PDA

View Full Version : Regarding the endless 'email' scandal



Norman Bernstein
09-08-2016, 08:11 AM
Perhaps revealing those emails isn't giving the Hillary haters exactly what they've been hoping for:


Newly-disclosed emails show that former Secretary of State Colin Powell told Hillary Clinton at the start of her tenure at the State Department that he used a personal computer to conduct government business, and took steps to avoid “going through the State Department servers,” the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/colin-powell-gave-hillary-clinton-tips-on-how-to-avoid-email-scrutiny-1473297040) reports.

“The new emails appear to show Mr. Powell suggesting he intentionally conducted work-related emails with foreign leaders and State Department officials using a personal computer or the personal accounts of government staffers.”

When can we expect Congress to investigate Colin Powell?

Rum_Pirate
09-08-2016, 08:16 AM
. . . but not a personal server, nor did he have a 'Blackberry'.

Just providing 'grist for your mill'*.


* aka feeding the troll.|;)

Norman Bernstein
09-08-2016, 08:22 AM
. . . but not a personal server, nor did he have a 'Blackberry'.

I see you're picking the flysh|t out of the pepper. From a security standpoint, what is the difference between a private server, a commercial server, and a Blackberry?

The point is pretty clear: the notion of using a 'non-secure' server for email communications (the overwhelming percentage of which contained NO classified information, regardless of whether it was marked or not) was not original with Hillary.... and probably wasn't original with Colin Powell, either.

Rum_Pirate
09-08-2016, 08:42 AM
I see you're picking the flysh|t out of the pepper. From a security standpoint, what is the difference between a private server, a commercial server, and a Blackberry?

The point is pretty clear: the notion of using a 'non-secure' server for email communications (the overwhelming percentage of which contained NO classified information, regardless of whether it was marked or not) was not original with Hillary.... and probably wasn't original with Colin Powell, either.

They are different things.

I am not a security expert, am sure that one will be along to inform us of the difference.

Peerie Maa
09-08-2016, 08:44 AM
So you're taking the position that an AOL account is better than a private server?
Is that based on your technical analysis of the systems and your expertise in network security, or based on the fact that you had already decided to bash Clinton, no matter what?


. . . but not a personal server, nor did he have a 'Blackberry'.

Just providing 'grist for your mill'*.


* aka feeding the troll.|;)
AKA stirring the sh!+e.

Canoez
09-08-2016, 08:45 AM
- stirrers should be required to lick the spoon!

Garret
09-08-2016, 08:53 AM
Without studying how the private server was set up, then getting accurate info about security on the public server (AOL, GMail, etc.) - and good luck on getting the latter - there is no way to tell if one is more secure than the other. I will say that just because an email provider is bigger does not mean they are more secure. In fact, there are ways to make a smaller network & its data more secure than the big boys can possibly be.

SullivanB
09-08-2016, 09:24 AM
The story, here, is that the Dems are now sufficiently concerned with her email scandal that they'd have Cummings toss Powell under the bus in an attempt to legitimize or justify Clinton's email practices, a risky move with the potential for serious unintended consequences. Of course, they're right to be concerned about it, especially in view of her performance last night. The problem is that her responses to the questions about her email practices were unsatisfactory because there can be no satisfactory answer, and that's not going to change between now and the election. Implicating Powell is likely to make things worse, not better. Very bad move.

Norman Bernstein
09-08-2016, 09:34 AM
The story, here, is that the Dems are now sufficiently concerned with her email scandal that they'd have Cummings toss Powell under the bus in an attempt to legitimize or justify Clinton's email practices, a risky move with the potential for serious unintended consequences.

This revelation was in emails that long predated the emergence of the so-called 'scandal'. Do you figure that someone was clairvoyant?

oznabrag
09-08-2016, 09:47 AM
This revelation was in emails that long predated the emergence of the so-called 'scandal'. Do you figure that someone was clairvoyant?

Do you figure that someone like SullivanB gives a rip?

If it hurts Hillary, he's all for it.

SullivanB
09-08-2016, 09:59 AM
This revelation was in emails that long predated the emergence of the so-called 'scandal'. Do you figure that someone was clairvoyant?

