Gowdy: Clinton wiped email server clean, deleted all emails
Source: AP
WASHINGTON (AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton wiped her email server "clean," permanently deleting all emails from it, the Republican chairman of a House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks said Friday.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said the former secretary of state has failed to produce a single new document in recent weeks and has refused to relinquish her server to a third party for an independent review, as Gowdy has requested.
Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, said Gowdy was looking in the wrong place. Instead of asking Clinton for the emails, Gowdy should look to the State Department, which is "uniquely positioned to make available any documents responsive to your requests," Kendall said.
In a six-page letter released late Friday, Kendall said Clinton had turned over to the State Department all work-related emails sent or received during her tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/90be988c962a4beaaa1c8f0595ad2e61/gowdy-clinton-wiped-email-server-clean-deleted-all-emails
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)I'm sure they had really hoped to get the server, and sort of gradually leak any scandalous or potentially hurtful emails out to the news organizations and right wing news outlets.
Normally I would say that failing to turn the server over gives the wrong impression. However truth is no matter what was on it or not on it they would have tried to spin some sinister tale just like they would if it was clean.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)but at those who believe some sort of "victory" was achieved for "our side" when Hillary Clinton alone can decide what's personal and what's business, and then wipe her server clean when it's time to be inspected.
TPP? Haiti? Who needs transparency?
It's not like a precedent hadn't already been set...
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,085 posts)He sure doesn't know much about technology.
Optical.Catalyst
(1,355 posts)The Republicans are on a fishing expedition.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)If Bush had done that what would we be saying?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Why you here defending bush?
Gore1FL
(21,030 posts)Like that poster, I was unhappy with Bush's email being housed on RNC servers. I am unhappy with the way Clinton handled her emails.
I am not sure how the handling of either would be considered reasonable and without question by a casual observer.
That's not defending Bush nor attacking Clinton. It's suggesting transparency and accountability in government should be revered and certainly more powerful than a hard-drive wiping utility.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)should be backed up at the state department. So even if she erased her hard drive, there are still copies of her correspondence at the state department- so transparency is not an issue. If Gowdy and his minions are too lazy to sift through all emails of people HRC had correspondence with at the state department- how is that HRC's problem?
Where is it written that she was supposed to make it easy for him or anyone else for that matter?
Gore1FL
(21,030 posts)I'm an IT guy. That setup was either 1> costly, or 2> insecure.
Who puts a server in their home so they can avoid using their Work email? Why is this better than the Bush admin putting their email on RNC servers? Why is this better than Sarah Palin using Gmail to conduct AK state business?
How did anyone think this was a good idea? It's great there are copies of the email she sent to state dept personnel (who didn't install a data center in their basement.) But what about those sent that were not copied to any of them?
Accountability isn't only for the people we don't agree with. If we don't demand it of people we support, we have no business criticizing Bush, Palin, or anyone else.
Fiendish
(47 posts)Saying "B-b-but Bush did it too!" isn't a response to this issue. Wrong doesn't become right simply because someone else did it first. It was wrong when Bush did it, and it's wrong that Hillary did it, as well.
It rings hollow to claim the moral high ground and then excuse wrongdoing when it's "our" team or person that does it. It is, in fact, hypocrisy.
I can't imagine why Hillary thought this was a good idea. Even if there was nothing sinister or questionable going on in her emails, it still poisons the well and hands the GOP (or a primary challenger, for that matter) a weapon.
But the bottom line is that we can't cry foul when someone else does it, and then turn around and excuse it when one of our own does it. That's just not right.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)"But what about those sent that were not copied to any of them?"
I'm not necessarily a HRC supporter, and I know several IT professionals who have their own mail servers.
BTW, setting up a mail server at your home does not require a raised floor environment. I have several devices at my home and it in no way constitutes a data center. I know this because I have worked in huge data centers with thousands of servers for nearly 30 years.
If HRC has done anything illegal, charge her and get on with it, else quit whining and move on.
Gore1FL
(21,030 posts)It's easy to set up an exchange server. No one is arguing that.
Setting up and maintaining a secured environment with backup, fail-over, storage, to support the Secretary of State of the United States is a little different.
I never said HRC did anything illegal. Neither did Bush or Palin in the incidents I gave as examples. It's a pretty obvious violation of the Administrations policy. It shows horrible judgement.
For that judgement I criticized and criticize the very legal acts of official document mismanagement of all three.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)assigned to her mail server. Why would she need mass storage for one individual? Even a fail over wouldn't require a data center environment.
You claim that it shows horrible judgment, However, it seems to me that it is a very prudent thing to do since it is fairly apparent that it is standard operating procedure for so many government officials. Who, I might add- have suffered no consequences for their horrible judgement.
LuvLoogie
(6,854 posts)on one two-post rack. Your main server with RAID5 and a back up with RAID1. You could have redundant switches, routers and 4 different modems for two different service providers, UPS, PDUs. It's just email.
All the real-time serious shit gets done over the phone anyway.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)And that's the point overlooked.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)The server already existed, it was in a secure location. It was created for Bill's use. The cost was the cost of setting up her account, if she did not already have an email account on it.
So your two point plan to raise questions (You being an IT person and all) is a double fail.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Hillary was using the server originally set up for a former President of the United States.
I presume his IT person knew what they were doing and that it was secure enough for the SoS.
DrKZ
(53 posts)BUT the word former president is different than someone who holds an office and that is problematic. You know I used my work email for pretty much everything until I found out that we switched to storing it all on a central server I asked what that meant and then got a separate personal email account. I think even if she was completely in the dark about the net she should have asked which is the most transparent use of my email in the office
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Only if they've been upgrading all along, and keeping on top of issues like heartbleed. Heck, an off the shelf 2015 Dell or HP laptop is probably more robust than whatever they had back in 2001.
merrily
(45,251 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)and perhaps my stating that he was defending bush here was the wrong thing to say- however, bringing up the former admin and asking what Democrats would do or think if they had engaged in it- sent a red flag up for me.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)"How do we know that she turned over all her emails or just the ones she wanted us to see?"
