Bring it on. It’s illegal, and it’s sleazy. Prosecute them all.[/quote]
Starting with Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney.
Imagine some foreign head of state getting an e-mail from her on some ultra-serious subject, only for it to end with “Do you Yahoo?”
[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“rowland”]
Bring it on. It’s illegal, and it’s sleazy. Prosecute them all.[/quote]
Starting with Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney.[/quote]
If you think that hasn’t happened yet in such cases, your information may be out of date.
John Doe got some scalps, and I’m fine with that. Walker seems to have escaped. Give the hero of Benghazi the same treatment, and that would be sauce for the goose.
It’s been alleged that Il Douche has ginned up this controversy to punish this poor woman for disagreeing with his Iran policy or something. It certainly does seem odd that they’re taking her to task for this after all the things they’ve given her a pass on.
Or was that Menendez? Probably both.
Bring it on. It’s illegal, and it’s sleazy. Prosecute them all.[/quote]
Starting with Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney.[/quote]
If they have broken laws, of course they should be prosecuted. However, the Federal Freedom of Information Act doesn’t apply to them. Other freedom of information acts that have been passed by individual states do and they vary, some giving many exceptions to Governors.
The Federal Freedom of Information Act, applies only to executive branch government agencies, like the Department of State.
Hillary faced some questions about her use of email. Short summary, conceded it would have probably been better to use 2 devices and use a .gov account. But during her time in office sent about 60,0000 emails, half of which were “personal” so she deleted them, however she will hold onto the server and not allow for independent verification that she did indeed hand over all official emails, which most likely is not even possible anymore because according to her, it has personal emails on it. It’s clear to anyone this is not a good press conference, and she will look bad answering questions about this in debates, primaries again and again if she runs for president.
She’s technically illiterate. You dont need 2 devices for 2 email accounts and she thinks the server was secure because she had secret service agents outside her house. 
Someone is going to start mocking her stupidity if she thinks hackers walk up the garden path and physically break into her house to get at the server.
Whatever, they didn’t even get to tougher question like, was it inappropriate to be withholding emails while FOIA requests were being rejected. Or and this one I don’t think anyone has asked yet. If as most people suspect shes lying through her teeth and other emails went out in her role as Secretary of State, to say Mohamed Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood or some non .gov account that wouldn’t catch it. They now have some leverage or bargaining chip (it’s hypothetical I know) which they would not otherwise have had, if she had just a .gov account.
Doesn’t really surprise me someone her age is technically illiterate. At least she knows how to use her e-mail client when someone set it up for her. As opposed to Lindsey Graham who takes pride in “have never sent an e-mail.” That’s truly technically illiterate. He’s on the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies…
I got the 
to hear how this one gets spun by the resident libs on this board.
She had previously admitted to using 2. youtube.com/watch?v=kXjB-HAhmUY
She sent 55,000 printed out pages of her emails to the State Dept, making it almost impossible to search electronically or to look at the metadata. The whole data behind the emails is the real thing here.
My favorite parts where when she described the security as the Secret Service protecting her house* and her running out when the question about the ambassador who got fired for private email use.
*This opens up as how did the Secret Service protect the server. Did they use their tech crew or was it just some Secret Service guys protecting the house?
I’d mention another thing, but I don’t want to start any autistic rants.
Nothing to see here, move along.
An update to this and to answer your question. FBI looking into the security of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail setup
[quote]Responsibility for setting up and maintaining the server that handled personal e-mail communications for Bill and Hillary Clinton passed through a number of different hands, starting with Clinton staffers with limited training in computer security and eventually expanding to Platte River.
In 2008, responsibility for the system was held by Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to the former president who served as a personal assistant and helped research at least two of his books. Cooper had no security clearance and no particular expertise in safeguarding computers, according to three people briefed on the server setup. Cooper declined to comment.[/quote]
There was a review of 20 emails and 4 of them were found to contain classified information, both now and at the time of writing, meaning there may be thousands of classified emails in her possession. she passed on a thumb drive with all these emails to her lawyer, who does not have security clearance. What a mess.
This FBI probe Im guessing is related to a ruling made by a judge recently regarding a Judicial Watch FOI request.
[quote]As agreed by the parties at the July 31, 2015 status hearing, the Government shall produce a copy of the letters sent by the State Department to Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Ms. Huma Abedin and Ms. Cheryl Mills regarding the collection of government records in their possession. These communications shall be posted on the docket forthwith. The Government has also agreed to share with Plaintiff’s counsel the responses sent by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. These communications shall also be posted on the docket forthwith. In addition, as related to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests in this case,
the Government is HEREBY ORDERED to: (1) identify any and all servers, accounts, hard drives, or other devices currently in the possession or control of the State Department or otherwise that may contain responsive information; (2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department. If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith; and (3) request that the above named individuals describe, [color=#0000FF]under penalty of perjury[/color],
the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton’s email server to conduct official government business. The Government shall inform the Court of the status of its compliance with this Order no later than August 7, 2015, including any response received from Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 31, 2015.[/quote]
Perhaps lying to a Federal judge under penalty of perjury was a bit more of a concern than lying to the public and press. Still, it’s obvious to anyone who knows the slightest about tech, what she did was insanely idiotic. For those that want to read why exactly this is a big deal, there is a good technical explanation here. voat.co/v/politics/comments/338295
that’s not an excuse. if everyone in the government is doing something illegal then they need to prosecute all of them.
