Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules

This is nothing new for anyone who saw this for what it was.

Hillary Clinton’s shrinking email defense

She deliberately wanted to circumvent FOI laws, I understand why, we all do, she wanted to keep her communications private.

She neither sought approval, not would she have been given approval for her e-mail server.

She shunned suggestions to use a state approved e-mail, and told people never to talk of her e-mail arrangement again. Even worse, those emails were not turned over to the state despite her swearing under oath all emails were turned over.

The IG just gave the FBI a clear case to recommend and indictment, intent.

Yes, her email scandal could still be toast for her presidential aspirations.

The final sentences hit the nail on the head. Clinton won’t be prosecuted for violating Federal laws or even have her security clearance revoked because of the “nuance” that she’s above the law.

[quote]Based on the publicly available evidence, the reality appears to be nuanced in a way that is satisfying to neither side.
Clinton violated the law, but committed no crime.[/quote]

[quote=“Winston Smith”]The final sentences hit the nail on the head. Clinton won’t be prosecuted for violating Federal laws or even have her security clearance revoked because of the “nuance” that she’s above the law.
[/quote]

I agree, and just want to add that as long as Obama is in the White House, there is zero chance of any criminal prosecution. The Obama administration has prosecuted whistle blowers with a vengeance that would make Bush Jr blush, but Hillary is a “team player” and unlikely to receive anything more than a mild rebuke if she broke the law.

Whether or not a President Trump would just let the matter rest, I have no idea. He may too preoccupied with other matters like building a wall to waste much time going after Hillary. On the other hand, if Hillary says bad things about him during the campaign, he may use the FBI to see if he can catch her jaywalking or loitering in a public rest room.

Not that any president of the USA would use the legal system to settle personal scores…right?

And I suppose it doesn’t bother you that Trump has likely been paying a criminally low level of taxes his entire trust fund baby existence and refuses to release any tax returns? But which server Clinton sent emails on, that crosses the line? Alright, to each his own…

I have never bought the whole “important secrets were exposed” narrative, but I do believe she did not want certain emails read and knowing the Clintons this would be because of the Clinton Foundation and THAT is where the investigation should head. I like Hillary and will vote for her but all candidates for president deserve to be scrutinized and forced to answer tough questions regarding previous behavior and THIS is where it needs to happen given their past record of sketchy compliance with ethics and law. The whole Benghazi thing was a waste of time because she clearly could not have and did not have the authority to be accused of incompetence or negligence.

[quote=“BrentGolf”]
And I suppose it doesn’t bother you that Trump has likely been paying a criminally low level of taxes his entire trust fund baby existence and refuses to release any tax returns? [/quote]

I’m sure he pays as little as possible, that’s what he pays accountants for, will there be anything interesting in them? I dunno, he was thinking of running 4 years ago and saw what happened to Romney is not like he hasn’t had a heads up on it, if he doesn’t release them (and he’s under no legal obligation to do so) the media will hammer him for it and he will loose support, if he does I’m sure thee will be some ammunition.

It’s not me making the fuss, address your concerns to the FBI who have at least 2 ongoing investigations into Clinton, or the IG who recently released the report. To be fair it’s seems they were critical of Colin Powells use of an AOL account as well. Although he did co-operate with the IG, unlike Clinton and her team.

I’m just commenting on a development related to her ongoing e-mail saga because its all over the news again. Even on the left leaning papers and TV shows this was a leading story, in fact some of the left leaning media were hitting the hardest calling her an out an out liar. Which she is and I thought everyone knew that, seemed like a bit of a shock to the left that there was no real way to spin this other than to call her a liar.

:laughing:

Now here’s what appears to be a gen-yu-wine legit scandal with all the fixings:

[quote]Thanks to a newly released batch of State Department emails, ABC News was able to revisit the story of Rajiv Fernando, a wealthy securities trader who gave heavily to both Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation—and who just so happened to land himself a plum spot on a sensitive government intelligence advisory panel after Hillary became secretary of state.