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)on state department servers. See, sending and receiving email goes both ways. What you write stays on the server you wrote it on and it also goes to and stays on the server you send it to.
Someone needs to get up off their lazy asses and compare the emails she sent from her private server to the emails she sent to the state departments servers.
Will it be an easy job? No, it will be time consuming and a lot like looking for a needle in a haystack. It will involve entering various sorts, however it can be done. If the GOP thinks that HRC is hiding something nefarious, they will do the legwork, if not- they'll just continue to bitch as they have done thus far.
FarrenH
(768 posts)since regulations require the retention for public records of all electronic communications relating to State Department work.
Quite obviously that is not just intra-departmental communications. It's absurd on it's face to claim or imply that it is. In fact one would expect a mountain of extra-departmental communication, which obviously is not backed up on State Department servers.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)If HRC was sending email extra-departmental, then it is only logical that she was also sending it intra-departmental as the word EXTRA means "in addition" hence the state department will have copies backed up.
And no, they were not regulations. They were only guidelines when HRC was at State.
There's no ban on government employees setting up and using private email accounts. But using those accounts for government business is allowed only if the official retains a copy of each record on her official account or forwards a copy within 20 days.
But the law requiring those steps was signed by President Barack Obama in November 2014, nearly two years after Clinton left the State Department
What was that you were saying about being disingenuous?
FarrenH
(768 posts)I've read the actual pre- and post- Clinton tenure regulations and while the post- regulations (which make what she did explicitly illegal) are obviously not applicable, the prior regulations that were in place while she was there still stipulate requirements that make her actions legally questionable. If you're interested the relevant regulations are here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title36-vol3/pdf/CFR-2011-title36-vol3-sec1236-22.pdf
It's also worth reading the general record-keeping regulations that the above regulations clarify for email communications. The regulations in place *during her tenure* explicitly require that all electronic communications and records, including calendars and task lists, of state employees conducting state business *must* be retained in a suitable form by the state, on state equipment. It's not optional. The later regulations only further introduced the restriction on using outside equipment then transferring it to the state.
The questionable bit, in terms of fulfillment of the regulations in place during her tenure, is the implied requirement of all such regulations that compliance can be proven to have happened to the satisfaction of any third party with standing. That's entirely missing from Team Hillary's we're-in-compliance-because-we-said-we-gave-the-department-everything approach, which is something like an accountant telling the IRS "we paid all the tax we owed but you can't look at our books - you'll just have to take our word on it"
And your response to my response is as disingenuous as your prior argument. My criticism was specifically of your directly implied argument that all the relevant communications were intra-departmental, when obviously they were not. Instead of answering that criticism, your response talked about something totally different.
The question was asked ""How do we know that she turned over all her emails or just the ones she wanted us to see?"
You replied (precis) "All of the evidence can be found on State Department servers"
Because all relevant communications are not intra-departmental, your response is factually innaccurate.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I never said her communications were strictly with the State Department. It is common knowledge that she used the mail server for personal mail too. So I'd have to be an idiot to imply what you just suggested. You simply made that up in your mind so you could accuse me of not being truthful.
Never mind that you ignored the point I made that extra departmental mail would also have gone to State. NO, I'm not the disingenuous one in this debate and just because you keep repeating it, does not make it true.
FarrenH
(768 posts)These from are the 2011 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR-2011). Here you go
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?selectedYearFrom=2011&page.go=Go
FarrenH
(768 posts)I can't figure out whether you're willfully avoiding an honest answer to the criticism tendered or have comprehension problems.
I'm not talking about personal email. The criticism had nothing to do with personal email. I suggested nothing about personal email, so you're now responding to things I didn't say.
The State Department officially communicates with parties outside of the United States Government via email, along with other mediums. Such communications are not personal emails. They are official communications covered by the above regulations. And the recipient records of such communications cannot be found on servers owned by the United States Government.
Therefore your earlier claim is factually incorrect
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)So I guess that makes us equals.
HRC did not just fall off the turnip truck. Her intelligence surpasses both of ours combined. She is well aware that it would be foolish to even attempt to communicate any nefarious business via any server or telephone line?
So you and your pals here can keep digging, maybe you will hit pay dirt in time for her re-election.
FarrenH
(768 posts)I have a tested IQ of around 148. Political and/or commercial success is not simply the result of high intelligence, but contingent on quite a few factors.
Noted: That having been shown to have undeniably made a factually incorrect statement and having had the relevant regulations pointed out to you, your riposte is to simply assert that your opponent is speaking bullshit, without any attempt to demonstrate how any of the points put to you were bullshit with evidence or logic.
Why am I reminded of a kid in the schoolyard saying "Well you're a doodyface!" and running off?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Now you're making up IQ shit. Yeah, you're a smart one alright.
murielm99
(30,656 posts)around here whenever there is a mention or comparison to some very intelligent individual, or when Mensa membership is being discussed.
Very few people have an IQ of 148. Funny how that select group seems to show up here just at the right time.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)My ass wouldn't be on an anonymous discussion board claiming to be a smart Democrat spouting right wing talking points.
I think I touched a sore spot with that one. Perhaps his mother called him stupid while growing up or something and now resents all intelligent women.
FarrenH
(768 posts)You'd know that plenty of high-IQ people have very mundane lives. Go to any MENSA meeting and you'll meet retired school teachers, refrigerator repairmen and so on. Me, I'm a software engineer who likes discussing stuff on the net. Your statement is informed by ignorance, nothing more.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)and spends his time obsessing about HRC's email in political forums on the internet.
think about it.