According to reports, the email was released by Cummings as Mrs. Clinton took the stage last evening. It was, in my opinion, a tactical error that won't help and could well make things worse. It reflects just how serious the Party thinks this email thing is.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-release-email-exchange-between-colin-powell-hillary-clinton/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7i&linkId=284

House Democrats late Wednesday released a full email exchange in which Colin Powell advised Hillary Clinton just after she was sworn in as secretary of state on the use of personal email and devices.
The exchange, released by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, occurred two days after she took over the cabinet position in 2009.
“I hope to catch up soon [with] you, but I have one pressing question which only you can answer! What were the restrictions on your use of your blackberry?” Clinton asked Powell, who served as secretary of state under President George W. Bush.
Clinton wanted to continue using her Blackberry in her new position and Powell responded saying he didn’t have one and developed another system instead that allowed him to communicate with people without it going through servers at the State Department.
“What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers,” Powell wrote. “I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.”
http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/09/07/ce79c197-fd48-493b-9f7d-f71a617aa287/thumbnail/270x150/bc18a6eadccbf161c469327b8133001e/0907-cbsn-bzw-clintonbenghaziemail-1119166-640x360.jpg (http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/new-details-in-clinton-email-probe)[/URL][URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/new-details-in-clinton-email-probe"]Play VIDEO
(http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/new-details-in-clinton-email-probe)
New details in Clinton email probe (http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/new-details-in-clinton-email-probe)
He then explained that the real issue when he ran the State Department was PDAs, which he said Diplomatic Security wouldn’t allow into secure spaces.
“When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals and could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite,” Powell told Clinton.
Powell said he used an “ancient version” of a PDA.
He then warned Clinton, “However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a Blackberry and [the] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law.”
“Be very careful,” he added. “I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.”
The last part was disclosed in an FBI report released Friday that contained dozens of pages of documents of its investigation (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-releases-documents-from-hillary-clinton-email-investigation/) into Clinton’s use of private email servers as secretary of state.
Cummings said in a statement that the email exchange shows “the longstanding problem” that no secretary of state ever used an official unclassified email account and that Powell himself tried to circumvent the rules.
“This email exchange shows that Secretary Powell advised Secretary Clinton with a detailed blueprint on how to skirt security rules and bypass requirements to preserve federal records, although Secretary Clinton has made clear that she did not rely on this advice,” Cummings said.
Powell recently said in an interview with People magazine (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/colin-powell-hillary-clintons-people-have-been-trying-to-pin-email-scandal-on-me/) that Hillary Clinton’s aides have been trying to blame her use of private email servers on him even though he claimed she had been using them for a while before he even advised her to use a private email.

Keith Wilson
09-08-2016, 10:01 AM
I'm sorry, on one hand we have a presidential candidate who is an ignorant impulsive narcissistic pathological liar and bully, whose policy proposals are completely contradictory, change by the hour, and are utterly incoherent or impossible even when you can figure them out, who terrifies our allies, and is as unsuited to have that much power as any person on the planet. On the other hand we ahve one who made some mistakes with her e-mail server? WHAT THE BLOODY HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??? Why are we still talking about this bullsh!t?!?! This is NOT a normal election. This discussion would have made sense in 2008 or 2012, when the Republican candidate was not Donald Trump. it does NOT make sense now.

SullivanB, why are you helping Trump's campaign??

Norman Bernstein
09-08-2016, 10:04 AM
He then warned Clinton, “However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a Blackberry and [the] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law.”

“Be very careful,” he added. “I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.”

We seem to be criticizing the wrong person, aren't we?

ccmanuals
09-08-2016, 10:04 AM
In terms of security what Powell describes he did was without a doubt more risky and less secure than anything Hillary did.

SullivanB
09-08-2016, 10:44 AM
I'm sorry, on one hand we have a presidential candidate who is an ignorant impulsive narcissistic pathological liar and bully, whose policy proposals are completely contradictory, change by the hour, and are utterly incoherent or impossible even when you can figure them out, who terrifies our allies, and is as unsuited to have that much power as any person on the planet. On the other hand we ahve one who made some mistakes with her e-mail server? WHAT THE BLOODY HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??? Why are we still talking about this bullsh!t?!?! This is NOT a normal election. This discussion would have made sense in 2008 or 2012, when the Republican candidate was not Donald Trump. it does NOT make sense now.

