quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I believe, at the very least, she's proven herself to be a liar, and perjured herself.
Could you give us a list of politicians who have not?

I haven't seen the perjury. Nobody and certainly the DOJ isn't even close to proving the lie.

Did she, under oath, say she released all relevant emails from her private server or that they were 'lost?' Haven't more been "found" on her server? Doesn't that constitute perjury?

I acknowledge these next links have partisan sources, but if any of these allegations are true (I don't know if they are or aren't), it speaks very badly for her case (which is where I get the idea that it isn't looking very good for her).

http://www.headlinepolitics.com/krauthammer-hillarys-e-mail-scandal-illegal-far/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/andrew-napolitano-hillary-clintons-fbi-troubles/

http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2016/01/28/hillary-clintons-nightmare-n2110841/page/full

http://joemiller.us/2015/10/judge-napolitano-hillary-clinton-committed-perjury-last-week-fbi-will-pursue-indictment/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I remember GW Bushs administration, and several before it. Key Staffers, interestingly enough are the purview of the Secretary, its like they dont have to take the civil service drones left over from nutsucker administrations.

So....................thats pretty much a wtf nutsuckerim.

Really? Please quote me an example of the Bushie administrations placing political appointees amidst positions that are usually civil service placements. Because I'm not aware of any..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: enslaver
Some precedents, an Army General and a CIA director, like Hillary(ABOVE THE LAW), you had better believe that if a lowly secretary had done the same thing with the same material she`d be locked away now.

Other SoS's used private email servers, too. I don't recall if Condoleeza Rice did, but Colin Powell did.
It's not the use of a private email server that is the problem. She's allowed to do that. It's the use of the private server for classified documents that's the problem.
It's been shown that there were (maybe still are, who knows?) emails with classified materials stored on her private server, that weren't classified at the time. While the use of that server may not have been the wisest move, documents that were classified after being on her server are not evidence of any wrongdoing.
There are still questions remaining about other emails and classified materials. Those questions need to be sorted out, and I don't think it's looking good for Hillary on that front. I believe, at the very least, she's proven herself to be a liar, and perjured herself.

No, thats really not correct Desi. While other SoS have occassionally sent emails using private email, Clinton is the first one to exclusively use non state department resources.
And while other people used private email - they used established email providers that were responsive to subpoena requests. Clinton was the only person who set up her own server (originally at the clinton foundation). The company was answerable solely to her.
This entire hoopla about classified after the fact is hogwash, and you should know better.
First. The evidence is that her aides removed the classifications and copy and pasted the emails from a secure system to her insecure system.
Second. The law doesn't care if secret material is marked such or not. The recipient of secret information is expected to gauge information and treat it appropriately. Comments from foreign officials are born secret. Material concerning methods and procedures are known to be the highest level of secrecy. And are expected to be treated as such marked or not. Top secret material doesn't stop being top secret because you remove the markings.
Which is what she and her aides did.
Third - the man in charge of classification - Patrick Kennedy is a longterm Clinton fixer. As such the classification system was under Clintons direct control.
Finally, the Clinton's email system was designed to hamstring the FOIA - which requires transparency in government. Multiple requests were made on the state department, which stonewalled them for more than 3 years. The clinton state department did so knowingly and willingly. And that is illegal.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I believe, at the very least, she's proven herself to be a liar, and perjured herself.
Could you give us a list of politicians who have not?

I haven't seen the perjury. Nobody and certainly the DOJ isn't even close to proving the lie.

Did she, under oath, say she released all relevant emails from her private server or that they were 'lost?' Haven't more been "found" on her server? Doesn't that constitute perjury?
I acknowledge these next links have partisan sources, but if any of these allegations are true (I don't know if they are or aren't), it speaks very badly for her case (which is where I get the idea that it isn't looking very good for her).
http://www.headlinepolitics.com/krauthammer-hillarys-e-mail-scandal-illegal-far/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/andrew-napolitano-hillary-clintons-fbi-troubles/
http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2016/01/28/hillary-clintons-nightmare-n2110841/page/full
http://joemiller.us/2015/10/judge-napolitano-hillary-clinton-committed-perjury-last-week-fbi-will-pursue-indictment/

She said she turned over all email. She didn't. Additional emails were discovered every month since then, including this month when emails from february were discovered.
She said it was it was more convenient - because she could get the emails on one blackberry. When she has 4.
Gah. The mound of lies is just not worth the bother at the moment.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


1. If there is proof that her aides did what you describe, and there is proof that Clinton "ordered" it, then she should be found guilty, no? "Circumstantial evidence"is still, technically, "evidence," and that doesn't always prove wrongdoing.
2. Colin Powell has griped about the after-the-fact classifying. Is it not possible, in your opinion, for something to not start out as classified, but then, through some event (or series of events) changes classification? Again, I'm not saying Clinton did no wrong, and I certainly do not have all the information or evidence that the FBI has. Can they prove that Clinton acted illegally regarding classified materials? If so, she should be found guilty, right?
3. Wouldn't you get an ally to help out? That this guy is tied to Clinton isn't proof of wrongdoing.
4. If she and the State Department acted illegally regarding FOIA requests, shouldn't they be found guilty?