FarrenH
(768 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 11:06 AM - Edit history (2)
Its the truth. When I was in school the school authorities approached my parents because I would just go into my own little world in class and they thought I had developmental problems. They wanted to place me in a program for kids with learning disabilities. My parents insisted on further review and they brought in psychologists, conducted a few tests and reported to my parents that I had an extraordinarily high IQ. Subsequent tests as an adult repeatedly confirmed it and yes, I was a MENSA member for a while. Although it seemed like membership of that organization was pointless. I should add that having taken a huge interest in the IQ nurture/nature debate in later years, I've come to the conclusion that IQ tests only test (and colloquial use of the word intelligence only describes) the analytic aspect of human cognition and not other cognitive abilities.
Feel free to mock because you're all up in arms about me criticizing Clinton, but it is the absolute truth. I didn't mention it to boast, just to illuminate why I thought the claims about Clinton being "more intelligent than us" were probably wrong.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)would have better things to do with their time.
FarrenH
(768 posts)and provided links to the government regulations being discussed, and rather than respond to them I'm just going to assert that you're juvenile, without demonstrating how and post rolling-on-the-floor-laughing smilies"
So ironic.
Why not just post "YOUR A DOODYHEAD"?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)your family must be so proud.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)How some intentionally miss that...?
Laser102
(816 posts)Wow. Someone who actually knows what they are talking about. I love people who know the facts.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Hillary for POTUS!
She's so trustworthy.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)ALL her emails as SOS, to all parties involved, is the question.
Your narrow view, and fawning support, is duly noted.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)You are an anonymous poster on a an anonymous board. You matter not one iota to me and the effect you have on my life is even less. If all you have left is rudeness and incivility, then you are the one that needs to gaze into the mirror when attempting to demean a fellow poster's intelligence.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I have truly been bested.
And speaking as to insults, when you inferred that I was defending Bush you lost that argument.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)to change anything.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Do you have a playbook that you follow or do you have your debate tactics memorized?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)to change anything."
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)there's no victim-ness involved.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)It is Tuesday
(93 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)It is Tuesday
(93 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)the BS hasbarists.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)questionable,
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)only to republicans, teabaggers, right wing hate radio/tv and to supporters of Sanders or Warren on DU.
The rest of the world doesn't care with the comfort that a) all her official correspondence as SOS was on the SD server and b) she dutifully provided all official emails to the SD.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)of your assertions.
But, continue to pound your desk for Bernie Sanders (who is not even a democrat.) This is exactly how and why democrats lose. They make the ideal the enemy of good.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Also, Bernie Sanders? I'm not campaigning for him or Hillary, but if Bernie gad done what Hillary has I would also roundly criticize him as well.
DrKZ
(53 posts)I cannot know nor can you know what were the emails if they were not on the state department server. There are rules and regulations surrounding the use of servers for home use and official use ... in some ways even though it pains me to say this it is a little reminiscent of the blank minutes on the nixon tapes ... that is why there are regualtions ...
I am not a republican I don't listen to right wing TV and I would love to support a Democrat who is a democrat and stands up for democratic ideals and principles including transparency (as in the days of Ruben Askew whose adminisration in Fl created the sunshine laws that ought to guide use of government public documents) ...
I am certain you are incorrect what is on the state department server are emails she sent to people working in the state department
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Once it is sent, it remains on all the recipients' servers unless all of them delete it. Even if they did, some archiving servers will save those emails.
Thus any email that was sent for state department business must have a state department recipient such an ambassador, an undersecretary or a counsel and therefor those emails will be preserved by the state department whether it was to someone or cc'ed to someone.
If she got an email from a prince of Nigeria wanting $8,000 to complete giving her $120 million and she deleted it as spam, it is no one's business anyway.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)Hopefully she wanted us to see all the public ones.
We just have her good word for it.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)There's no way to know for certain.
Thar's problematic for campaign.
That's problematic for anybody that doesn't want "trust me" as an answer.
Trust is born out of truth.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)so it seems.
At least she didn't release the personal info including SSNs of people writing to her dept. like Jeb "Dimmerson" did.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)"It depends on whose ox is being gored."
What would be outrageous if their side does it is smart when our side does it. Usually the reasoning is "their side does it all the time too."
It is one of the uglier sides of politics.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... he'd probably still be governor for us here in Oregon today instead of Kate Brown.
But would that be good for us Oregonians? Not having a way to know what emails got deleted and which didn't if he had them all on a private server instead of a public server he tried to purge them off from?
http://theweek.com/speedreads/539481/oregon-governor-tries-delete-emails-instead-creates-paper-trail-suggestingcoverup
I still think that this STUPID move by her to basically in effect DO WHAT REPUBLICANS WANTED HER TO DO which was to:
1) move to a private email solution which helps fuel their criticism of government being used to manage IT solutions for government business instead of a privatized solution.
2) opens her up to these kind of targeted attacks by Republicans which would attempt to single her out, whether she deserves criticism or not, for potentially hiding illegal or unethical email content by using a private and non-transparent email infrastructure. She put herself in to this position.
If she has legitimate concerns about things like NSA or opposition parties spying on her if she used government solutions, she missed out on a GREAT opportunity to show what would be presidential leadership by calling for an overhaul of government systems, and perhaps investigations in to what the NSA is doing, etc. to ensure that ethical politicians can feel safe using government email and IT infrastructure. Instead she avoided this issue and fell in to the Republicans' trap of just moving her mail to a private domain, expecting us to just "trust her", when she's shown many other reasons for us not to, with many things she's done to help the TPP, or many other issues that have been show to support corporate America rather than mainstream America.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Nothing HRC did or didn't do would be approved by you, ever.
I'm wasting perfectly good electrons here.
Botany
(70,291 posts).... the GOP have been able to gin up something out of nothing. Last night @ the
gym I saw on CBS evening new something about how HRC's email scandal is hurting
her w/some voters.