SullivanB, why are you helping Trump's campaign??

Keith, do you genuinely believe that my (or anyone else's) discussion of the candidates on WBF is helping Mr. Trump's chances? What's actually helped the man's chances, what's kept him even remotely in this race and what may very well put him in the White House, is the fact that the Democratic Party is running Hillary Clinton. Period.

None of Mrs. Clinton's big weaknesses, the very things that are keeping a man like Trump in this race, are new to the Party elite. All that baggage was out there and it was as clear as day that there was more to come, especially with regard to the emails and that damned Foundation. Denial that she has fundamental problems, pretending that they are of no real consequence, or taking the position that they ought not be discussed is damned dangerous.

No, it's not a normal election, anything but. And, yes, it should be obvious to anyone observing Trump do his thing that the man is a dangerous fool, yet he's still in it. Why is that, Keith? I'll tell you why. It's because the Dems insisted on running perhaps the worst possible choice they might have made, knowing all along that she had serious and still unresolved issues that could cause real trouble. And it ain't like they weren't warned. If she wins, it will only be because the Republicans ran an even worse candidate.

Too Little Time
09-08-2016, 10:55 AM
... what's kept him even remotely in this race and what may very well put him in the White House, is the fact that the Democratic Party is running Hillary Clinton. Period.

yea

RonW
09-08-2016, 10:57 AM
Keith -
WHAT THE BLOODY HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??? Why are we still talking about this bullsh!t?!?! This is NOT a normal election. This discussion would have made sense in 2008 or 2012, when the Republican candidate was not Donald Trump. it does NOT make sense now.

The end justifies the means .

oznabrag
09-08-2016, 11:09 AM
Keith -

The end justifies the means .

The philosophy of 'The end justifies the means' belongs to thieves, murderers, rapists and tin-pot dictators.

Hitler: "We don't like Jews, so we'll just kill them all, and we won't have to put up with them any more."

Clyde Barrow: "I want money, so I'll go kill a bunch of folks and take theirs."

You get the idea.

RonW
09-08-2016, 11:12 AM
The philosophy of 'The end justifies the means' belongs to thieves, murderers, rapists and tin-pot dictators.

Hitler: "We don't like Jews, so we'll just kill them all, and we won't have to put up with them any more."

Clyde Barrow: "I want money, so I'll go kill a bunch of folks and take theirs."

You get the idea.

It also has been adopted by the progressive/liberal party..........I watched ed schultz on his show use it regularly....

oznabrag
09-08-2016, 11:16 AM
It also has been adopted by the progressive/liberal party..........I watched ed schultz on his show use it regularly....


Got a cite, or is this just more of the same?

Dan McCosh
09-08-2016, 11:17 AM
Hillary did bring up one interesting point: The official servers at the SOS office have been hacked. Her personal server has not.

RonW
09-08-2016, 11:30 AM
Hillary did bring up one interesting point: The official servers at the SOS office have been hacked. Her personal server has not.

Yes it was, for god's sake where do you people get your information from, Huffington Post ?

SullivanB
09-08-2016, 11:30 AM
Hillary did bring up one interesting point: The official servers at the SOS office have been hacked. Her personal server has not.

The FBI report said that no evidence of hacking was found. It also said that they could not confirm if the system was or wasn't hacked. I believe Robert Gates has said that it likely occurred.

Keith Wilson
09-08-2016, 11:42 AM
The end justifies the means.And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have Ron's admission that the e-mail "scandal' is bogus, blown completely out of proportion, just another strategy to try to defeat Ms.Clinton, but without anywhere near the significance the right pretends it has. It's the latest in a long line of them, each one more exaggerated than the last, like Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Thanks. It was obvious beforehand, but it's nice to have it confirmed from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Again, SullivanB, why are you helping Donald Trump's campaign?

skuthorp
09-08-2016, 11:51 AM
Sulivan B: So its the Democrats fault that Trump is the GOP candidate and that he has a modicum of success?

