Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release

[otjm]

I meant our conversation is a tempest in a teapot since we have not seen the emails in question and are powerless to take any action other than not voting for Clinton, which few of us were going to do anyway. We don’t even have any proof that they involve national security other than taking some anonymous person’s word for it, and I’m not going to do that.

During Clinton’s tenure as SoS, she was allowed to use a private server and did not have to make a copy of what she sent through that server.

As I said, time will tell. It’s my bet that nothing comes of it, though nothing at all, either way, would not really surprise me. The government will do what it feels pressured to do, not what is right.

I understand that someone who has not dealt with security clearances and their various levels, and has not dealt with classified matters may have no understanding of that world.

Sadly, even when it is explained, intelligent, educated people will still not get it, in part because they see no connection to their world of endeavors, they have no real interest in the subject, and they believe that it all amounts to not much more than a political tempest in a tea pot. Which is to say nothing about those who are less educated, or less intelligent.

And when the agency which is the watchdog for determining the level of secrecy a document has or should have is castigated as not worthy of belief, apparently for the reason that no one has named the individuals involved, it shows an even more profound lack of understanding of anything having to do with national security.

More to the point, however, is that the information in this thread has shown that no one, in any way, shape or form gave Hilary “permission” to run her own email system outside the standard protocols, which anyone in her position would (not should, but would) know. And the Freedom Of Information Act makes any communication from or to her subject to retrieval, a point that her system makes impossible.

And the entirely dismissive attitude toward the FBI is astounding; not to mention that the court system is part of government, and apparently also subject to a flippant comment that government will do what it wants, not what is right. There are a number of people throughout the US who have no love for the FBI, and they can be overbearing; but they do their part to enforce the laws on the books. One might be slightly inclined to think that is doing what is right.

 

[Crossbones]

And I am to assume that liberal pundits are cleaner than Caesar’s wife? Their personal sins are not the deciding issue in what I said - my point was that if a pundit finds their source unreliable, that source will find the phone not ringing, the luncheon appointments not made… There are a multitude of sources for a multitude of issues.

The pundit may be embarrassed by a source who gets “creative”; that source will become a non source.

Whether a pundit survives in the dog fight of the national spotlight due to moral issues is totally unrelated.

I see. I thought you were saying that if a pundit used unreliable sources, he wouldn’t survive. Yes, I suppose that being an unreliable source for someone like Sean Hannity would mean that he wouldn’t be calling you later, which I suppose would be a reward in itself.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Since Hillary is running for President, I think it is relevant to discuss the issue before the verdict is given. It bears on her fitness for the job.

You can’t find a source that confirms she was allowed to use a private server for all her Govt communication nor not keep official copies -** it’s complete rubbish to claim such**

Yea, Chelsea shouldn’t be campaigning for her mom if she won’t have anything to do with the press, even if they are 9yrs old.

Sure I can.

Use of a personal email address wasn’t prohibited, and Obama didn’t sign into law the mandate that all emails sent through a personal server had to be copied until AFTER Clinton left office. The problem is that she used the personal server exclusively:

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

"There was not an explicit, categorical prohibition against federal employees using personal emails when Clinton was in office, said Daniel Metcalfe, former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, where he administered implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. High-level officials like Clinton need the flexibility to sometimes use a personal email, such as responding to a national security emergency in the middle of the night.

“So it seems she didn’t break a rule simply by using a personal email to conduct business. Rather, by using personal emails exclusively, she skirted the rules governing federal records management, Cox said.”

Using her personal email was never the problem. Prudence would say they should have been copied, and there is a law in place now to ensure they are, but that law was not in place until after Clinton left office.

There are other sources out there as well.

 

[Theo520]

Sure I can.

Use of a personal email address wasn’t prohibited, and Obama didn’t sign into law the mandate that all emails sent through a personal server had to be copied until AFTER Clinton left office. The problem is that she used the personal server exclusively:

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

"There was not an explicit, categorical prohibition against federal employees using personal emails when Clinton was in office, said Daniel Metcalfe, former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, where he administered implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. High-level officials like Clinton need the flexibility to sometimes use a personal email, such as responding to a national security emergency in the middle of the night.