HRC broke no laws and violated no rules with her emails.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)speeding and driving recklessly? Just because poor Roscoe couldn't catch them doesn't mean they were doing no wrong. Poor example, try again.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)But them Duke boys wouldn't be speeding and driving recklessly if you weren't out to get them and frame them at any cost!!
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)They don't have to be supplied with raw data to make false proclamations over.
--imm
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)for a fake scandal is a bad thing, but the question of whether we know if HRC is being completely honest with us is a question that needs to be answered.
I trust no politician when they act this way.
OregonBlue
(7,744 posts)deliberately order a stand down and left her colleagues to be murdered. It's complete and utter hogwash and I think she is very smart to have kept her emails separate. I can see Gowdy taking her emails about mother's death and reading all kinds of b.s. into them. You say we can't trust Hillary but I trust Hillary a great deal more than the witch hunters who are trying to destroy her and our country.
It's not Hillary we need to be afraid of.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)in that position for at least two reasons.
1. She's a lawyer and should know better.
that the issue if trust would come up.
2. Her husband went through the ringer, unjustly, and why would she want to put herself in the same position with a craven Republican party.
OregonBlue
(7,744 posts)interest. Once they determined it was not illegal, just not the brightest move, they don't seem to care much. That's because the American people don't care much. Only political junkies are still talking about it.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)You don't see trust and the appearance of impropriety as a big deal?
OregonBlue
(7,744 posts)twisted everything and lied, I am not the least concerned that Hillary kept her private emails from them. As she said, she turned over 55,000 pages, not to mention that everyone she wrote to in the government also has a copy of those emails. Turns out lots and lots of presidents, governors, etc., have done this in the past and nothing ever came of it. So no, I really could care less. Not an issue. I love in a rural community with mostly retired ranchers and farmers. It didn't even register on their radar. It was like oh, well I'm sure it can be confusing but it's good she gave them the 55,000 pages and they really shouldn't need to see her wedding, funeral, arrangement emails. It's none of their business. And these are conservatives.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)If it was George Dubya Bush doing the same thing would you take his word as well?
OregonBlue
(7,744 posts)everything that was relevant to the job. I don't believe she is a stupid woman.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)...depending on whose team is up to bat.
No?
Gin
(7,212 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)oh gawd, here we go suing the Clintons again and next thing is, if she gets into office, they'll try to impeach her immediately.
Monk06
(7,675 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,085 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)For those of us who know about the process of legal discovery, and that this set of emails is the subject of multiple ongoing legal actions, this is a clear-cut case of felony obstruction of justice, as aggravated as it gets. She's a lawyer so she knows exactly what she was doing and what the penalties are.
Under normal circumstances I'd be blown away if someone had the balls to do this, but this is Hillary Clinton and she clearly has no doubt that she is far above any law.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Assuming Hillary had nothing to hide, having a private server AND deleting it was breathtakingly stupid.
At best, it makes her look crooked and needing to hide, which will hurt her in the general. It plays right into the Repug's theme that the Clintons think they are above the law. I am sure the Koch brothers have the attack ads filmed and in the can.
At worst, she did hide something bad.
Ask Nixon, the cover up is always worse than the "crime." The reason he went down is he deleted tapes.
Heck, now even the National Enquirer (who brought down John Edwards, remember) is in on the act, saying she was covering up bisexual affairs when she deleted the server. They even dragged out Bill's old girlfriend Jennifer Flowers to say Bill said Hillary was bisexual.
Silly, yes. But a lot of low information voters read the National Enquirer, so it will hurt. How much will it hurt? 1%? 2%? That can flip a close state.
In short, name-calling people who are pissed off at Clinton for this is not fair. They have a legitimate gripe.
Botany
(70,291 posts)HRC broke no laws and violated no rules this is just Whitewater 2.0
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Having experience in e-discovery, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that any party which deletes documents which are the subject of legal action at any time after which they had any reason to believe that the documents might be relevant to a legal proceeding, that party loses the case, and if they do so deliberately and with the intent to hide those documents from the other parties seeking them it is obstruction of justice.
This is how it is with every other legal case in the United States. Go ahead, ask a lawyer. Deleting those emails is a criminal act, there is no way to get around it and have a system of justice that applies to all persons equally at the same time.
If you're celebrating Hillary's action in this case, you are a) cheering on a crime; and b) rooting for a two-tiered legal system where elites like Hillary are not subject to the law at all, but little people like yourself get the full force of it without mercy.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I'd bet $$ she had it wiped the day after she turned the other emails over to the State Dept.
She's not stupid. She's a lawyer herself but beyond that she's a damn smart politician.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)she's got to know the only way she lays this issue to rest now is to turn the server over to a third party.
That will happen sooner or later I presume.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)revmclaren
(2,488 posts)they are lying. If they have an idea, it's stupid!
Gore1FL
(21,030 posts)This is no more excusable than the Bush admin housing the emails on the RNC servers. I rightfully complained when that happened.
While I don't believe this makes her unfit for office, it is not something to celebrate.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Gore1FL
(21,030 posts)There are a lot of things one can do legally and still be ill-advised in doing.
I was critical of Bush and Palin over perfectly legal examples in poor choices involving official email use. I am applying the same standards that I applied then.
RayStar
(417 posts)She is smart and cleaning the server is a brillant idea.
dolphinsandtuna
(231 posts)But I expected nothing else from Hillary except this breathtaking disregard for the legal process.
Just a sample of the corruption we'd see if, God forbid, she became President.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)What did I say about those things? I can't recall having addressed either, but I see you have been taking notes about people who won't fall into line behind the favorite of the privileged elite.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)It would have been fitting for Hillary to wipe the server.
