shadowsdarknes
Member
This is just a lazy interpretation.
Why wasn't Clinton fined for the private server.
- Thread starter Proelite
- Start date
- Status
This is just a lazy interpretation.
Anything that is work related that was deleted to conceal them.
No. They found several thousand of the 33000 emails she deleted saying they were not work related. OF course FBI stated some were work related that were deleted.
Skellig Gra
Member
Once again, I never advocated for any action against her. I'm pointing out the clear bias here saying she did absolutely nothing wrong when in fact she did violate record keeping rules. Are we not allowed to evaluate and discuss things on their own merit?
Because people don't actually read threads/links or evidence. Or don't want to because that disrupts their posting agenda.
Fixed1979
Member
Because Hillary Clinton did not break any law or rules.
The stupid media couldnt wait to jump on the complex story and turned it into a scandal.
Read what happened here: http://electionado.com/canvas/1471731044335
I guess based on this post my question would be, by deleting thousands of e-mails would that mean that they weren't preserved?
Skellig Gra
Member
I think that's fairly obvious.
Spiral Insanity
Banned
A fine for what though?
Netherscourge
Banned
Just having a private server isn't illegal.
Sending classified information through a private server is illegal.
Sending classified information through a private server is illegal.
Neuromancer
Member
Yes but she says she directed her staff to delete only personal emails, not work related ones. It's questionable but she was under no obligation to preserve her personal emails, as far as I know.
Resident_UA
Member
It's kind of weird conversation to have. Clearly she doesn't want to acknowledge that she did anything wrong.
And "violating record keeping rules" is number 564 on the list of the most important issues when it comes to electing a president. So once we discuss other 563 issues I think it's a conversation worth having.
Fixed1979
Member
I thought so, but yet people are adamant that she didn't break any rules...
Hillary has been doing a fine job of walking an ethical tight rope for a long time. I think there's some clearly grey areas but assumed this wasn't one of them.
Which is fine, assuming that they were all personal e-mails. I'm not saying they weren't and I have no reason to believe they weren't, but when it comes to optics I can understand why some people might question her.
Where are you getting the bolded from?
It's not the best thread title, but I think most people got the gist of it.
Orbis Tabula
Member
It's kind of weird conversation to have. Clearly she doesn't want to acknowledge that she did anything wrong.
And "violating record keeping rules" is number 564 on the list of the most important issues when it comes to electing a president. So once we discuss other 563 issues I think it's a conversation worth having.
I think Hillary Clinton as acknowledged many times that she did something wrong. She's frequently said the private server was a mistake.
Only when they're on government email servers. You might say she circumvented the law by using a private server, but there was no rule or law prohibiting that. So even by policy standards, she did nothing wrong.
Which she didn't do. All the emails that were marked classified was done so after they were sent.
Even then the entire premise of this thread is still off and misleading. There's no applicable fine to be had here. Not even sure where this notion came from.
Skellig Gra
Member
My understanding was that there was a policy update in 2009 saying if you use a private server, all government emails have to be preserved up to our standards which she violated by deleting emails.
This might be confusing to a lot of people, but having the server itself, was not the major issue. Comey said that having the server by itself did not violate any laws. It was the issue of possibly having classified info sent and/or received from there that was the problem (which, although they did find some such emails, they were not intentionally sent/received).
I must be bored because I just read the FBI's official report, and the only thing that changed in 2009 was they implemented a SMART system which allowed backup of official emails on a government server. Sec Clinton's departed elected not to do this, which was totally within their right as it was optional, because they felt that it didn't provide enough security for sensitive information. Instead, they maintained hard copies of official emails. These were provided to the FBI, who considered her record keeping more than sufficient for the government policy. So she's still in the clear, and this is still a witch hunt.
If you want to fine someone, track down Colin Powell. He not only used a private email server, but also didn't provide enough hard copies to follow government policy.
Not exactly. She had the right to delete personal e-mails:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...te-personal-emails-says-us-justice-department
Skellig Gra
Member
A fair point, the question is did she delete any government related emails. No way of knowing really.
This thread isn't about Colin Powell though. If he did that then he deserves just as much scrutiny if not more. Additionally, if its a witch hunt and she did nothing wrong why has she apologized and said she made a mistake? Is she just weak and trying to appease Republicans or does she legitimately believe it?
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
This and she had the servers prior to the law prohibiting it. Wasn't this known from the very start?
Maybe she doesn't want to sit through another few 11 hour hearings about the subject that Republicans are sure to subject her to. She's been cleared of any wrongdoing in Benghazi countless times, and they still harass her about it. If someone accused you of doing something like hitting their car, and if they kept doing it day after day, wouldn't you at least be tempted to just apologize if only with the hope of shutting them up?
Considering they've been doing it since she was First Lady, they have had lots of practice.
It specifies federal records. That's why the rules were changed after she left. Before it was basically honor system and personal judgement when using private email.
Skellig Gra
Member
Frankly no, I would not. If I was 100% clean I would fight every inch for my reputation. If you honestly believe she is like that then she would make a very poor president. I don't think she is that weak personally.
The problem is that this issue is complicated, and people like simple. It requires one to be more rigorous about trying to understand about what they're told.
Sunster
Member
I was under the impression that would happen eventuuuually. No?
Corronchilejano
Member
Because you don't really care about the truth. You didn't know much about the case and now that you've been informed, you bailed on this thread and went to another thread about publicly requested information about the Clinton foundation and only posted...
... so, what are you doing?
... so, what are you doing?
Yeah, I don't understand how that would work since it would give some pretty big leeway on deleting lots of stuff.
Still, it's allowed, and we haven't found anything incriminating, so there's no point in speculating.
