The Hillary "private" emails

[beamon]

I also don't remember as big of a stink when Colin Powell did the same thing so theres definitely a double standard at play here.

How many Congressional committees have requested Powell's emails from his personal accounts and received the cold shoulder?

Though I haven't had a chance to vet it yet, I heard that the requirement to use government servers didn't exist during Powell's tenure at State.

[ssb]

I wonder if those here who hold various clearances and have access to sensitive information get to use personal e-mail accounts for work stuff out of convenience.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politi...nce/index.html

Of note:
- She claims she went "above and beyond" in turning over her e-mails to State
- She claims to have sent approx. 60,000 e-mails while at work there, of which 30,000 were of a personal nature and thus deleted
- She claims the server the e-mails were hosted on dates back to Bill's time at the White House, and was under guard by the USSS
- She claims that the server was not used to send any classified information

Even if she did everything right with regards to disclosure, the perception of a lack of transparency should have been the most obvious problem in the world to somebody who's been running for president for the past few years. We'll never know what she and her staff deemed non-pertinent.

[Dagga Boy]

I find it very hard to believe that not a single classified e mail was ever sent or received. If that is as claimed, then the State department should not have to comb through them before releasing them.

[runcible]

the idea that anyone votes based on the morals, behavior, or actions of a candidate is quaint.

Everyone is voting their own self-interests. Gun Owners would vote for Richard Simmons if he promised to veto any gun legislation, homos would vote for Ronald Reagan if he promised to legalize their sin, Pot-heads would vote for GWB if he promised to legalize it, illegals will vote (wait, whut?) for whoever will make them legal, etc.

It seems a bit overly broad to say what people do and don't for: certainly, many vote as much by what someone
lacks as far as morals, behavior, or deeds; as what you described.

As for the bizarre remark about sin, that's a matter for whatever religion is being consulted; and certainly is no matter of law, ne?

[farscott]

Okay, now I am just flabbergasted. The reason given for a private server was for "convenience" as Secretary Clinton did not want to suffer the slings and arrows of maintaining and using two email accounts. Now, I have not had a Blackberry since 2010, but I know my iPhone has the ability so support multiple accounts, and I still carry two phones, my work-issued one and my personal one. The former has software on it that allows it to be remotely wiped should it be outside of my possession or I fail to access it within a certain period of time.

Sorry, but Secretary Clinton's excuse does not even get past the simplest sanity check. After all, it is so much more convenient to invest and setup your own mail server instead of just using a free GMail account for your personal stuff and adding the account to your phone. It is also convenient that your personal aide and close adviser also have an account on your server because she only ever conferred with Secretary Clinton on wedding planning.

The only conclusion that is reasonable is that she wanted the ability to control what records were turned over to fed.gov.

[Palmguy]

- She claims the server the e-mails were hosted on dates back to Bill's time at the White House, and was under guard by the USSS

Someone brought this up in a conversation I was engaged in on bookface...it makes me laugh. Sure, USSS provides physical security for the Clintons, but they don't provide network security for her personal information systems and physical access is not required to breach those systems. Blatant red herring.

[BaiHu]

Kabuki. Theater. For mass consumption.