Then shove it up Ken Starr's ass!!!!!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The employees gets to determine which emails are personal and which are not. It is a non issue, she turned them over to the state department let Gowdy go where he is supposed to get the emails, it will be good exercise for him.
MsInformed
(48 posts)All she did differently is sort them after the act of writing, because she had the means to do so. I believe in controlling one's own communication as long as you played by the rules you agreed to. People want her to be subject to rules she did not agree to and she knows it to the nit of the law.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)It's called "obstruction of justice" and it's illegal in every jurisdiction throughout the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice
I've done quite a bit of e-discovery work. The law is quite clear, clear enough that large companies with billions on the line produce adverse documents to opposing counsel whether they like it or not rather than face criminal charges for obstruction.
Botany
(70,291 posts)So when Hillary sent those emails years ago she should have known that Trey Gowdy
would want to see them as per an attack on an American diplomatic (CIA) outpost
in Libya that had not happened yet?
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Litigation doesn't need to be pending in order to require placement of a legal hold on documents. It's not an "out" for charges of spoliation of evidence if you destroy the evidence before the legal paperwork is filed. Look up the spoliation rules, there's no loophole there for her to slip through. And if the destruction was in the past five months, as is asserted, that is well beyond the starting date of several legal actions to which those documents are relevant, not the least of which is the stonewalled FOIA from Associated Press that they were forced to sue over.
It's not Gowdy she should be worried about. It's this: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5f35e25c77194546822769b2f9672fe3/ap-sues-state-department-seeking-access-clinton-records
Botany
(70,291 posts).... HRC broke no laws and violated no rules the only scandal here is the scandal of the
republicans, the media, and people like you making something out of nothing.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)There is no obstruction of justice when her personal emails were never the subject of any legal proceeding. She preserved and handed over all official emails.
If I'm being sued for malpractice, I cannot destroy the patient's medical records but I can certainly destroy my grocery lists and golf score cards.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)but I am a lawyer, and I've seen a couple of 'clear-cut' cases, specifically when a defendant repeatedly admitted to multiple parties in precise detail that he/she did exactly whatever the plaintiff or prosecution claimed.
Short of that, no intelligent lawyer uses the words 'clear-cut' or 'clearly' to describe any alleged.. well, anything.
It's a good rule of thumb for non-lawyers also. BTW, where are the 'rules of discovery' published for a non-subpoena personal request for information made by the chairman of a Congressional committee? Enforcement procedures? Penalties?
There aren't any. Such a request does not initiate any process involving legal discovery procedures.
Oh, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that, if you actually mean what you've written, you have virtually no clue how the process of discovery operates in a legal proceeding. Never mind that there are, at a bare minimum, 102 different sets of them in the United States, with each state having different sets for civil and criminal matters, and matters before federal courts. Some questions of rules of discovery when federal courts sit in 'diversity' cases are still unsettled - are some state discovery rules actually 'substantive,' such that the federal court is obliged to apply them rather than federal rules in certain cases? Never mind administrative proceedings, territorial courts, military courts, subpoenas properly issued by members of Congress acting pursuant to specific authorities, etc.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)"I am no fan of Hillary but......." is a common preface on DU to full-throated support/defense of Hillary.
Patterns like that make me wonder.
Response to merrily (Reply #65)
Post removed
merrily
(45,251 posts)No reason for me to read your post after seeing words like that just at first glance.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)let the Clinto rah-rah people bully you.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)I ran across threats like that from certain types of people in high school.
Apparently DU has it's own mean girls.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Larry Engels
(387 posts)What does it mean?
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)turn-off towards your candidate you create.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)They could probably use some sharp, legal minds. To get to the bottom of all of this. Gowdy is running Benghazi Committee v5.0, but there are plenty of others.
merrily
(45,251 posts)At Clinton's request, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed a special prosecutor Robert B. Fiske to investigate the legality of the Whitewater transactions in 1994. Two allegations surfaced: 1) that Clinton had exerted pressure on an Arkansas businessman, David Hale, to make a loan that would benefit him and the owners of Madison Guaranty; and 2) that an Arkansas bank had concealed transactions involving Clinton's gubernatorial campaign in 1990. In May 1994, Independent Counsel Robert Fiske issued a grand jury subpoena to the President and his wife for all documents relating to Madison Guaranty, with a deadline of 30 days. They were reported as missing by the Clintons. Almost two years later, the subpoenaed billing records of the Rose Law Firm, which Hillary Clinton worked for, were discovered in the Clintons' private residence in the White House by a staffer in January 1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy
Yupster
(14,308 posts)That one still is hard to swallow 20 years later.
The fact that a subpoenaed document should show up two years later in the personal residence of the most secure home the world and Hillary just has no earthly idea how it could have gotten there.
Many people were too young to remember that, but that one was a tough one to swallow.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,161 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,161 posts)She is going to give the GOP heart attacks.
😂😂😂👍
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)jzola
(158 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)as POTUS? Would you accept it from Romney if he was POTUS?
Hypocrisy.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Good for her.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Another Teahadist who the idiot voters have elevated to some level of importance.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Taking money from the billionaires, and using their power
to cover their raping of the poor for the ownership class Plutocrats.
Trey, stick to sucking testicles.
vlyons
(10,252 posts)Stupid Gowdy. Everytime I see his face, I see the high school snitch! He's just a peeping Tom wanting to peep into someone's private life, looking for anything that he can turn into some stupid faux scandal. The tparty crowd is so very tiresome.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)a thunderclap of flatus in Gowdy's ear.
Have fun spreading your bullshit while deaf, motherfucka.
TM99
(8,352 posts)become no damned different than Republicans were during the Bush years.
Actions like this that were suspected do have occurred and did occur were rightfully denounced and in some instances a holy shit storm of righteous indignation was vented on these boards.
HRC chose to use an outside server for her correspondences both professional and personal instead of using a .gov server. Whether her actions are legal or not, now that she has apparently wiped the server, it is fast becoming an illegal act. It is damned certain an inappropriate and unethical one.
