2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
When are you going to understand that the Hillary issue is not a criminal investigation and the same type of investigation could have happened in the Bush case.



So can you stop with the criminal stuff until the investigation is over.

Mr wait and see.
https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-investigation-hillary-clinton-email-server-details

There is a criminal investigation with Clinton's server. There is an individual identified by the name Bryan Pagliano who is the subject. It's all in the article I posted earlier. It's a matter of fact and is ongoing. There is nothing to stop just read.

You raised a question and I answered it as to why the FBI is looking at or case and it the other. I would have thought a thanks would have been in order rather than a hostile response. You're welcome.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-investigation-hillary-clinton-email-server-details

There is a criminal investigation with Clinton's server. There is an individual identified by the name Bryan Pagliano who is the subject. It's all in the article I posted earlier. It's a matter of fact and is ongoing. There is nothing to stop just read.

You raised a question and I answered it as to why the FBI is looking at or case and it the other. I would have thought a thanks would have been in order rather than a hostile response. You're welcome.
Here is the entire article.

FBI Reveals New Details About Its Probe Into Hillary Clinton's Use of Private Email Server
By Jason Leopold

March 26, 2016 | 9:05 am
The FBI submitted a classified declaration to a federal court judge late Friday explaining details about the bureau's "pending investigation" into the use of a private email server by Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton. The declaration addresses why the FBI can't publicly release any records about its probe in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by VICE News.

In a separate public declaration, David Hardy, the chief of the FBI's FOIA office, said there are a number of documents exchanged between the FBI and the State Department relating to the FBI's ongoing investigation of Clinton's use of a private email server, which stored all of the official government emails Clinton sent and received during her tenure as Secretary of State. But the FBI, which consulted with attorneys within its Office of General Counsel "who are providing legal support to the pending investigation," cannot divulge any of them without "adversely affecting" the integrity of its investigation.

Some of the documents at issue concern "server equipment and related devices obtained from former Secretary Clinton," Hardy said. The documents "consist of memoranda from the FBI to the Department of State regarding evidence. The purpose of these communications with the Department of State was to solicit assistance in furtherance of the FBI's investigation."

VICE News sought a wide-range of records from the FBI last December related to Clinton's private email server. Specifically, we asked the FBI for any emails and other documents retrieved from her server, thumb drive, and any other electronic equipment that has not been publicly disclosed; any correspondence and other documents between the FBI and Clinton or her representatives; correspondence between the FBI and the State Department about Clinton's server; and any documents memorializing authorizations granted to the FBI to disclose to the media what the bureau seized from her server. In his declaration, Hardy said the FBI does not have any documents showing that the bureau communicated with Clinton or her aides nor does the FBI have any records about disclosures to the media. The FBI has asked US District Court Judge Randolph Moss to dismiss VICE News' FOIA lawsuit on grounds that the documents it does have about Clinton's private email server are located in files pertaining to a pending investigation that is exempt from disclosure because their release would interfere with active law enforcement proceedings.

Related: There Are 1,800 Reasons Why the Controversy Over Hillary Clinton's Emails Is Far From Over

"Materials that were retrieved from any server equipment and related devices obtained from former Secretary Clinton for the investigation, which would be responsive to [VICE News' FOIA request], are potential evidence in the FBI's investigation, or may provide leads to or context for potential evidence," Hardy wrote. "As this is an active and ongoing investigation, the FBI is continuing to assess the evidentiary value of any materials retrieved for the investigation from any such server equipment/related devices. Disclosure of evidence, potential evidence, or information that has not yet been assessed for evidentiary value while the investigation is active and ongoing could reasonably be expected to undermine the pending investigation by prematurely revealing its scope and focus."

Hardy noted that the FBI's probe was launched after the bureau received a referral from inspectors general of the State Department and the intelligence community about Clinton's use of a private email server. FBI Director James Comey acknowledged during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last October that the FBI received a "security referral" from the watchdogs. But beyond that, "the FBI has not and cannot publicly acknowledge the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any such investigation."

Earlier this month, the Washington Post cited a senior law enforcement official when it reported that the Department of Justice granted immunity to Bryan Pagliano, a former State Department staffer who worked on Clinton's private email server, "as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information."

"As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said," according to the Washington Post report.

Clinton's exclusive use of private email to conduct official business was revealed a year ago this month by the New York Times. The State Department released more than 30,000 of Clinton's emails over the course of 10 months under a court order in response to a separate FOIA lawsuit filed by VICE News in January 2015.


More than 1,800 emails were withheld or heavily redacted under exemptions to the FOIA law, including 22 that were not released because they were deemed Top Secret and would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if disclosed. About 65 others were classified Secret and were heavily redacted. VICE News is currently fighting in federal court for a summary of the information contained in those emails.

Clinton has insisted she never sent or received any emails that contained classified information.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I bolded the part you are basing this on and in the article qouted this was said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html
As part of the inquiry, law enforcement officials will look at the potential damage had the classified information in the emails been exposed. The Clinton campaign has described the probe as a security review. But current and former officials in the FBI and at the Justice Department have said investigators are trying to determine whether a crime was committed.
So it seems a bit contradictory, you just seem to be in a rush to taint it as criminal.
 