I think some of you are missing my point. I do believe Hillary is a liar, has lied, has perjured herself, and will be found guilty on many, many counts. I have no control over the investigations, nor do I have access to the FBI's evidence, so any of my assertions are not proven but merely allegations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I remember GW Bushs administration, and several before it. Key Staffers, interestingly enough are the purview of the Secretary, its like they dont have to take the civil service drones left over from nutsucker administrations.

So....................thats pretty much a wtf nutsuckerim.

Really? Please quote me an example of the Bushie administrations placing political appointees amidst positions that are usually civil service placements. Because I'm not aware of any..

Key staffers are not civil service placements. Colin Powell brought his personal Chief of Staff from Army days as his chief of staff Secretary days.

I dont know where to go with something that is that nutsuckerish. Bushes Chief of Staff was not Clintons Chief of Staff. Neither were the lowliest secretaries.

Key Staffers are the purview of the Secretaries. Period. And if they don't like the nearby civil service drones, they can trade them out in most cases. Been that way since Washington.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: enslaver
Some precedents, an Army General and a CIA director, like Hillary(ABOVE THE LAW), you had better believe that if a lowly secretary had done the same thing with the same material she`d be locked away now.

Other SoS's used private email servers, too. I don't recall if Condoleeza Rice did, but Colin Powell did.
It's not the use of a private email server that is the problem. She's allowed to do that. It's the use of the private server for classified documents that's the problem.
It's been shown that there were (maybe still are, who knows?) emails with classified materials stored on her private server, that weren't classified at the time. While the use of that server may not have been the wisest move, documents that were classified after being on her server are not evidence of any wrongdoing.
There are still questions remaining about other emails and classified materials. Those questions need to be sorted out, and I don't think it's looking good for Hillary on that front. I believe, at the very least, she's proven herself to be a liar, and perjured herself.

No, thats really not correct Desi. While other SoS have occassionally sent emails using private email, Clinton is the first one to exclusively use non state department resources.
And while other people used private email - they used established email providers that were responsive to subpoena requests. Clinton was the only person who set up her own server (originally at the clinton foundation). The company was answerable solely to her.
This entire hoopla about classified after the fact is hogwash, and you should know better.
First. The evidence is that her aides removed the classifications and copy and pasted the emails from a secure system to her insecure system.
Second. The law doesn't care if secret material is marked such or not. The recipient of secret information is expected to gauge information and treat it appropriately. Comments from foreign officials are born secret. Material concerning methods and procedures are known to be the highest level of secrecy. And are expected to be treated as such marked or not. Top secret material doesn't stop being top secret because you remove the markings.
Which is what she and her aides did.
Third - the man in charge of classification - Patrick Kennedy is a longterm Clinton fixer. As such the classification system was under Clintons direct control.
Finally, the Clinton's email system was designed to hamstring the FOIA - which requires transparency in government. Multiple requests were made on the state department, which stonewalled them for more than 3 years. The clinton state department did so knowingly and willingly. And that is illegal.

1. If there is proof that her aides did what you describe, and there is proof that Clinton "ordered" it, then she should be found guilty, no? "Circumstantial evidence"is still, technically, "evidence," and that doesn't always prove wrongdoing.
2. Colin Powell has griped about the after-the-fact classifying. Is it not possible, in your opinion, for something to not start out as classified, but then, through some event (or series of events) changes classification? Again, I'm not saying Clinton did no wrong, and I certainly do not have all the information or evidence that the FBI has. Can they prove that Clinton acted illegally regarding classified materials? If so, she should be found guilty, right?
3. Wouldn't you get an ally to help out? That this guy is tied to Clinton isn't proof of wrongdoing.
4. If she and the State Department acted illegally regarding FOIA requests, shouldn't they be found guilty?