And what are Democrats doing? Y'all are giving high fives. Y'all are rationalizing the actions of someone who is skirting the law. Fuck it, y'all deserve the mess we as a country get if this person is elected our next President. And if she is in the general and loses, this will be why. She just can't help herself with lies, scandals, and deceptions.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)It is a non scandal, made up by Republicans who been "shirting the law", can't find something in one investigation and start another. If they were doing this in a court of law they would not be able to "try her" over and over. This is shirting the law.
TM99
(8,352 posts)This isn't a high school team rivalry. The GOP is smart enough to politically take advantage of a very blatant mistake made on her part. That doesn't mean she hasn't done something stupid, unethical, and now potentially illegal if she wiped her servers before turning over ALL emails requested.
I criticized the Bush admin for such a lack of transparency & unethical(if not 'legal') behaviors, and I do the same if a Democratic official does it.
Grow up!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Thinking you are giving RW talking points. At the same time they were shouting about this Cotton send a letter to Iran, they kept this going through his crappy letter. They want to confuse Dempcrats not to vote and for sure not to run Hillary when they do not have an answer for her.
TM99
(8,352 posts)This is politics. It reeks of bullshit on a daily basis. But the Clintons have a really shitty habit of making arrogant, impulsive, and unethical mistakes that give the GOP fodder to act out this type of bullshit political drama.
One of the wonderful things about aging is that eventually you get to a point where you can see that in any conflict with two parties, almost always both of them are full of shit. They both make the same mistakes, do the same stupid shit, and try to pretend that they alone are blameless while the other side is the 'bad' guy. I see it in marital conflicts. I see it in Democratic/Republican political gamesmanship.
What I am concerned with are the ethics. I am concern with the policies. I am concerned with how we the people are getting shafted day in and day out while both sides of these fuckers play Kabuki theater. Yes, the GOP hatez on the Democrats. Look at them rail against them in these mock political dramas. Then follow the money and see that they are buddies on the charity circuits, they are buddies with the same power brokers, and they are buddies on the golf course.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Being ethical also involves honesty, honesty on the GOP's part and they honestly don't have.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Pathetic that you are so blinded by hate that you cannot see the GOP shenanigans for what they are.
That you side with the most cutthroat Political group, the GOP, in their manufactured attempt to undermine a Dem for fear of her possible threat of an opposing candidacy, tells me that you've well rehearsed your RW vile talking points.
TM99
(8,352 posts)is the bullshit responses to an issue that has legal, ethical, and electability consequences.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)The RW plays this same game with every Dem candidate that challenges their push for power.
Don't tell me you haven't observed their M.O. in action before.
KKKarl Rove, ALEC etc. This is why they exist.
I 've watched them create this exact same bullshit since the 90's when Bill Clinton kicked GHW 's ass.
That is the bullshit you should be concerned with.
Anytime their bullshit game plan is proven wrong is a cause to cheer.
The responses posted here are valid for that reason alone.
The RW was called out on their bullshit.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Both parties play them. I am concerned with the ramifications for us the people.
I watched Bill Clinton make a stupid political mistake in the 1990's by getting a blow job from a woman who not only wasn't his wife but was a fucking intern at the White House. That stupid & impulsive act handed the GOP fodder for over a decade. Now HRC has made a stupid & impulsive choice as well. This will impact her.
I don't want a politician who has ethical problems as my President. I don't want corrupt ones. I don't want criminal ones. And since Reagan, we have had a lot of them. Even if Obama is better than most, he still lied his ass off to get the young and Left to vote for him with no intention of governing from anything other than a center right DLC position.
I stand up to both sides doing bullshit. This is bullshit. And people here are so blinded by their adolescent 'my party is better than your party' bullshit that we, the people, are just fucking suffering.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)..are so privy to what occurred with the email saga. We know little.
But apparently the big 'scandal' has amounted to exactly what we expected it to be all along.
Pffftttt. That's what it was.
The rest is what the RW hype told us.
I am more than happy to see it blow up in their front boy Gowdy's face just like Issa's benghazi 'scandal'.
And more than happy to say to Mrs Clinton & any other Dem they target as a threat, " Please proceed in denying the Right Wing group of exclusion & organized crime, the Oval Office and all it's power in Nov 2016.
A fuckin Men.
Enjoy your night.
tjl148
(185 posts)I agree. But if we "know little" how do you know "she didn't do stupid or impulsive", or illegal for that matter?
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Nite
tjl148
(185 posts)Just wondering since you seem to use their playbook. If you can't answer the question throw mud at the questioner.
TM99
(8,352 posts)There is more than enough information that has been reported to verify that yes indeed she acted impulsively (the Obama Admin advised her against this action & now disavow any connection!) and that it was stupid (she had to have known that any hints of a scandal would be chum in the waters for the GOP sharks!).
It may or may not blow up as you so eloquently put it in their faces, but it is definitely a major distraction for the current Democratic 'front-runner'.
I am not the one in denial mister wasted.
Darb
(2,807 posts)back away from the teabagger pipe. You sound just like them. Try to imagine the Clinton's thinking ahead and full well knowing that there will be continuous asinine investigations of them regardless of the situation or reason. There will never be any sort of fair play, any sort of justification, any sort of anything that resembles sanity.
So take your talking points and........go play quidditch.
TM99
(8,352 posts)of the childishness of most of the rank & file these days.
Go clean your room and get off the computer so the adults can use it to have real conversations with substance & merit.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Listen up, oh mature one, you have either been sucked in and bamboozled by the Repugnik sound machine, or you subscribe to it. Most here know the difference between reality and teabagger nonsense.
