Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release

[Lily_Bernans]

I find it illuminating that you are using a slanted and biased piece from September to justify your beliefs about what Hillary actually did.

What was known then and what is known now is vastly different. Why don’t you find a more up-to-date biased piece to defend her?

And it’s laughable that you consider CNN somewhat in the middle. CNN is at least as biased as Fox, probably moreso.

I’m not trying to justify what she did. I don’t know what she did. None of us really knows the whole story. It’s not been made available to us. I think all guilty people should be prosecuted, but I’m not willing to condemn someone until I have all the facts, which with Clinton may be never.

Please give me an example of how CNN is biased. I find they report both sides of the issues, whereas Fox will jump on anything that is anti-Democrat. For me, Fox’s graphics even look like something from a tabloid. Doesn’t matter. Viewers are free to watch whatever station they feel is best.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Exactly.

For the benefit of those who may not be tech-savvy, she didn’t set up a personal email account and accidently use it a couple of times when she meant to use her govt email account.

Hillary Clinton intentionally and secretively called up a non-approved mom-and-pop IT company to set up an unsecured email server in her home. She hired an unqualified and untrained person, who held no security access, to maintain and monitor this server.

She did all of this intentionally to avoid FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests for her emails. She didn’t do this for convenience. And she repeatedly rebuffed requests from people below her to move to a govt email so that security could be maintained.

I think she did it for her own convenience, and the law at the time did not require her to keep a copy of emails sent. It requires that now, but didn’t when Clinton was Secretary of State.

Bill already had the server before Hillary became Secretary of State.

businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-on-her-private-email-server-i-had-little-to-do-with-it-2015-9

“It was already there,” she said of the server. “It had been there for years. It is the system that my husband’s personal office used when he got out of the White House. And so it was sitting there in the basement. It was not any trouble at all.”

Clinton’s unusual email system was originally set up by a staffer during Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, replacing a server used by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Clinton is not the subject of a criminal investigation, and it remains unknown how much classified information was consciously shared over the server.

So far, investigators have not found any emails in Clinton’s server that were marked “classified” at the time they were sent or received. But some of the information Clinton shared with colleagues may have been inherently classified, Reuters reported, even if it was not marked as such."

It wasn’t set up for the purpose of sending clandestine emails as Secretary of State because she wasn’t Secretary of State then. It was there for convenience.

The person who owns the house where I live is a tech genius, with the money to show it, and has a server here. I’m using it now.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I guess bias didn’t have anything to do with cutting away early from the Clinton-Benghazi hearings. Or is that an opinion program?

I watched them on CNN and saw them to the end.

 

[zz912]

I think she did it for her own convenience, and the law at the time did not require her to keep a copy of emails sent. It requires that now, but didn’t when Clinton was Secretary of State.

Bill already had the server before Hillary became Secretary of State.

businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-on-her-private-email-server-i-had-little-to-do-with-it-2015-9

“It was already there,” she said of the server. “It had been there for years. It is the system that my husband’s personal office used when he got out of the White House. And so it was sitting there in the basement. It was not any trouble at all.”

Clinton’s unusual email system was originally set up by a staffer during Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, replacing a server used by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Clinton is not the subject of a criminal investigation, and it remains unknown how much classified information was consciously shared over the server.

So far, investigators have not found any emails in Clinton’s server that were marked “classified” at the time they were sent or received. But some of the information Clinton shared with colleagues may have been inherently classified, Reuters reported, even if it was not marked as such."

It wasn’t set up for the purpose of sending clandestine emails as Secretary of State because she wasn’t Secretary of State then. It was there for convenience.

The person who owns the house where I live is a tech genius, with the money to show it, and has a server here. I’m using it now.

1. Running an email server is not more convenient than using a govt email account. This excuse is laughable.
2. Why do you keep using articles from several months ago? Can’t find any recent ones that back up the narrative that Clinton has spun?
3. She specifically used a mom-and-pop hosting company out of Colorado because they had ties to a political ally, and would keep it quiet. This mom-and-pop stored their server in the spare bathroom in their condo. That’s how tiny and unsophisticated this trainwreck was.
4. Yes, this is a criminal investigation. The FBI doesn’t do investigations for best-practices seminars.
5. Yes, we do know that ABOVE Top Secret intel was on her server. Something you should know about this type of intel, it is BORN classified. That means it needs no markings, and is ALWAYS classified. This is something that everyone with a security clearance is well aware of.
6. Stop relying on old articles and get up to speed. Your claims have been proven wrong.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

