Favor factory? Huma emails ...

[dvdjs]

Why would she use bleachbit for wedding and yoga emails?

She used bleachbit? Do tell.

 

[josie_L]

She used bleachbit? Do tell.

I think this is what she means:

The 12 juiciest bits from the FBI’s Clinton report

1. The ‘oh shit’ moment

After Clinton’s staff members completed their response to the State Department for her email records in December 2014, Clinton said she told staff that she did not need them anymore.

“In or around this same timeframe the retention policy for her email was changed as part of her move to a new personal office account,” the FBI stated in notes from Clinton’s interview.

Former chief of staff Cheryl Mills said that Clinton in December 2014 decided she did not need access to any of her emails older than 60 days. But, according to a redacted source, another redacted entity did not modify the retention policy on Clinton’s clintonemail.com account until March 2015.

“In his interviews with the FBI, [redacted] indicated that sometime between March 25-31, 2015, he realized” that he did not make the changes requested by Mills the previous December, and in a Feb. 18, 2016, interview with the FBI, [redacted] indicated that he did not “recall conducting deletions based upon this realization.”

Speaking to the FBI on May 3, 2016, “[redacted] indicated he believed he had an ‘oh shit’ moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton’s e-mails.”

politico.com/story/2016/09/best-of-clinton-fbi-report-227692

 

[7_Sorrows]

I think this is what she means:

yep!

 

[dvdjs]

I think this is what she means:

Meant. Good one.
I am glad that you can tranlate form what 7 says to what she meant. The gulf is often so wide. In this case it was as a distinct as a he, not a she who used bleachbit.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

That is really ignoring the elephant in the room.

Tongue was firmly planted in cheek.

Meant. Good one.
I am glad that you can tranlate form what 7 says to what she meant. The gulf is often so wide. In this case it was as a distinct as a he, not a she who used bleachbit.

Yes, and Nixon never broke into the Watergate, either.

 

[josie_L]

Meant. Good one.
I am glad that you can tranlate form what 7 says to what she meant. The gulf is often so wide. In this case it was as a distinct as a he, not a she who used bleachbit.

Ok, so she said “she” instead of “he”, the point is that he could not have bleach bit her files/emails/server without her express authorization.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Ok, so she said “she” instead of “he”, the point is that he could not have bleach bit her files/emails/server without her express authorization.

Yes, thank you! Or at least without her knowledge.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Tongue was firmly planted in cheek.

Yes, and Nixon never broke into the Watergate, either.

No Nixon was not there.

 

[Sojourner003]

No Nixon was not there.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Read “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer.

600+ footnotes [ENDNOTES]

Schweizer has written a bunch of excellent books.

[If you look on Amazon, they will list the rest of his books.]

[And also list similar books by others.]

 

[dvdjs]

Ok, so she said “she” instead of “he”, the point is that he could not have bleach bit her files/emails/server without her express authorization.

I am glad for the progress on posting truthfully. Still, he was contracted and instructed to do certain tasks. I very much doubt that he was micromanaged on the technical details, if that is what you mean by “express”.

 

[dvdjs]

No Nixon was not there.

In fact, was it ever determined that the break-in had his “express authization”?

 

[josie_L]

Read “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer.

600+ footnotes [ENDNOTES]

Schweizer has written a bunch of excellent books.

[If you look on Amazon, they will list the rest of his books.]

[And also list similar books by others.]

I plan to read it. Thank you.

 

[josie_L]

I am glad for the progress on posting truthfully. Still, he was contracted and instructed to do certain tasks. I very much doubt that he was micromanaged on the technical details, if that is what you mean by “express”.

They were hers, of course, he was given authorization, by her, to do this. And who smashes phones with hammers, if that wasn’t also expressly authorized by her too. Those phones were government property.

Give me a break dvdjs, you’re COVERING FOR THIS WOMAN is unhelpful at this point, we all KNOW she destroyed evidence. And yes, I SAID “she”.

 

[dvdjs]

They were hers, of course, he was given authorization, by her, to do this. And who smashes phones with hammers, if that wasn’t also expressly authorized by her too. Those phones were government property.

Give me a break dvdjs, you’re COVERING FOR THIS WOMAN is unhelpful at this point, we all KNOW she destroyed evidence. And yes, I SAID “she”.

Ahhh no longer express authoization, but authorization. This matter has been investigated.

The results may not be to your satisfaction, given your own limited view of the evidence and the law. But charges have not been filed. That fact should inform a better sense of what “we all know”. Pehaps you should consider moving on.

 

[dvdjs]

And yes, I SAID “she”.

Thanks, this is illuminating.

I can better understand the tin foil hat brigade that thinks that “Killery” killed Vince Foster. She means he, express authorization means worked for, crimes that we all know means no criminal charges. Got it.

 

[Theo520]

Thanks, this is illuminating.