THere’s a funny meme going around with a cartoon of Nixon saying I lost my job over a few tapes and she gets away with thousands of emails…
Update, Hillary did respond under penalty of perjury as follows.
[quote]I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
While I do not know what information may be “responsive” for purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records to be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.
As a result of my directive, approximately 55,000 pages of these emails were produced to the Department on December 5, 2014.
Cheryl Mills did not have an account on clintonemail.com. Huma Abedin did have such an account which was used at times for government business.[/quote]
Note, that falls far short of what was requested, she doesn’t confirm she produced all the information, only that she directed someone else to do so, nor does she confirm this is all the material, only that this was all the material on clintonemail.com (in her custody). Certainly sounds a lot more ambiguous than her press statement.
Also, the FBI have finally got around to seizing her server and thumb drives she gave her lawyer. Apparently 4 out of sample of 20 of her emails were considered top secret at the time and still are, although that is being disputed by the state department. Potentially hundreds if not thousands of her emails could be classified if that sample is an accurate representation, the State Department might find it hard to claim they ALL were not classified at the time and now are. I think this story has some more developments yet to come.
Hillary Clinton relents, gives up possession of private email server
[quote]
The last batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department included one from Clinton asking to borrow a book called “Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better,” by David Shipley and Will Schwalbe.
Clinton has not said why she requested the book, but it includes some advice that is particularly interesting in light of the controversy over her unconventional email arrangement at the State Department and her decision to delete tens of thousands of emails she deemed to be purely personal.
The copy that ABC downloaded for $9.99 had some interesting revelations.
Take, for example, Chapter Six: “The Email That Can Land You In Jail.” The chapter includes a section entitled “How to Delete Something So It Stays Deleted.”
The FBI is investigating the handling of classified information in Clinton’s emails[/quote]
:bravo:
…in other news… Trump accuses Hilary of having ‘e-mails coming out of her whatever’.
:roflmao:
[quote=“headhonchoII”]…in other news… Trump accuses Hilary of having ‘e-mails coming out of her whatever’.
:roflmao:[/quote]
News? I guess the National Inquirer is still in business for a reason. You are not ashamed for propagating this political circus?
George W Bush did it except he was more deceptive by using republican networks instead of generic public networks.
The real reason Clinton II went to auch unusual lengths to put her pivate emails beyond anyone’s reach had nothing to do with public business. Her real motivation was because her private life and public image are vastly different and American society may not be ready yet for its first openly gay or lesbian president.
And the Donald Trump Memorial Award goes to…
Um, the elected legislatures instituted laws limiting campaign financing; the Supreme Court struck them down in Citizen’s United, and Bernie Sanders says he wants to give that power back to the democratic process, at which point you criticise him because you like what the unelected Supremes did, thus proving my original point that you , like everybody else, are only concerned about outcomes, and are quite happy with judicial tyranny as long as long as the unelected tyrants come up with the result you like.
You do realise you have actually stuck your head up your own ass on this, don’t you?[/quote]
I thought this would be a good place to refresh this little piece of verbal spanking. Politburo! Take that 
Meanwhile Hillary Clinton handed over a server to the FBI that was completely wiped. Since disks themselves are easily and often overwritten by mistake, I still believe her when she says she has nothing to hide. I think “Nothing to Hide” should be her 2016 slogan
Um, the elected legislatures instituted laws limiting campaign financing; the Supreme Court struck them down in Citizen’s United, and Bernie Sanders says he wants to give that power back to the democratic process, at which point you criticise him because you like what the unelected Supremes did, thus proving my original point that you , like everybody else, are only concerned about outcomes, and are quite happy with judicial tyranny as long as long as the unelected tyrants come up with the result you like.
You do realise you have actually stuck your head up your own ass on this, don’t you?[/quote]
I thought this would be a good place to refresh this little piece of verbal spanking. Politburo! Take that [/quote]
I like a good spanking as much as anyone but feel the need to point out that the narrative here is skewed. Citizen’s United is a travesty which squarely illustrates the meddling nature of politburocracy in the democratic process. As for the importance of limits on campaign financing I once made that point to Newt Gingrich’s face when he was House speaker and remember the stony look of dishonesty on his face when he replied it was going to be enacted in the next Republican dominated session of Congress.