She apologized and said it was a mistake cause she had to. A large chunk of the electorate thinks she did something wrong, and even if Hillary doesn't think she did, saying so will not help her in any way, so of course she has to apologize for that shit.
Proelite
Member
I found what the FBI doing in both accounts suspect as fuck. Like trying to influence an election.
It's good news that she didn't, and never, operate under DoD policy, then.
Seriously. "She'd be treated differently if she were military" is a comically awful argument.
The most infuriating thing about this whole "Hillary is corrupt because she used a private server" shit is that nobody ever explains what kinds of "corrupt" things Hillary was engaging in having a private server.
Remember, David Patraeus, which Republicans love to point to, to whine about this "double standard", had hundreds of classified documents that he was planning on sharing with a reporter. Then he lied about it to the FBI. Both of these things are completely different than what Hillary did.
And what was Hillary doing with her server? She was doing her daily. mundane stuff for her goddamned job.
As I've said many times before, this would make for the most boring Tom Clancy novel in history.
Remember, David Patraeus, which Republicans love to point to, to whine about this "double standard", had hundreds of classified documents that he was planning on sharing with a reporter. Then he lied about it to the FBI. Both of these things are completely different than what Hillary did.
And what was Hillary doing with her server? She was doing her daily. mundane stuff for her goddamned job.
As I've said many times before, this would make for the most boring Tom Clancy novel in history.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
the implied corruption, though usually left ambiguous as you say, is that she is using her position to make money and the intersection between her position and the clinton foundation.
its all baseless and really conspiratorial, so it takes a lot of logic leaps. they let people use the theater of the mind to fill in the blanks
DragonSworne
Banned
So people think Hillary is using her private email to send classified information to individuals outside the Us government? Because even if she was using her private email server to do official business, a copy of the email chain would still be on the state department's server. So those deleted emails amount to nothing.
Oh yeah, I'm totally aware of that. But what I mean is, her enemies seem to imply that such corruption is ONLY possible with the email server. As if Hillary couldn't just simply make a phone call to these people involved in these "pay to play" scandals.
I get the gist fine. I'm just saying its off the mark. People don't get fined or usually don't go to jail for these type of things unless there's actually malice involved.
skullmuffins
Banned
Also, it's my understanding that classified info is supposed to be sent over an entirely different system - even if she had been using a standard gov't email address, she shouldn't/wouldn't have been using it to send or receive classified info, either. I feel like many people don't realize this so they assume her private server obviously must have had tons of classified info going through it, when it isn't really the case.
People think she had the private server so she could delete and cover up anything that could get her in trouble. Only way a copy the email would be on state department server if she email someone in state department.
Usually, the only way you could transfer messages sent in the classified systems is via physical media. They don't have connectivity to other networks.
The whole hubbub about this is whether the emails sent should've been sent on the classified systems.
Terribleness
Neo Member
Its a legit question and I don't think the answer is clear at the moment. Either we trust the entire process or we don't. However one thing that has been very eye opening is this passion for 'corrupt' or 'elite' politicans to be out of office. Yet I'm less than confident that the same people asking for justice (um what?) will be looking carefully at their local politicans, who even at the low district level, are doing favors in exchange for money and votes. So lets see
Yes, you'd be fined and prosecuted for *intentionally forwarding classified information*.
Note that this is not what happened here.
SMH.
Except that's not what the head of the FBI said.
So the FBI director perjured himself in front of Congress ?
gutter_trash
Banned
Same reason why Bush officials got away with their Blackberries.
This whole email thing is ''new'', Bill had to worry about other things
This whole email thing is ''new'', Bill had to worry about other things
Yes. Low level employees in the government have to follow different rules than a former Senator, former First Lady, Secretary of State. This should not surprise you. Did you know she also gets a private car with an entire fucking motorcade to drive her around in! They never offered me that!
FunkyMunkey
Banned
it's an easy way to spot the grossly ignorant
Affeinvasion
Member
Because the government isn't run by Roger Goodell.
I posted on this earlier here and have to admit I am fairly recent addition to the government work, so there was some slight misinterpretation.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=219352751&postcount=109
Placing the 2014 date on the change from policy to laws really clears up why it wasn't illegal at the time.
Still, in our department policy is treated like law in day to day actions. The proper handling of classified information could literally be the safety of thousands of individuals at any given time. So, it is still sad to see the blatant disregard for proper handling regardless of when it went into effect as law.
I once again restate "that government methodologies and practicalities regarding classified information for political leaders are woefully out of date". The security measures our engineering departments take make those choices, within law, policy, or otherwise look like those of someone completely unfamiliar with standard procedure.
And as I suspected it is a unique situation. Even as policy her security clearance should have been revoked with no possibility of return in any future instance. In a normal situation this would prevent someone from working in a government position handling classified information, yet there is no way to follow the will of the voters and have an elected president acting as such without that clearance.
I don't think that this is quite right. The reasons why the Republican messaging machine is successful boil down to three things: the willingness to outright lie, the use of propaganda, and intimidation of the media. These method are all unethical and I'd hate to see anyone adopt them. Of these, the most insidious is the third - talk radio and other right-wing platforms have declared the media to be liberal and biased for so long that these groups have started believing it themselves. And so, legitimate media have changed their messages in an attempt to be more "balanced"; thereby ceding room for yet more lies to flow forth unchallenged.
The email scandal is a good example. What Clinton may have done may have been poor judgment, but it was not illegal, and there were never any suggestions that she did anything illegal. However, Republicans and other right-wing media felt secure in calling for her to be indicted! In a functional democracy, news organizations should have been quick to point out that these accusers were all off their rockers, but that never happened.
pirateluigi
Member
No matter who the president is, this is a non issue. The president specifically has the right to access any government or military info deemed need to know, regardless of their security clearance before taking office.
- Status