“So it seems she didn’t break a rule simply by using a personal email to conduct business. Rather, by using personal emails exclusively, she skirted the rules governing federal records management, Cox said.”

Using her personal email was never the problem. Prudence would say they should have been copied, and there is a law in place now to ensure they are, but that law was not in place until after Clinton left office.

There are other sources out there as well.

Lilly, with you it goes in one ear and out the other. You’ve been shown time and time again that what Hillary did was far removed from occasionally using private email.

It is explicitly forbidden to use private email exclusively for business communication, as Hillary did…

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Lilly, with you it goes in one ear and out the other. You’ve been shown time and time again that what Hillary did was far removed from occasionally using private email.

It is explicitly forbidden to use private email exclusively for business communication, as Hillary did…

I didn’t say she used it from time-to-time. I said she used it ALL the time. Tens of thousands of emails. But Daniel Metcalfe said there was no prohibition against using private email.

I can see you have a problem with her using it ALL the time, but the law in that area was very murky at the time Clinton was SoS. That’s the problem, the law was not clear cut.

You don’t seem to understand that I’m NOT defending her and don’t particularly like her and am NOT going to vote for her. I just think the law had too many gray areas at that time for her to be charged with anything. They aren’t going to recommend any charges if they don’t think the DoJ can make them stick, or even act on them. I’m trying to live in real life here, not fantasy land. I certainly don’t want her as the next president, but I think that’s going to happen. I don’t want it to, but it seems it will.

I see what you mean, though. She was using her private email exclusively. Personally, I think she was just lazy, not hiding anything. Well, I’m not politically astute, you know that. Maybe I just find Bill Clinton a little too friendly to want to believe bad things about him. But then he didn’t do it. I wouldn’t be sorry to see Clinton forced out of the run for president, but I don’t see that happening.

She’s way too tied to corporate money for me. That bothers me more than the emails.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Lilly, with you it goes in one ear and out the other. You’ve been shown time and time again that what Hillary did was far removed from occasionally using private email.

It is explicitly forbidden to use private email exclusively for business communication, as Hillary did…

Can you show me a credible source (not Fox) that says it’s expressly forbidden to use private email? At the time Clinton was SoS? Then I will say, “Yes, she did the wrong thing,” because even she admits to using private email all the time.

Thank you.

 

[Horton]

I guess Hillary was aware she was responsible for ‘unmarked classified information’

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZ-6H5LUkAA6fEm.jpg

And as Theo520 posted earlier in this thread she clearly signed a document saying she knew. She also took an oath stating she would uphold the law.

 

[zz912]

The fact that Hillary kept an unauthorized server in her home and used that server to receive, send, and forward emails pertaining to the business of the State Department in and of itself is a crime. She has admitted she has done this, there is no ambiguity here. She just feels she shouldn’t be held responsible for her behavior, that somehow she should get a pass. Unfortunately for us, there are so many in this country who have lost their compass and agree with her and actually support her for president.

Bingo.

 

[grotto]

Can you show me a credible source (not Fox) that says it’s expressly forbidden to use private email? At the time Clinton was SoS? Then I will say, “Yes, she did the wrong thing,” because even she admits to using private email all the time.
Thank you.

---

A credible source can be found and reviewed by Google: Security regulations handling and storage of classified material. Good start to being informed.

 

[Theo520]

Can you show me a credible source (not Fox) that says it’s expressly forbidden to use private email? At the time Clinton was SoS? Then I will say, “Yes, she did the wrong thing,” because even she admits to using private email all the time.

Thank you.