1. Running an email server is not more convenient than using a govt email account. This excuse is laughable.
2. Why do you keep using articles from several months ago? Can’t find any recent ones that back up the narrative that Clinton has spun?
3. She specifically used a mom-and-pop hosting company out of Colorado because they had ties to a political ally, and would keep it quiet. This mom-and-pop stored their server in the spare bathroom in their condo. That’s how tiny and unsophisticated this trainwreck was.
4. Yes, this is a criminal investigation. The FBI doesn’t do investigations for best-practices seminars.
5. Yes, we do know that ABOVE Top Secret intel was on her server. Something you should know about this type of intel, it is BORN classified. That means it needs no markings, and is ALWAYS classified. This is something that everyone with a security clearance is well aware of.
6. Stop relying on old articles and get up to speed. Your claims have been proven wrong.

Thanks for your response, but I prefer to rely on the article. That is information that doesn’t change with the date. I posted it to show the server was set up prior to her becoming Secretary of State.

Well, can’t get much more current than this article, and it seems Clinton is more innocent than guilty:

nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-emails-held-indirect-references-undercover-cia-officers-n510741

Kind of ironic, funny, and sad, all at the same time:

“What makes Clinton’s case different is her use of a home server to transmit emails about government business. The issue has continued to be a factor in her front-running campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. However, given that the State Department’s email system has been penetrated by hackers linked to Russian intelligence, it’s far from clear whether the material would have been any more secure had Clinton used State’s unclassified email system.”

 

[zz912]

I’m not trying to justify what she did. I don’t know what she did. None of us really knows the whole story. It’s not been made available to us. I think all guilty people should be prosecuted, but I’m not willing to condemn someone until I have all the facts, which with Clinton may be never.

Please give me an example of how CNN is biased. I find they report both sides of the issues, whereas Fox will jump on anything that is anti-Democrat. For me, Fox’s graphics even look like something from a tabloid. Doesn’t matter. Viewers are free to watch whatever station they feel is best.

Here’s a 3 minute video

newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2015/10/17/cnns-don-lemon-denies-media-bias-exists-our-tapes-dont-lie

And we do know many facts, you just don’t want to admit them.

1. She set up an unsecured email server.
2. There have been hundreds (if not more) classified pieces of info on them, some with the absolute highest classification possible
3. She tried to delete and wipe the server so the investigation could be stymied
4. She has changed her story several times

 

[qui_est_ce]

I agree with you. I prefer a neutral station that just reports the facts. I think you and I are both old enough to make up our own minds based on facts without spin. Fox gives too much spin.

Bill O’Reilly ALWAYS has opposing views on his program. Juan Williams and Professor Lamont-Hill are just a few examples. He has liberal congressman on his show all the time, defending their POV’s.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Bill O’Reilly ALWAYS has opposing views on his program. Juan Williams and Professor Lamont-Hill are just a few examples. He has liberal congressman on his show all the time, defending their POV’s.

Okay, thanks.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Exactly.

For the benefit of those who may not be tech-savvy, she didn’t set up a personal email account and accidently use it a couple of times when she meant to use her govt email account.

Hillary Clinton intentionally and secretively called up a non-approved mom-and-pop IT company to set up an unsecured email server in her home. She hired an unqualified and untrained person, who held no security access, to maintain and monitor this server.

She did all of this intentionally to avoid FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests for her emails. She didn’t do this for convenience. And she repeatedly rebuffed requests from people below her to move to a govt email so that security could be maintained.

She said she purposely used only one account because it was easier than using two email accounts.

From HillaryClinton.com:

Why did Clinton use her own email account?

When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience. It enabled her to reach people quickly and keep in regular touch with her family and friends more easily given her travel schedule.

That is the only reason she used her own account.

Her usage was widely known to the over 100 State Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, consistent with the practice of prior Secretaries of State and permitted at the time.

As Clinton has said, in hindsight, it would have been better to just have two accounts. While she thought using one account would be easier, obviously, that has not been the case.

Yes, her story keeps changing.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Here’s a 3 minute video

newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2015/10/17/cnns-don-lemon-denies-media-bias-exists-our-tapes-dont-lie

And we do know many facts, you just don’t want to admit them.

1. She set up an unsecured email server.
2. There have been hundreds (if not more) classified pieces of info on them, some with the absolute highest classification possible
3. She tried to delete and wipe the server so the investigation could be stymied
4. She has changed her story several times

We don’t know why she did what she did.