I think some of you are missing my point. I do believe Hillary is a liar, has lied, has perjured herself, and will be found guilty on many, many counts. I have no control over the investigations, nor do I have access to the FBI's evidence, so any of my assertions are not proven but merely allegations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

They have admitted inveetigation (I love the shit out of that) since the get go. No finally to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
1. If there is proof that her aides did what you describe, and there is proof that Clinton "ordered" it, then she should be found guilty, no? "Circumstantial evidence"is still, technically, "evidence," and that doesn't always prove wrongdoing.
2. Colin Powell has griped about the after-the-fact classifying. Is it not possible, in your opinion, for something to not start out as classified, but then, through some event (or series of events) changes classification? Again, I'm not saying Clinton did no wrong, and I certainly do not have all the information or evidence that the FBI has. Can they prove that Clinton acted illegally regarding classified materials? If so, she should be found guilty, right?
3. Wouldn't you get an ally to help out? That this guy is tied to Clinton isn't proof of wrongdoing.
4. If she and the State Department acted illegally regarding FOIA requests, shouldn't they be found guilty?
I think some of you are missing my point. I do believe Hillary is a liar, has lied, has perjured herself, and will be found guilty on many, many counts. I have no control over the investigations, nor do I have access to the FBI's evidence, so any of my assertions are not proven but merely allegations.

No. There is no necessary correlation between her committing wrongdoing and being found guilty. Her party controls the DOJ; considering the number of times the Clintons have broken the law without significant prosecution (Vince Foster case, for example), I would have to say past history does not support your contention.

quote:

2. Colin Powell griped about after the fact classifying, thats true. But that entire story line was just a Patrick Kennedy plant defending clinton.
Kennedy classified a handleful of Powell (and other) emails. The story was leaked to the press.
Clinton got to denounce classifying her emails retroactively.
Powell was asked to comment on his emails - he said there's nothing in these emails to be classified.
The whole storyline was contrived to make it look
a). As if overclassification is routine.
b). These documents have no real significance.
c). It happens to other SoS too.
Its entirely political spin.

quote:

3. The question isn't whether you would get an ally to help out. The question is - these people swore an oath to uphold the constitution; to obey the law. And no matter how many times you say "wouldn't you get an ally to help out" the truth of the matter is - the obstructed the law for Mrs. Clinton's gain. Yes, I have a problem with that.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire
All I see here is whiny little idiots lacking the capacity too start their own threads as they do not wish to put themselves up there ( I do but it is not solely my jobbie and I like when I am shot down in muffin flames) - merely to offer their wee whiny bitch point of view.
Hilary email "scandal" no one gives a fuk...what the fuk is wrong with you lot.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I remember GW Bushs administration, and several before it. Key Staffers, interestingly enough are the purview of the Secretary, its like they dont have to take the civil service drones left over from nutsucker administrations.

So....................thats pretty much a wtf nutsuckerim.

Really? Please quote me an example of the Bushie administrations placing political appointees amidst positions that are usually civil service placements. Because I'm not aware of any..

Key staffers are not civil service placements. Colin Powell brought his personal Chief of Staff from Army days as his chief of staff Secretary days.

I dont know where to go with something that is that nutsuckerish. Bushes Chief of Staff was not Clintons Chief of Staff. Neither were the lowliest secretaries.

Key Staffers are the purview of the Secretaries. Period. And if they don't like the nearby civil service drones, they can trade them out in most cases. Been that way since Washington.

By which you are admitting you've never heard of a bushie placing a political appointee in a civil service appointment. The definitive list of political appointee positions is the plum book. If you look that up, you will see that State Department IT staff are not political appointees.

And so, yes indeed, clinton put her own political ops in civil service positions, something the bushies did not do. And the simple fact was she did this to keep her email out of the state department archives and to remove the possibility of it being FOIA'd or subpoena'd. Her email, which should be the property of the US government - were in her possession and control. And she did that deliberately, flouting US laws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Mnotter,

You seem to miss the point. The plum book lists all political appointments. Clinton made a political appointment into the civil service. Ie., the position wouldn't be listed now would it.

Let me quote Reuters for you:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0WR00X

Wisecarver and Swart, who had worked in the department for decades, were soon swapping emails expressing confusion and surprise that a political appointee, a so-called Schedule C employee who is more commonly hired to work in the secretary of state's offices, should be joining the IT department's ranks.

Schedule C employees, who help presidential appointees and agency heads make policy, can only report to people appointed by the U.S. president or other senior executive officials. But no one like that worked in the IT office, so Kennedy ended up being Pagliano's designated supervisor.

So. Once again, the facts are as I stated. Clinton appointed a political appointee into the civil service. And she did so to sheild herself from any oversight or scrutiny.

Her actions were illegal, and immoral. Its funny that you continually defend such an illegal, immoral person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Mnotter,

You seem to miss the point. The plum book lists all political appointments. Clinton made a political appointment into the civil service. Ie., the position wouldn't be listed now would it.

Let me quote Reuters for you:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0WR00X

Wisecarver and Swart, who had worked in the department for decades, were soon swapping emails expressing confusion and surprise that a political appointee, a so-called Schedule C employee who is more commonly hired to work in the secretary of state's offices, should be joining the IT department's ranks.

