetoast. I honestly havent even looked at his background. Maybe EW gets back into it? She is just about it

[WarTim 3,456]

Creepy uncle joe?

[autigeremt 6,620]

If she goes down, which Dem rises?

Warren.

[AUUSN 823]

White House: Millions of e-mails may be missing

POSTED: 7:07 p.m. EDT, April 13, 2007

•

NEW:

White House spokeswoman says 5 million official e-mails may be missing

• White House admits it should have kept e-mails on private GOP system

• Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee doubts e-mails are deleted

• Committee investigating whether U.S. attorneys' firings were politically motivated

WASHINGTON

(CNN) -- Millions of White House e-mails may be missing, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino acknowledged Friday.

"I wouldn't rule out that there were a potential 5 million e-mails lost," Perino told reporters.

The administration was already facing sharp questions about whether top presidential advisers including Karl Rove improperly used Republican National Committee e-mail that the White House said later disappeared.

The latest comments were a response to a new report from a liberal watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), alleging that over a two-year period official White House e-mail traffic for hundreds of days has vanished -- in possible violation of the federal Presidential Records Act. (

)

"This story is really now a two-part issue," CREW's Melanie Sloan told CNN. "First there's the use of the RNC e-mail server that's inappropriate by White House officials and secondly we've also learned that there were between March of 2003 and October of 2005 apparently over 5 million e-mail that were not preserved and these are e-mail on the regular White House server."

Perino stressed there's no indication the e-mails were intentionally lost, but she was careful not to dispute the outside group's allegations. "I'm not taking issue with their conclusions at this point," Perino said. "We're checking into them. There are 1,700 people in the Executive Office of the President."Watch Leahy compare e-mails to Nixon tapes

Leahy said the e-mails would have remained on party or campaign computer servers, and he compared the situation to the famous 18½-minute gap in one of the Watergate tapes.

"They're there," he said. "They know they're there, and we'll subpoena them, if necessary, and we'll have them."

Perino told reporters that the e-mails from those accounts should have been saved, but said policy has not kept pace with technology. She said computer experts were trying to retrieve any records that have been deleted.

"We screwed up, and we're trying to fix it," she told reporters.

E-mails sought by special prosecutor also missing

Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case, disclosed last year that some White House e-mails in 2003 were not saved as standard procedure dictated.

In a January 23, 2006, letter to the defense team of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald wrote: "We advise you that we have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."

Robert Luskin, personal attorney for Rove, told CNN Friday that he "has no reason to doubt" Fitzgerald's assertion that some White House e-mail was missing.

"You're quite right," Luskin said in a telephone interview. "There was a gap there."

Democrats charge this raises questions about whether the public has gotten the full story on everything from the CIA leak case to the fired U.S. attorneys controversy.

"The biggest problem here is really that here is a White House that is deliberately violating an existing statute that requires them to preserve all records," said Sloan. "And we have significant evidence now both from the RNC e-mail and the White House e-mail that are missing that the White House was using every means possible to avoid complying with the law."

Luskin said it was "foolish speculation" for CREW -- which serves as counsel to former ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, in a private suit against Rove and other Bush officials -- to suggest that the gap in White House e-mail helped Rove avoid indictment in the CIA leak case. Luskin said Fitzgerald told him that Rove was cleared in the case because he "did nothing wrong."

Luskin added that until this month, Rove believed his RNC e-mail was being archived and did nothing wrong.

"Rove has always understood from very early on in the Bush administration that RNC and campaign e-mail were being archived," said Luskin. "He was absolutely unaware until very, very recently that any e-mails were lost. And he never asked that e-mails be deleted or asked for the authority to delete e-mails."

CNN's Ed Henry and Lisa Goddard contributed to this report.