Politicos rewarding donors is sadly not uncommon but what makes this particular example stand out is Fernando’s lack of qualifications for a job that involved advising the secretary of state—and, by extension, the president of the United States—on the topic of nuclear weapons. And if that weren’t enough, the story also looks an awfully lot like a Clinton Controversy Bingo Card. In addition to the appearance of quid pro quo with a major fundraiser, we also have a clear lack of transparency, Clinton loyalists going to great lengths to protect her, questions over access to sensitive government information, and, of course, Hillary’s private email account.

You can read ABC’s full blow-by-blow here, but the short version is this: The rest of the International Security Advisory Board was filled with nuclear scientists, past Cabinet secretaries, and former members of Congress. But the only thing Fernando had to offer the group was, in ABC’s words, “his technological know-how,” which none of his fellow panelists seemed to find all that helpful. Fernando was so out of place, in fact, that one board member told ABC that none of his colleagues could figure out why he was even there.[/quote]

slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ … asn_t.html

[quote=“MikeN”]Now here’s what appears to be a gen-yu-wine legit scandal with all the fixings:

[quote]Thanks to a newly released batch of State Department emails, ABC News was able to revisit the story of Rajiv Fernando, a wealthy securities trader who gave heavily to both Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation—and who just so happened to land himself a plum spot on a sensitive government intelligence advisory panel after Hillary became secretary of state.

Politicos rewarding donors is sadly not uncommon but what makes this particular example stand out is Fernando’s lack of qualifications for a job that involved advising the secretary of state—and, by extension, the president of the United States—on the topic of nuclear weapons. And if that weren’t enough, the story also looks an awfully lot like a Clinton Controversy Bingo Card. In addition to the appearance of quid pro quo with a major fundraiser, we also have a clear lack of transparency, Clinton loyalists going to great lengths to protect her, questions over access to sensitive government information, and, of course, Hillary’s private email account.

You can read ABC’s full blow-by-blow here, but the short version is this: The rest of the International Security Advisory Board was filled with nuclear scientists, past Cabinet secretaries, and former members of Congress. But the only thing Fernando had to offer the group was, in ABC’s words, “his technological know-how,” which none of his fellow panelists seemed to find all that helpful. Fernando was so out of place, in fact, that one board member told ABC that none of his colleagues could figure out why he was even there.[/quote]

slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ … asn_t.html[/quote]

Meanwhile, back in the land of commoners . . .

[quote]OPELIKA, Ala. — Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard’s conviction on ethics charges automatically removes him from office and could mean years in prison for the powerful Republican.

Friday night, a jury found the one-time GOP star guilty of 12 counts of public corruption for using the influence and prestige of his political stature to benefit his companies and clients. He faces up to 20 years in prison for each count.

The jury, which reached the verdict after nearly seven hours of deliberation, acquitted Hubbard on 11 other counts.[/quote]

Follow the money…

latimes.com/politics/la-na-b … story.html

[quote]And for Democrats, the exchange exposes once again the absurd amounts of money people in the orbit of the Clintons sometimes seem to rake in just for, well, being in the orbit of the Clintons. “I’d say it’s about $200,000 a year,” Blumenthal said when asked by a committee member how much the part-time work offering up advice and ideas was worth.

“Redacted due to Chairman Gowdy’s refusal to allow release of transcript,” says a footnote to the pages of thick black redaction marks. “If released, the transcript would show that Republicans asked Mr. Blumenthal questions about his relationship with Media Matters, David Brock and Correct the Record.” Brock is a longtime Clinton loyalist, and Correct the Record and Media Matters are among the nonprofits he uses to attack Clinton opponents.

And how did Blumenthal get such a contract? “I have had a very long friendship with the chairman of Media Matters, whose name is David Brock, from before he founded this organization, and I have sustained that friendship. And he asked me to help provide ideas and advice to him and his organizations,” Blumenthal said.[/quote]

Just as this meritless email “scandal” is about to fizzle, another “investigation” against Hillary implodes:

Benghazeeeee investigation comes to an end with no wrongdoing found.

nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/po … ghazi.html

[quote=“Chris”]Just as this meritless email “scandal” is about to fizzle, another “investigation” against Hillary implodes:
[/quote]

You just keep telling yourself that, okay?