I can better understand the tin foil hat brigade that thinks that “Killery” killed Vince Foster. She means he, express authorization means worked for, crimes that we all know means no criminal charges. Got it.

Please stop trying to delfect the discussion (introducing Vince shows severe desperation).

So what you are saying is that the person in charge shouldn’t held accountable for what their immediate subordinates do, unless you can find the paper trail of explicit instructions.

I think whom you hire and what they accomplish is a direct reflection on the manager.
The ‘ethical’ actions of her team reflect directly upon Hillary, it’s why I’m glad she didn’t win.
I will always remain amazed and why the DNC ever supported her as a POTUS candidate.

 

[josie_L]

Ahhh no longer express authoization, but authorization. This matter has been investigated.

If I use the word authorization I essentially mean with her permission and/or approval, the fact of the matter is she had to have had some say/stance regarding the destruction of those phones, do you really think that those aides did it independently and without her approval?

You are grasping at straws, and trying to impugn my honor because you have nothing left to defend her with except my “misuse” of the word “authority”.

Moreover, I am not a lawyer trying to win a case, I am person with the GOD-GIVEN faculties to realize that people don’t destroy government property without there being a reason to and/or without the express permission/authority/approval from the people whom they work for, especially since such actions cannot be undertaken independently.

The results may not be to your satisfaction, given your own limited view of the evidence and the law. But charges have not been filed. That fact should inform a better sense of what “we all know”. Pehaps you should consider moving on.

The matter was not investigated, it was prevented from being thoroughly investigated by the likes of LYNCH and COMEY and OBAMA. And, by the way, here’s a nice juicy tidbit that was just discovered from a FOIA request regarding the LYNCH/BILL CLINTON tarmac meeting:

**Reporters for NYT, WaPo Tried to Spin Lynch/Clinton Tarmac Meeting
**

It’s been just a little over a year since the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch - the one in which they merely discussed grandchildren. Shortly after the meeting, the American Center for Law and Justice submitted a FOIA request to the Comey FBI requesting any documents relating to the meeting but were told that “no documents responsive to your request were found.”

What a difference a year makes.

It turns out that hundreds of pages of documents existed, and they reveal a shocking coordination between the FBI and DOJ to downplay the meeting and the efforts of journalists from the New York Times and the Washington Post to bury the story.

One email between FBI and DOJ officials two days after the meeting flags the story and contained “talkers,” but the talking points themselves were redacted from the emails produced.

**I want to flag a story that is gaining some traction tonight. Daily caller, The Hill and FOX News have picked up a local Phoenix news report about a casual, unscheduled meeting between former president Bill Clinton and the AG. It happened on Monday night. Our talkers on this are below, along with the transcript from the AG’ s Phoenix presser, where she was asked about this. Happy to discuss further by phone. Please let me know if you get any questions about this. Thanks.
**

An email from Matt Zapatosky at the Washington Post asks for a few more details about the meeting because he’s hoping to put the story to rest, but his “editors are still pretty interested in it.” Zapatosky also, according to the ACLJ, made specific edits to his story at the request of DOJ officials to paint Lynch in a more favorable light.

**A New York Times reporter, Mark Landler, emailed a DOJ official seeking information about the meeting because he had been “pressed into service to write about” the meeting.
**

All talking points and discussions of talking points have been redacted from the emails, and ACLJ will be returning to court in an effort to force DOJ to provide the redacted information.

townhall.com/tipsheet/jennifervanlaar/2017/08/06/reporters-for-nyt-wapo-tried-to-spin-lynchclinton-tarmac-meeting-n2364930

 

[dvdjs]

Please stop trying to delfect the discussion (introducing Vince shows severe desperation).

So what you are saying is that the person in charge shouldn’t held accountable for what their immediate subordinates do, unless you can find the paper trail of explicit instructions.

I think whom you hire and what they accomplish is a direct reflection on the manager.
The ‘ethical’ actions of her team reflect directly upon Hillary, it’s why I’m glad she didn’t win.
I will always remain amazed and why the DNC ever supported her as a POTUS candidate.

1. Sadly Vince and Killery come up from time to time ffrom forum regulars.
2. What etics violations or criminal charges have been filed against these subordinates?
3. One could take your words to me and that Trump is responsible for what his team did. And that one could say Trump rather than Trump subordinates when speaking of, for example, collusion. You might like to know that that substitution has been objected to more than once on this forum

 

[rock022]

Ahhh no longer express authoization, but authorization. This matter has been investigated.

The results may not be to your satisfaction, given your own limited view of the evidence and the law. But charges have not been filed. That fact should inform a better sense of what “we all know”. Pehaps you should consider moving on.

I agree with your statement DVD. Lets turn the tables around a little. Imagine Jeff Sessions investigated President Trump and found him not guilty of any wrong doing. Would that satisfy people?