RonW
09-08-2016, 11:52 AM
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have Ron's admission that the e-mail "scandal' is bogus, blown completely out of proportion, just another strategy to try to defeat Ms.Clinton, but without anywhere near the significance the right pretends it has. It's the latest in a long line of them, each one more exaggerated than the last, like Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Benghazi!! Thanks. It was obvious beforehand, but it's nice to ahve it confirmed from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Again, SullivanB, why are you helping Donald Trump's campaign?

Well Keith I have learned a few things from the bilge liberals, such as you........

They seem to only hear and see what they want to, and they interpret it the way they want to and or think it should be for their liking and or benefit.

Obviuously you couldn't see or understand that my statement was the libs are ignoring and refuse to see hillary's incompetence with national security risk so they can support and vote for her...........

Nope....no admission that the e-mail is bogus, she should be barred from running and prosecuted at least to the degree general Petraeus was.

oznabrag
09-08-2016, 11:55 AM
Well Keith I have learned a few things from the bilge liberals, such as you........

They seem to only hear and see what they want to, and they interpret it the way they want to and or think it should be for their liking and or benefit.

Obviuously you couldn't see or understand that my statement was the libs are ignoring and refuse to see hillary's incompetence with national security risk so they can support and vote for her...........

Nope....no admission that the e-mail is bogus, she should be barred from running and prosecuted at least to the degree general Petraeus was.

You describe yourself so perfectly.

Why can you not see yourself?

Wait! What is that thing about not seeing someone in the mirror?

Hmmmmm .. .. ..

BrianW
09-08-2016, 12:19 PM
"
On Tuesday's Hannity, Julian Assange revealed that Clinton's claim of ignorance is contradicted by evidence that has already been released by WikiLeaks.



"Hillary Clinton says she can't remember what a 'C' in brackets stands for, everyone in positions of government and at WikiLeaks knows it stands for 'classified confidential'," Assange told Sean.



"In fact, we have already released thousands of cables by Hillary Clinton...thousands of examples where she herself has used the 'C' in brackets and signed it off," Assange said, holding up an example of such a cable and indicating Clinton's signature. In addition, Assange said that Clinton received more than 22 thousand cables from others in which the 'C' in brackets appears."

:D

Peerie Maa
09-08-2016, 01:41 PM
^ You should take comfort from knowing that this is all they have got.

Rum_Pirate
09-08-2016, 01:44 PM
I wish wikileaks would stop claiming credit for 'releasing' emails that were actually released by the State Department to the media. I think that's dishonest and it confuses a lot of people.

When Hillary was Secretary of State, she was rather busy getting us out of two disastrous wars, finding and killing bin Laden, repairing fractured foreign relations and helping the US (and the entire world) survive the worst economic crisis in generations.

She did a reasonably good job at all of that. I'm okay with the fact that she is not an email expert or data classification specialist.

Honestly, the stuff you guys get worked up about lacks a certain sense of proportion. Remember when Bush outed a CIA agent to subdue criticism of the lies he told to get us into a war? That's the sort of stuff I care about.

I was led to understand that President Obama did that. :confused:

Garret
09-08-2016, 02:26 PM
I was led to understand that President Obama did that. :confused:

Yep - he walked across the ocean (since we all know he walks on water) & shot him all by himself. ;)

Wow - did you think before posting that?

SullivanB
09-08-2016, 03:26 PM
skuthorp,

the Dems are not to be blamed for the Republicans' nomination of Trump but, should he become president, they will most certainly have helped him to victory by ignoring the obvious political baggage of Mrs. Clinton and insisting on her, nevertheless. By the way, to characterize Mr. Trump's degree of success as a mere modicum is to do the facts a disservice. He's a far more serious threat than that.

Keith Wilson
09-08-2016, 03:41 PM
So why are you helping his campaign?

George Jung
09-08-2016, 03:51 PM
SullivanB is not a liberal or Democrat. That's been obvious for quite some time.

AFA 'why support Trump' - easy - he's 'not Hillary'. The RWW's have an almost psychotic hatred for Obama (he's black, for crying out loud!) and Clinton (a woman - and a Clinton!).