Are you Draco Malfoy (R - Slytherin) or not? It did not go unnoticed that you avoided the question.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Pathetic how immature so many are here.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Please, just because you cannot take it when you are ridiculed for your inane bullshit doesn't mean you have to break the rules.
I won't alert on you cause you be funny.
TM99
(8,352 posts)even where they disagree vehemently without resorting to ridicule, name-calling, and outrageously childish insults.
If you walk like a duck, quack like a duck....well you get the picture.
Alert away.
marshall
(6,661 posts)We can only guess as to the content of the deleted emails, and depending on your point of view those guesses can run from the benign to the embarrassing to the malevolent. Mrs. Clinton is astute enough to have foreseen this outcome of public scrutiny when she deleted these emails, and she made an informed decision to do so. Whether she is protecting her personal privacy (which granted should not have been interlaced with business matters), covering up something that is potentially quite damaging, exercising a need for control over the process, or expressing anger by thwarting her opposition, I trust that in her mind the consequence was worth the price of satisfaction.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... and while I'm not an HRC fan I just hate double-standards and hypocrisy. And I've had a belly full of asshole politicians that think the rules are for everyone else. It is a telling and obvious window into their character.
Anyone who (rightly) criticized Bush for his email shenanigans and wants to give HRC a pass should SHUT THE FUCK UP hypocrites.
Also, I've been surprised that no one has mentioned here that unless the hard drives were physically destroyed or rewritten at least 7 times, the data is still retrievable.
I guess HRC will be the beneficiary of the Republican's technical ignorance.
TM99
(8,352 posts)However, this for me goes well beyond the pale.
You are right, of course, about the disks. The GOP may look stupid, but they are not. They will hire experts to discover what has been 'deleted'. She is in for a bigger shit storm if there is even one official email that was deleted. And god forbid if she did have the hard drives zero'd out or destroyed. That will just scream, I did something really bad & want to keep it a secret.
HRC really needs to just get out of the running and let someone far less tainted by this unethical bullshit become a better candidate.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Go play some quidditch.
TM99
(8,352 posts)A rubber ducky and insults.
All snark & no substance.
Thank you so much for proving my point. You get a gold star for being such a loyal Democrat. .
Darb
(2,807 posts)Why stop at a pony, how about a unicorn?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)not
Larry Engels
(387 posts)"You go girl," etc. If you want to see absolute political loyalty, it's all over this thread. It kinda gives me a queasy feeling.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Its such a shameful time, seeing the display here makes it worse.
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)There are lots of solid reasons to criticize Clinton. There is no need for DU'ers to ally themselves with the Republican Lie Machine.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's shameful and, to me, highly suspect.
RandySF
(57,632 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)Let me clue you in. Nothing will ever be enough for you guys errrrrrr for Draco Malfoy and the rest of the House of Slytherin teabaggers.
It will go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
A clue to the wise is sufficient thereof.
How about some quidditch?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)They have become worse than teabaggers.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)accuse HRC on any gawd damn thing no matter how far fetch it is. Matter of fact, any Democratic or Indy or other party candidate will be tarred and feathered no matter what. If Senator Warren decided to run for President and was a threat to GOPers power grab for obtaining the WH, yes she would be accused on any gawd damn thing no matter how far fetch it is.
This e-mail BS is what it is. . . BS. Where is the special investigation on Rmoney, s**t, he deleted all his e-mails from his Governorship (wiped clean) and Jeb Bush did some hanky panky with his e-mails and Pres Bush and his cronies deleted their e-mails (wiped clean) during subpoena requests. Where are the effing investigations on that huh?
I effing tired of these "witch hunts".
Give them hell HRC!!!!!
TheCowsCameHome
(40,161 posts)Neither seems to have the skill to hit the intended target.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Larry Engels
(387 posts)Not just recycled? Then some overwrite program has been used? Gutmann? Was the hard drive replaced? I just wonder. Gowdy is talking about getting the House to subpoena the server. It could get very messy, which, of course is what the Republicans want--to drag this out through election day.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And it's funny how the women on the Hill get put through the mill over their hairstyle choices, but no one has said barely a word about some of the freakish cuts he's sported.
And there's nothing illegal about those dumb-ass personal decisions he's made. Either.
But it does go to judgment. That idiot has some seriously poor judgment--he should consult a stylist.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)emails, tend to have at least two
people involved.
what if the other party...
their copy of an email
comes into hands of prosecutors?
Beacool
(30,244 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)That was the whole point of setting a private system. Her lawyers told her to do this and calculated it would be less destructive to her chances of becoming President than if had used the State Dept's system.
The most destructive parts are yet to come after she is nominated. But we'll be stuck with her.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)This story does not have much grit. Nothing new
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Willem
(12 posts)Republicans make a lot of noise. No matter what someone not a member of their loon club does, they will screech, hop up and down and throw noxious substances. If there is nothing at all to make a neurotic drama about they'll make something up. Might as well give them the finger. Isn't going to reduce the bedlam one bit.
jmowreader
(50,451 posts)Let me ask, and please answer as best you can: How many times does Hillary Clinton have to respond to GOP Benghazi fishing expeditions? This is the fifth time the GOP has launched a full-scale investigation into this one attack. It's the 21st Century version of Whitewater. The shit needs to stop. Immediately.
Reter
(2,188 posts)n/t
Darb
(2,807 posts)Don't tell me, you're a Warren supporter. Yeah, right, got it.
SansACause
(520 posts)If there were "smoking gun" emails from Hillary about anything, we would have seen them by now. First, all emails have a recipient, and unless you believe there is some conspiracy that everyone who worked for the SOS took some sort of oath to protect her even to the point that they would go to jail, then those recipients have provided matching emails. Second, there may be literally hundreds of copies of those emails sitting on servers worldwide. Unlike a physical letter, there is not just one copy of an email, but perhaps hundreds. It's almost impossible to know how many copies exist.