Schedule C employees, who help presidential appointees and agency heads make policy, can only report to people appointed by the U.S. president or other senior executive officials. But no one like that worked in the IT office, so Kennedy ended up being Pagliano's designated supervisor.

So. Once again, the facts are as I stated. Clinton appointed a political appointee into the civil service. And she did so to sheild herself from any oversight or scrutiny.

Her actions were illegal, and immoral. Its funny that you continually defend such an illegal, immoral person.

Classified Data Found in Personal Email of Colin Powell and Aides to Condoleezza Rice. HERE

Powell noted that point in a statement on Thursday.
"The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."
"I have reviewed the messages and I do not see what makes them classified," Powell said.

HERE

Georgia Godfrey, Rice's chief of staff at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, said Rice did not use email while at the State Department, and that the 10 emails to her staff were reports on "diplomatic conversations."

Government regulations require that information shared in confidence by foreign government officials should be treated as classified.

HERE

Looks like several people had the same 'bad judgment' HRC had. My OP was about how the laws work. So if we see HRC indicted, then we should see a few other likewise indicted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

They have admitted inveetigation (I love the shit out of that) since the get go. No finally to it.

No but they finally have published its a criminal investigation.
And it is rather interesting that all of Clinton's aides have now retained legal counsel, as of course, has Mrs. Clinton.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Mnotter,

You seem to miss the point. The plum book lists all political appointments. Clinton made a political appointment into the civil service. Ie., the position wouldn't be listed now would it.

Let me quote Reuters for you:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0WR00X

Wisecarver and Swart, who had worked in the department for decades, were soon swapping emails expressing confusion and surprise that a political appointee, a so-called Schedule C employee who is more commonly hired to work in the secretary of state's offices, should be joining the IT department's ranks.

Schedule C employees, who help presidential appointees and agency heads make policy, can only report to people appointed by the U.S. president or other senior executive officials. But no one like that worked in the IT office, so Kennedy ended up being Pagliano's designated supervisor.

So. Once again, the facts are as I stated. Clinton appointed a political appointee into the civil service. And she did so to sheild herself from any oversight or scrutiny.

Her actions were illegal, and immoral. Its funny that you continually defend such an illegal, immoral person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Mnotter,

You seem to miss the point. The plum book lists all political appointments. Clinton made a political appointment into the civil service. Ie., the position wouldn't be listed now would it.

Let me quote Reuters for you:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0WR00X

Wisecarver and Swart, who had worked in the department for decades, were soon swapping emails expressing confusion and surprise that a political appointee, a so-called Schedule C employee who is more commonly hired to work in the secretary of state's offices, should be joining the IT department's ranks.

Schedule C employees, who help presidential appointees and agency heads make policy, can only report to people appointed by the U.S. president or other senior executive officials. But no one like that worked in the IT office, so Kennedy ended up being Pagliano's designated supervisor.

So. Once again, the facts are as I stated. Clinton appointed a political appointee into the civil service. And she did so to sheild herself from any oversight or scrutiny.

Her actions were illegal, and immoral. Its funny that you continually defend such an illegal, immoral person.

Classified Data Found in Personal Email of Colin Powell and Aides to Condoleezza Rice. HERE

Powell noted that point in a statement on Thursday.
"The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."
"I have reviewed the messages and I do not see what makes them classified," Powell said.

HERE

Georgia Godfrey, Rice's chief of staff at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, said Rice did not use email while at the State Department, and that the 10 emails to her staff were reports on "diplomatic conversations."

Government regulations require that information shared in confidence by foreign government officials should be treated as classified.

HERE

Looks like several people had the same 'bad judgment' HRC had. My OP was about how the laws work. So if we see HRC indicted, then we should see a few other likewise indicted.

Mr Rodgers,

I've already covered this exact subject.

1. The question isn't whether powell or rice used email. No other SoS specifically set up a private email server to skirt scrutiny.
2. No other SoS had staff remove security markings and transfer emails from a secure system to an insecure system.
3. No other SoS had give top secret material to people not cleared for such information. Notably Bryan Paglianu, the icloud backup service, her lawyer, to name a few. Each transgression is punishable by a year - 2250 or so emails, multiplied by at least 10 people not authorized to access such information is more than 22,000 violations. Ie grossly negligent.
4. Regarding Powell's email - clintons buddy Pat Kennedy, who is responsible for classification, classified those emails 12 years after they were sent. The entire purpose of this was to give people like you the opportunity to say - see, she's not so bad. Other people did it too. The entire operation is political spin.
5. No other state department has stonewalled on FOIA requests - three years; no other has operated (iirc) without an IG appointed.

quote:


So. Once again, the facts are as I stated. Clinton appointed a political appointee into the civil service. And she did so to sheild herself from any oversight or scrutiny.