Looking for reason in that neighborhood is ... well... crazy!

biga
09-08-2016, 03:58 PM
"argh, i'm so mad at republicans bc they keep bringing up hillary's crimes"

hey, if colin powell violated any laws, THROW HIM IN JAIL. but, to post an email from powell to hillary saying how everything he was recommending her to do was against the rules as some kind of excuse for her then GOING AND BREAKING ALL THOSE RULES says quite a lot about dem logic.

"but but but, charles manson told me he killed people too" does not justify homicide committed by another.

SullivanB
09-08-2016, 04:03 PM
So why are you helping his campaign?

As I've said before, I do understand the need to line up some scapegoats just in case the unthinkable actually happens but Mr. Trump's success, to date, has the DNC/Democratic Party's corrupt fingerprints all over it. We did our best to save the Party and the country, those of us who realized just how ill advised was the Dems' insistence on Mrs. Clinton. Alas, the fix was in, lust for money trumped responsibility, and a man as contemptible and uniquely unqualified as Trump remains competitive 60 days out. Oh, it's quite clear who's helped, who's still helping, Trump's campaign. Look to Democratic Party headquarters.

cs
09-08-2016, 04:05 PM
Not going to go deeper into this just wanted to add the image below and say that some of us understand this for we have seen this guy many times (at least once a year) and even though this is just one of those internet things it does have meaning and deeper truths.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/68536219.jpg

Chad

Peerie Maa
09-08-2016, 04:07 PM
Not going to go deeper into this just wanted to add the image below and say that some of us understand this for we have seen this guy many times (at least once a year) and even though this is just one of those internet things it does have meaning and deeper truths.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/68536219.jpg

Chad

That's the reason why when I joined this forum, I did not use my real name.

Ian McColgin
09-08-2016, 08:34 PM
We have a long history of administration record-keeping and legal compliance pretty much since the beginning of e-mail. For another administrations myriad problems, vaster in scale than anything even the craziest rightwinger accuses Clinton of, take a survey course like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

So far we don't seem to do much about actually enforcing the laws but the current administration in general and Clinton in particular have at least not been attempting to hide illegal abuses of power. Despite the Republican manufactured outrage, the FBI appears to have this one right.

John Smith
09-08-2016, 09:20 PM
The story, here, is that the Dems are now sufficiently concerned with her email scandal that they'd have Cummings toss Powell under the bus in an attempt to legitimize or justify Clinton's email practices, a risky move with the potential for serious unintended consequences. Of course, they're right to be concerned about it, especially in view of her performance last night. The problem is that her responses to the questions about her email practices were unsatisfactory because there can be no satisfactory answer, and that's not going to change between now and the election. Implicating Powell is likely to make things worse, not better. Very bad move.

Nonsense. Powell actually did worse than Clinton. He used technology that did not save anything to skirt the law/rules.

There are two simple choices. Opt to end the Hillary email thing or yell to have Powell locked up.

I vote for the former. There are more important issues ahead of us.

John Smith
09-08-2016, 09:23 PM
As I've said before, I do understand the need to line up some scapegoats just in case the unthinkable actually happens but Mr. Trump's success, to date, has the DNC/Democratic Party's corrupt fingerprints all over it. We did our best to save the Party and the country, those of us who realized just how ill advised was the Dems' insistence on Mrs. Clinton. Alas, the fix was in, lust for money trumped responsibility, and a man as contemptible and uniquely unqualified as Trump remains competitive 60 days out. Oh, it's quite clear who's helped, who's still helping, Trump's campaign. Look to Democratic Party headquarters.

What this shows is Hillary is expected to play be a different set of rules. It also shows us she has been honest and Powell has been lying.

BrianW
09-08-2016, 10:05 PM
I wish wikileaks would stop claiming credit for 'releasing' emails that were actually released by the State Department to the media. I think that's dishonest and it confuses a lot of people.

I can agree with hat.


When Hillary was Secretary of State, she was rather busy getting us out of two disastrous wars...

So we're out of Afghanistan and Iraq?