[quote=“rowland”][quote=“Chris”]Just as this meritless email “scandal” is about to fizzle, another “investigation” against Hillary implodes:
[/quote]

You just keep telling yourself that, okay?[/quote]

Or I could let Trey Gowdy tell me himself, which, thank-you-very-much, he just did.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/28/republican-report-on-benghazi-fails-to-prove-that-clinton-was-to-blame.html

Anyone who understands this issue and the scenarios involved would have a hard time understanding how this can be blamed on Secretary Clinton. Her use of emails to send “classified” material is another less than enthralling discussion BUT her use of a private email to do some horse-trading with regard to the Clinton Foundation. THAT could be where the meat is but engaging in these other peripheral pointless blame games is politics at its worst. I realize that the Democrats have done this to Republican candidates FAR TOO MUCH and FAR TOO LONG but it has to stop somewhere and I think that we should have ended this a LONG TIME AGO. Now, focus on the Clinton Foundation. This is a legitimate topic for a presidential campaign. Focus on the speeches and the fees. Another legitimate discussion but Benghazi and the supposedly “classified” emails. There’s no “there, there.”

Doing wrong, and doing it wrong…

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ … 9-17-38-07

Who knows what she was hiding? Russian script kiddies, probably.

washingtonexaminer.com/probe … le/2595274

[quote]In a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Citizens United, the court moved to compel the State Department to produce emails sent to and from Lona Valmoro, a Clinton aide, regarding overseas trips where unreported donor activity was suspected.

The conservative group had obtained correspondence from the State Department that suggested Clinton may have met with donors to the Clinton Foundation while on diplomatic trips.[/quote]

Follow the money.

[quote=“Chris”]Just as this meritless email “scandal” is about to fizzle, another “investigation” against Hillary implodes:
[/quote]

Perhaps it’s just the optics Chris and no actual intent of any wrong doing whatsoever exits, but if that’s the case they are repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. Like a meeting Bill Clinton had with Loretta Lynch on her private plane a couple of days ago. For sure she claims they only talked about golf and grandchildren for 30 minutes, but you will have to admit the optics doesn’t look good Chris, suspicious minds might wonder if they were discussing the FBI investigations into his wife, and regarding the Clinton foundation perhaps himself. I mean, you dont get much more private than that, two private planes just happen to be on the same tarmac and Bill hears Loretta Lynch is flying in so hangs around a little while longer so he can pass on his regards, why you would have to be a conspiracy theorist to even think there might be some colluding regarding an FBI investigation.

Then a couple of days later State Department seeks 27-month delay for release of Clinton Foundation emails , turns out the original 6000 emails that were related to the Clinton foundation was actually more than 34,000 emails. You know, suspicious minds again wonder “34,000 emails from the State Department to the Clinton foundation, that sees a lot”. Of course perhaps it’s all totally innocent but you can’t blame people for wondering “27 month delay, the election will be long over by then, are they covering something up?”

Im sure youre right Chris, nothing to see, move along, just the wacky right wing looking for fake scandals.

Again, I think the Clinton Foundation is where this story lies (intentional choice of verb).

Absolutely. People focusing on the email thing are just wasting their time and energy on a non issue. Even those of us who would be forced to reluctantly vote for Hillary as to avoid the epic disaster that would be a Trump Presidency have said that the Clinton foundation is suspect. I’m sure there are a few things there that aren’t quite on the level…

Anyway, seems the email thing is in it’s last days:

bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36711711

Bad Hillary, Bad Hillary ! Ok, that will be all. Carry on

Im sure this will be a great help to the Hillary campaign. The FBI does not recommend charges but exposes Clinton as lying about just about everything and her actions gets to be called outside the realm of what a reasonable person would do. Not the best qualities in a person looking to be elected president.

Comey described her actions as careless but not criminal. Ok, shes careless, unreasonable, she lied extensively. But she’s not a criminal, yet. Still have the Clinton Foundation :slight_smile:

Priceless reaction of a former prosecutor.

[url=http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000531765]Former prosecutor: Comey's conclusion is absolutely bizarre[/url]