In short, if you are trying to do something illegal and/or top secret via email, you are a fool. Wiping your own server does nothing to remove those emails from other servers.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)He said in the letter to go to the State Department. They have the emails.
Gowdy also said he had no idea when the server was wiped.
I suspect her IT crew wiped it after the emails were sent off to State.
Nothing wrong with that.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Any idea how time consuming it would be to track them all down??
You never could. The recipients probably deleted a ton of them as well.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)Guess it was all worth it.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)from any future BS scandals that the repigs might create.
Most average people don't care if she used a personal server and deleted her personal emails.
The only people who seem to care are the repigs, their media cronies and Warren/Sanders supporters on DU.
Larry Engels
(387 posts)Presumably she also sent emails to foreign ministry officials and possibly foreign businessmen who contributed to the Clinton Foundation. So there are questions about whether she might have been making side-deals that she didn't want the President or his staff to know about.
Madmiddle
(459 posts)it is, has absolutely no basis to exist? That opposition parties, sit through countless hours of hugely wasted time, like our American soap operas. These attacks made are theater and highly political. It's in and of itself, "Taking our money doing something with it that is fucking insane."
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)You're a world-historic figure. You're a former first lady, former senator, and former Secretary of State with aspirations to the presidency.
You've already written two books about your accomplishments, and your story isn't finished.
And you just up and destroy all of your correspondence from your entire tenure as a cabinet official?
That, if you'll pardon the pun, simply does not compute.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)My point is, destroying all your personal correspondence looks very, very fishy.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Granted I am a private citizen but I don't see why a public one would keep all their private e-mails...
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)When was the last time you deleted four full years of email -- every single item, all at once?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I do miss my bookmarks though...
Larry Engels
(387 posts)She mentioned emails about Chelsea's wedding, mom's funeral, etc.
But wouldn't someone normally want to keep some of this correspondence for sentimental reasons or financial reasons?
I do this. I thought other people did, too. Maybe Hillary's "personal emails" aren't actually deleted, but simply moved to another location.
marshall
(6,661 posts)i found it strange that she printed 30,000 pages of email and turned that in rather than send it in electronic format. That's 60 reams of paper (or 3.6 trees). The transaction makes me think of the scene in Miracle on 34th Street where they dump a dozen or more bags of mail on the judge. In that case I think it is basically a matter of wanting control--regardless of whether she has something to hide or not. That is why a disgruntled citizen pays an unjust fine with pennies, to wrest back control.
On the other hand we could take her at her word--that she really is out of her element with technology like many of her generation, and doesn't know the basics about how one device can handle more than one email address. In that case I could see her relying on her staff to print out her emails for her to read rather than reading it on a screen.
A friend of mine did a research study among Amish people and they really had a mistrust of the transcripts of their interviews being kept in electronic format because they suspected anyone and everyone could see it. Hillary may have a similar mistrust of electronic communications and records.
DrKZ
(53 posts)She is not Amish ... she is a professional working in a professional capacity in a connected world.
Transparency is important.
If she had question there were IT people all around.
I am sure your friend who did the study on the Amish might have asked the IT people at her university what constituted appropriate use policy and when to use her school's email and when to use personal email ... your friend had to have guidelines even to conduct the research in an appropriate manner using her IRB ....
I am going to be 60 this year so I am of that generation and it is not that we all sit in the dark unable to text or connect ... especially when we work for large organizations ...
i am sure there had to be at least one IT person in the state department
Darb
(2,807 posts)Geez, where do you get your info?
Malfoy is full of shit. This investigation is a sham. This "scandal" is jack fucking squat.
You're concern is noted, and dismissed.
Larry Engels
(387 posts)You've just done some jeering.
Darb
(2,807 posts)I will jeer you now. Are you pining for a pony, bamboozled by the reich-wing noise machine, or worse, suffering from FNE or TRE and have fully bought in to the teabag agenda? I cannot tell.
Curious minds want to know.
Larry Engels
(387 posts)Try again. I know you can do it.
Darb
(2,807 posts)seeing that your apparent affliction might be keeping you from understanding your reality. FNE is Fox News Encephalopathy. TRE is Talk Radio Encephalopathy.
You seem to be showing signs of one or both.
You have my sympathy, those conditions are incurable, as many here who have tried to talk sense to a winger can attest. So, are you just monumentally uninformed? Misinformed? Or worse?
DrKZ
(53 posts)Isn't it better to investigate and find out what is going on? Do you remember all the stuff with all of her great memory that she said during the 2008 campaign that turned out not to be true ... maybe her memory is faulty? After all oops this week she did not realize her parents or grandparents weren't immigrants back then there was the war zone stuff and on and on ...
We are democrats we believe in government in the sunshine there are regulations that you get while working for a state or federal entity about emails and servers ...
Nobody is saying she destroyed everything but she did use her personal server for state department business and that is highly problematic and may not be in compliance with the administration's regulations
I mean come on the State Department must have had an IT guy
Yupster
(14,308 posts)It's not like she was there. Family stories just get embellished over the decades.
Now if she keeps saying it after she knows it's not true, then it's a problem, but I bet it was just something she heard growing up that wasn't true but how would she know.
paleotn
(17,778 posts)benld74
(9,888 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)clean with a liquid solution- but it wasn't done to erase the info, no, for that we just used a big magnet.
Maybe they think that is how a disk is wiped clean?
quadrature
(2,049 posts)Chinese, Israelis, and just about everyone else.
hacked HRC's computer.
were her private spy network operatives,
using remailers? encryption?
if so, what kind? PGP? something else?
Midnight Writer
(21,546 posts)Maybe Gowdy should check with them. Better yet, issue an NSA subpoena and launch an investigation of them.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)Trey Gowdy, "Republican chairman of a House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks"
Wipe it all. Fuck the rethuglicans.
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
HR_Pufnstuf
(837 posts)kick