Not quite. Not only that, we're now in Syria as well.

So apparently she didn't have time to get us out of any war, nor make sure she was following the rules about confidential emails.

Honestly, I could give her a pass about the emails, except she keeps lying about the matter. That's the character flaw that counts.

Canoeyawl
09-09-2016, 12:33 AM
The story, here, is that the Dems are now sufficiently concerned with her email scandal that they'd have Cummings toss Powell under the bus in an attempt to legitimize or justify Clinton's email practices, a risky move with the potential for serious unintended consequences. Of course, they're right to be concerned about it, especially in view of her performance last night. The problem is that her responses to the questions about her email practices were unsatisfactory because there can be no satisfactory answer, and that's not going to change between now and the election. Implicating Powell is likely to make things worse, not better. Very bad move.


Powell was " tossed under the bus" a long time ago...

SullivanB
09-09-2016, 08:32 AM
What this shows is Hillary is expected to play be a different set of rules. It also shows us she has been honest and Powell has been lying.


How absurd. Mrs. Clinton, herself, expects to play by a different set or rules and indeed she does, given permission to do so by the rest of her corrupt party. The reckless and unlawful manner in which she handled her official communications while at State is a perfect example of her contemptuous disregard for the rules that apply to the rest of us. Her entire political career has been an exercise in privilege, of acting under her own set of rules, and getting away with it.

A distinct majority of the American public appreciates and takes seriously what you choose to ignore, the profoundly flawed character of Hillary Clinton. They don't trust her and they don't want her back in the White House. That was their feeling about her in 2008 and that's their feeling about her now. If she's elected, it will be because the alternative was so unthinkable that even a politician as disliked and disrespected as Mrs. Clinton could be perceived to be the lesser of the two evils.

Keith Wilson
09-09-2016, 08:38 AM
SullivanB, barring unforeseeable events, either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump WILL be the next president of the US. You are not required to like this, but it is a fact.

I'd appreciate it if you would be honest and admit that you are supporting Mr. Trump, rather than pretending.

ccmanuals
09-09-2016, 09:43 AM
How absurd. Mrs. Clinton, herself, expects to play by a different set or rules and indeed she does, given permission to do so by the rest of her corrupt party. The reckless and unlawful manner in which she handled her official communications while at State is a perfect example of her contemptuous disregard for the rules that apply to the rest of us. Her entire political career has been an exercise in privilege, of acting under her own set of rules, and getting away with it.

A distinct majority of the American public appreciates and takes seriously what you choose to ignore, the profoundly flawed character of Hillary Clinton. They don't trust her and they don't want her back in the White House. That was their feeling about her in 2008 and that's their feeling about her now. If she's elected, it will be because the alternative was so unthinkable that even a politician as disliked and disrespected as Mrs. Clinton could be perceived to be the lesser of the two evils.

Why do people throw around terms like "unlawful" without any basis in fact. Just kidding. I know why.

Too Little Time
09-09-2016, 09:43 AM
SullivanB, barring unforeseeable events, either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump WILL be the next president of the US. You are not required to like this, but it is a fact.
And here I thought the founders created electors to prevent us from doing such stupid things.

SullivanB
09-09-2016, 10:14 AM
Keith, we were talking about how the Clintons do their thing unfettered by the rules and laws applicable to the rest of us. Isn't this most recent news about the Obama Justice department granting immunity to a 2nd person having assisted the Clintons in destroying evidence just further proof that the Clintons are not subject to the rules that apply to the rest of us, that they live outside those rules and above the law of the land? It even appears that those complicit in the Clinton's questionable conduct are to be above the law. Doesn't that honesty you call for require us to at least acknowledgment those facts?

www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html?_r=0)

Justice Dept. Granted Immunity to Specialist Who Deleted Hillary Clinton’s Emails

By ADAM GOLDMAN and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT (http://www.nytimes.com/by/michael-s-schmidt)SEPT. 8, 2016
Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html?_r=0#story-continues-1)Share This Page