What’s wrong with the source I gave you in post #125?
It was an article in POLITICO by the guy who ran FOIA for several decades, and he’s a Dem.
politico.com/magazine/sto…#ixzz3z3dUO4gE

Please explain why Dan’s walk through of this issue is not credible?
His background confirms expertise and it’s a left leaning publication.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

---

A credible source can be found and reviewed by Google: Security regulations handling and storage of classified material. Good start to being informed.

People on this thread agreed they would not post information without a link to a credible source.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

What’s wrong with the source I gave you in post #125?
It was an article in POLITICO by the guy who ran FOIA for several decades, and he’s a Dem.
politico.com/magazine/sto…#ixzz3z3dUO4gE

Please explain why Dan’s walk through of this issue is not credible?
His background confirms expertise and it’s a left leaning publication.

There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s just so far back I couldn’t find it.

The article says:

“First, while it is accurate for Secretary Clinton to say that when she was in office there was not a flat, categorical prohibition on federal government officials ever using their personal email accounts for the conduct of official business, that’s a far different thing from saying (as she apparently would like to) that a government official could use his or her personal email account exclusively, for all official email communications, as she actually did. In fact, the Federal Records Act dictates otherwise.”

So I don’t think the fault was having and keeping a private server, or even using it, but using it for ALL correspondence if indeed she did.

 

[Horton]

What’s wrong with the source I gave you in post #125?
It was an article in POLITICO by the guy who ran FOIA for several decades, and he’s a Dem.
politico.com/magazine/sto…#ixzz3z3dUO4gE

Please explain why Dan’s walk through of this issue is not credible?
His background confirms expertise and it’s a left leaning publication.

This article puts in plain & clear language what Hillary did and why it was wrong. How anyone can argue differently is something I just can’t understand. This woman has been in some sort of scandal all of her public life and yet she is a candidate for president.:banghead::bigyikes:

 

[sps49]

This article puts in plain & clear language what Hillary did and why it was wrong. How anyone can argue differently is something I just can’t understand. This woman has been in some sort of scandal all of her public life and yet she is a candidate for president.:banghead::bigyikes:

There really is no mystery here, nor do you need particularly good web-sleuthing skills to get to the bottom of it. This is a result of a seriously incompetent application and comprehension of the Counterintelligence (CI) briefings that all federal government employees and their contractors must have annually, and that is the charitable view. It will need further examination to see if it was ordinary bungling incompetence, or an act that was designed to circumvent regulations for personal reasons or gain. In either case, I suspect that a position in public office, or rather the highest seat of office, is not merited or recommended.

 

[stinkcat_14]

FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server

msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-hillary-clintons-email-server

 

[Theo520]

FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server

msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-hillary-clintons-email-server

Dang, it’s confirmed by MSNBC,
another excuse bites the dust.

 

[Horton]

Dang, it’s confirmed by MSNBC,
another excuse bites the dust.

 

[mary_bobo]

Dang, it’s confirmed by MSNBC,
another excuse bites the dust.

I think they are an unreliable source.

 

[Theo520]

I think they are an unreliable source.

YIKES, Fox confirmed it too!
It must be a much broader media conspiracy against her

 

[GaryTaylor]

thepoliticalinsider.com/the-fbi-just-gave-hillary-the-worst-news-of-her-campaign/

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) just made a huge announcement about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton… and it’s bad news for her presidential campaign!

The FBI is now officially expanding their investigations into Hillary’s illegal use of a home email server to transmit classified intelligence. Expanding beyond breaking laws against “gross negligence” with national defense information, she is now being investigated for violating a federal law due to providing “materially false” information. The law is U.S. Code 18, Section 1001.

Violations, which included pressuring a 3rd party to conspire in a cover-up, each come with a 5-year prison sentence!

msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-hillary-clintons-email-server

Now, in a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

newsmax.com/Newsfront/Top-Republicans-Pressure-Loretta-Lynch-Clinton-Email/2016/02/08/id/713316/

Top Republicans are reportedly ramping up pressure for a special prosecutor to evaluate the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, questioning whether Attorney General Loretta Lynch can be a neutral arbiter.