From the article, dated today, that I posted:

“What makes Clinton’s case different is her use of a home server to transmit emails about government business. The issue has continued to be a factor in her front-running campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. However, given that the State Department’s email system has been penetrated by hackers linked to Russian intelligence, it’s far from clear whether the material would have been any more secure had Clinton used State’s unclassified email system.”

Seems the whole thing is “much ado about nothing”:

nbcnews.com/news/us-news/…ficers-n510741

And that’s from an article dated today.

 

[grotto]

Not quoting anyone with an addiction for Hilary, it is apparent that no amount of accurate reporting of information revealing her ineptitude and criminality has an educational impact.

Looking closely at consistent posts that strike and retreat, loaded with selfie praise, then restating another piece of disinformation is Democrat Party policy!

There is nothing gained by giving attention to the promoters of political tactics like taking the high road by demanding Hilary be declared innocent. The wheels of justice were stalled many times but are turning, just like “The Little Engine That Could”! :choocho:

 

[mary_bobo]

I’m not trying to justify what she did. I don’t know what she did. None of us really knows the whole story. It’s not been made available to us. I think all guilty people should be prosecuted, but I’m not willing to condemn someone until I have all the facts, which with Clinton may be never.

Please give me an example of how CNN is biased. I find they report both sides of the issues, whereas Fox will jump on anything that is anti-Democrat. For me, Fox’s graphics even look like something from a tabloid. Doesn’t matter. Viewers are free to watch whatever station they feel is best.

How about how they reported that Ben Carson was dropping out of the race? They did not bother to contact Carson’s team to verify. That was news, not opinion. Give me an example of FOX bias in a news report just so I can see what you mean.

 

[Theo520]

We don’t know why she did what she did.

From the article, dated today, that I posted:

“What makes Clinton’s case different is her use of a home server to transmit emails about government business. The issue has continued to be a factor in her front-running campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. However, given that the State Department’s email system has been penetrated by hackers linked to Russian intelligence, it’s far from clear whether the material would have been any more secure had Clinton used State’s unclassified email system.”

Seems the whole thing is “much ado about nothing”:

nbcnews.com/news/us-news/…ficers-n510741

And that’s from an article dated today.

Lilly, it’s clear you have no background in IT. You don’t just set up a secure email server out of convenience, because you happen to have a spare server/pc in the basement. It takes a significant amount of work.

Again, if you knew IT, you wouldn’t use Tu Quoque as a valid defense of her actions (hackers have penetrated Govt secured servers, so what’s the diff if she set up an insecure server). The fact that even Govt Servers can be hacked is all the more reason to skip a DIY job in the basement. Her server domain was no secret.
**
If she had any motive but hiding her messages **from record keeping, she would have instructed Dept of State IT to set up a separate email server for her team. Most large companies do have separate email servers for their execs, with increased security, redundancy and up-time.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Lilly, it’s clear you have no background in IT. You don’t just set up a secure email server out of convenience, because you happen to have a spare server/pc in the basement. It takes a significant amount of work.

Again, if you knew IT, you wouldn’t use Tu Quoque as a valid defense of her actions (hackers have penetrated Govt secured servers, so what’s the diff if she set up an insecure server). The fact that even Govt Servers can be hacked is all the more reason to skip a DIY job in the basement. Her server domain was no secret.
**
If she had any motive but hiding her messages **from record keeping, she would have instructed Dept of State IT to set up a separate email server for her team. Most large companies do have separate email servers for their execs, with increased security, redundancy and up-time.

No, I know next-to-nothing about IT, that is for sure. I am technologically challenged. Nothing could be more truthful.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

This post seems a touch uncharitable to me. Fox News is not a reliable source IMO. No need to say “Grow up”.

I’d say it was appropriate. Unless you can honestly claim you weren’t trying to cleverly insinuate that Fox News isn’t a new station, in a snarky way. But everyone knows what you did, so just own up and don’t call foul, man. Catholic Answers themselves considers Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC all new legitimate new sources.

While décor and respect are important for all adults, and certainly a Catholic message board, the frequent accusations of uncharitability that pop up remind me of the “Choose Civility” bumper stickers that are all the rage in the mid-atlantic.

As though I’ll be driving along in a surly mood and suddenly I realize, “you know that Honda accord is right!”

I thought Mary’s comment was appropriate.

Exactly.