Share
Tweet
Email
More
Save


WASHINGTON — A computer specialist who deleted Hillary Clinton (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/hillary-clinton-on-the-issues.html?inline=nyt-per)’s emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them was given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account, according to a law enforcement official and others briefed on the investigation.
Republicans have called for the department to investigate the deletions, but the immunity deal with the specialist, Paul Combetta, makes it unlikely that the request will go far. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the top Republican on the House oversight committee, asked the Justice Department on Tuesday to investigate whether Mrs. Clinton, her lawyers or the specialist obstructed justice when the emails were deleted in March 2015.
Mr. Combetta is one of at least two people who were given immunity by the Justice Department as part of the investigation. The other was Bryan Pagliano, a former campaign staff member for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, who was granted immunity in exchange for answering questions about how he set up a server in Mrs. Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., around the time she became secretary of state in 2009.
The F.B.I. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) described the deletions by Mr. Combetta in a summary of its investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s account that was released last Friday. The documents blacked out the specialist’s name, but the law enforcement official and others familiar with the case identified the employee as Mr. Combetta. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing matters that were supposed to remain confidential.
Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said that the deletions by the specialist, who worked for a Colorado company called Platte River Networks, had already been “thoroughly examined by the F.B.I. prior to its decision to close out this case.”


“As the F.B.I.’s report notes,” Mr. Fallon said, “neither Hillary Clinton nor her attorneys had knowledge of the Platte River Network employee’s actions. It appears he acted on his own and against guidance given by both Clinton’s and Platte River’s attorneys to retain all data in compliance with a congressional preservation request.”
A lawyer for Mr. Combetta and a spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment.
In July, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, announced that the bureau would not recommend that Mrs. Clinton and her aides be charged with a crime for their handling of classified information on the account.
Five days later, Mr. Chaffetz — who has led the charge in raising questions about the F.B.I.’s decision — asked prosecutors to investigate whether Mrs. Clinton had lied to Congress about her email account in testimony in October before the special committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. That request has been met with silence from the Justice Department.
The House oversight committee has asked officials from Platte River Networks, Mr. Combetta and others to appear at a hearing before his committee on Tuesday about how the email account was set up and how the messages were deleted.
According to the F.B.I. documents, Mr. Combetta told the bureau in February that he did not recall deleting the emails. But in May, he told a different story.

In the days after Mrs. Clinton’s staffers called Platte River Networks in March 2015, Mr. Combetta said realized that he had not followed a December 2014 order from Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers to have the emails deleted. Mr. Combetta then used a program called BleachBit to delete the messages, the bureau said.
In Mr. Combetta’s first interview with the F.B.I. in February, he said he did not recall seeing the preservation order from the Benghazi committee, which Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, Cheryl D. Mills, had sent to Platte River. But in his May interview, he said that at the time he made the deletions “he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s email data” on the Platte River server.

Garret
09-09-2016, 10:57 AM
http://www.banklawyersblog.com/.a/6a00d8341c652b53ef01b7c76e0a4a970b-800wi

Keith Wilson
09-09-2016, 11:06 AM
You're still doing it, Sully. We have one candidate who very well may be a certifiable sociopath, and almost certainly has Narcissistic Personality Disorder, who wouldn't know the difference between a truth and a lie if he was hit over the head with it, probably the most dangerous SOB in US politics since George Wallace or Huey Long, who's openly encouraging racism, aggression, and dangerous and utterly reactionary policies (when you can even decipher what he's saying at the moment ) - and you're rattling on about minute details of trivial e-mails and complaining that they can't prove there isn't a little bit of flysh!t in the pepper.

You are free to do this; post what you like, but be honest that you are helping the Trump campaign.

Garret
09-09-2016, 11:27 AM
...You are free to do this; post what you like, but be honest that you are helping the Trump campaign.

Why should be be more honest than the candidate he obviously supports?

switters
09-13-2016, 02:42 PM
SullivanB is not a liberal or Democrat. That's been obvious for quite some time.

AFA 'why support Trump' - easy - he's 'not Hillary'. The RWW's have an almost psychotic hatred for Obama (he's black, for crying out loud!) and Clinton (a woman - and a Clinton!).

Looking for reason in that neighborhood is ... well... crazy!

Just highlighting a label or two, nothing to see here.