For the benefit of those who may not be tech-savvy, she didn’t set up a personal email account and accidently use it a couple of times when she meant to use her govt email account.

Hillary Clinton intentionally and secretively called up a non-approved mom-and-pop IT company to set up an unsecured email server in her home. She hired an unqualified and untrained person, who held no security access, to maintain and monitor this server.

She did all of this intentionally to avoid FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests for her emails. She didn’t do this for convenience. And she repeatedly rebuffed requests from people below her to move to a govt email so that security could be maintained.

Which would be bad enough even if there was no classified information contained therein. I think folks forget there are two serious issues here, and neglect this one.

We don’t know why she did what she did.

From the article, dated today, that I posted:

“What makes Clinton’s case different is her use of a home server to transmit emails about government business. The issue has continued to be a factor in her front-running campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. However, given that the State Department’s email system has been penetrated by hackers linked to Russian intelligence, it’s far from clear whether the material would have been any more secure had Clinton used State’s unclassified email system.”

Seems the whole thing is “much ado about nothing”:

nbcnews.com/news/us-news/…ficers-n510741

And that’s from an article dated today.

I’ll be sure and inform the folks I work with that regardless of policy mandates that say otherwise, since government approved servers may be susceptible to a hack (as though any server isn’t…), they are free to go rogue and set up their own.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Exactly.

For the benefit of those who may not be tech-savvy, she didn’t set up a personal email account and accidently use it a couple of times when she meant to use her govt email account.

Hillary Clinton intentionally and secretively called up a non-approved mom-and-pop IT company to set up an unsecured email server in her home. She hired an unqualified and untrained person, who held no security access, to maintain and monitor this server.

She did all of this intentionally to avoid FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests for her emails. She didn’t do this for convenience. And she repeatedly rebuffed requests from people below her to move to a govt email so that security could be maintained.

Which would be bad enough even if there was no classified information contained therein. I think folks forget there are two serious issues here, and neglect this one.

 

[estesbob]

I agree with you. I prefer a neutral station that just reports the facts. I think you and I are both old enough to make up our own minds based on facts without spin. Fox gives too much spin.

And what station do you consider neutral?

 

[qui_est_ce]

And what station do you consider neutral?

It’s interesting to see which stories the news stations choose to air. For instance, on Monday, 1/25, the news media ranted on and on about the difficulties people were facing in the snow storm on the East Coast. How many deaths, etc. Gloom and doom.

Meanwhile, all over FB (where I get the majority of my news) were heartwarming stories of the kids in Pennsylvania celebrating mass in the snow. Kids on the March for life in DC in the snow.

 

[zz912]

I’ll be sure and inform the folks I work with that regardless of policy mandates that say otherwise, since government approved servers may be susceptible to a hack (as though any server isn’t…), they are free to go rogue and set up their own.

Let’s not forget that the REASON the State Dept email system may have been hacked could have been due to Hillary’s unsecure email server. Just such a stupid setup could have given the opening for the Russian hackers to penetrate the firewalls.

 

[otjm]

I agree with you. I prefer a neutral station that just reports the facts. I think you and I are both old enough to make up our own minds based on facts without spin. Fox gives too much spin.

I would dearly love for someone to tell me of any news station that “just reports the facts”. All news agencies are owned by someone or something - that is an individual, or a corporation. And every news station has an editorial staff.

Editorial staffs select what information they choose to report, and what they choose not to report. Simply from a point of information, there are always more facts than can be reported; and many times the facts are simply compounding; that is, they don’t reveal any more information than a selected set of facts.

All editorial boards take direction ultimately from the owner(s), and it would be the height of naivety to think otherwise. Fox News puts no more spin on matters than any other station it happens to put a conservative spin. And it makes no bones about the fact that it is conservative in bent. That does not make it dishonest any more than a liberal station putting a liberal spin on matters.

And all stations selectively report; what they omit often may be more important than what they present. How they present it can also be critical. Not to wander off the reservation, but after the grand jury review of the shooting of Michael Brown, it was reported that in the grand jury proceedings, three young black men had corroborated the policeman’s testimony concerning Michael’s attack on the officer; but it was given scant reporting or none by various news agencies. One could certainly conclude that there was bias in how that fact was reported, or not reported.

They all spin reporting, in part by what they actually choose to report, and in how they phrase what facts they report (and for a very short exampled - the same group may be called “pro life” or "anti- abortion’ or “anti women’s rights” - it just depends on their point of view, but tell me that is not spin). Welcome to reality.