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
I don't agree that she's wildly successful as a politician.

And actually I think I would trust Jerry Jones as President over Hillary.
She is a manipulative politician using the system for her benefit as you highlighted, (Senate Seat in NY, SOS). She has only been elected twice to any office.

If you look at her Democratic party endorsement, Media love, etc. you could make a case she is a successful politician. (if that is a definition of political success)
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Here is the entire article.

FBI Reveals New Details About Its Probe Into Hillary Clinton's Use of Private Email Server
By Jason Leopold

March 26, 2016 | 9:05 am
The FBI submitted a classified declaration to a federal court judge late Friday explaining details about the bureau's "pending investigation" into the use of a private email server by Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton. The declaration addresses why the FBI can't publicly release any records about its probe in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by VICE News.

In a separate public declaration, David Hardy, the chief of the FBI's FOIA office, said there are a number of documents exchanged between the FBI and the State Department relating to the FBI's ongoing investigation of Clinton's use of a private email server, which stored all of the official government emails Clinton sent and received during her tenure as Secretary of State. But the FBI, which consulted with attorneys within its Office of General Counsel "who are providing legal support to the pending investigation," cannot divulge any of them without "adversely affecting" the integrity of its investigation.

Some of the documents at issue concern "server equipment and related devices obtained from former Secretary Clinton," Hardy said. The documents "consist of memoranda from the FBI to the Department of State regarding evidence. The purpose of these communications with the Department of State was to solicit assistance in furtherance of the FBI's investigation."

VICE News sought a wide-range of records from the FBI last December related to Clinton's private email server. Specifically, we asked the FBI for any emails and other documents retrieved from her server, thumb drive, and any other electronic equipment that has not been publicly disclosed; any correspondence and other documents between the FBI and Clinton or her representatives; correspondence between the FBI and the State Department about Clinton's server; and any documents memorializing authorizations granted to the FBI to disclose to the media what the bureau seized from her server. In his declaration, Hardy said the FBI does not have any documents showing that the bureau communicated with Clinton or her aides nor does the FBI have any records about disclosures to the media. The FBI has asked US District Court Judge Randolph Moss to dismiss VICE News' FOIA lawsuit on grounds that the documents it does have about Clinton's private email server are located in files pertaining to a pending investigation that is exempt from disclosure because their release would interfere with active law enforcement proceedings.

Related: There Are 1,800 Reasons Why the Controversy Over Hillary Clinton's Emails Is Far From Over

"Materials that were retrieved from any server equipment and related devices obtained from former Secretary Clinton for the investigation, which would be responsive to [VICE News' FOIA request], are potential evidence in the FBI's investigation, or may provide leads to or context for potential evidence," Hardy wrote. "As this is an active and ongoing investigation, the FBI is continuing to assess the evidentiary value of any materials retrieved for the investigation from any such server equipment/related devices. Disclosure of evidence, potential evidence, or information that has not yet been assessed for evidentiary value while the investigation is active and ongoing could reasonably be expected to undermine the pending investigation by prematurely revealing its scope and focus."

Hardy noted that the FBI's probe was launched after the bureau received a referral from inspectors general of the State Department and the intelligence community about Clinton's use of a private email server. FBI Director James Comey acknowledged during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last October that the FBI received a "security referral" from the watchdogs. But beyond that, "the FBI has not and cannot publicly acknowledge the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any such investigation."

Earlier this month, the Washington Post cited a senior law enforcement official when it reported that the Department of Justice granted immunity to Bryan Pagliano, a former State Department staffer who worked on Clinton's private email server, "as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information."

"As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said," according to the Washington Post report.

Clinton's exclusive use of private email to conduct official business was revealed a year ago this month by the New York Times. The State Department released more than 30,000 of Clinton's emails over the course of 10 months under a court order in response to a separate FOIA lawsuit filed by VICE News in January 2015.


More than 1,800 emails were withheld or heavily redacted under exemptions to the FOIA law, including 22 that were not released because they were deemed Top Secret and would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if disclosed. About 65 others were classified Secret and were heavily redacted. VICE News is currently fighting in federal court for a summary of the information contained in those emails.

Clinton has insisted she never sent or received any emails that contained classified information.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I bolded the part you are basing this on and in the article qouted this was said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html


So it seems a bit contradictory, you just seem to be in a rush to taint it as criminal.
Who said a crime was committed. It is an investigation. I said there was a criminal investigation. I will say it again. It is a criminal INVESTIGATION.
 
Last edited:

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
She is a manipulative politician using the system for her benefit as you highlighted, (Senate Seat in NY, SOS). She has only been elected twice to any office.

If you look at her Democratic party endorsement, Media love, etc. you could make a case she is a successful politician. (if that is a definition of political success)
I would argue that she's gotten everything she's ever set out for except for the 2008 nomination and Hillarycare. If she had wanted to be in more elections she would have been.

Much like Herbert Walker, she's padded her resume with a bunch of important bullet points, but really hasn't had a long stretch anywhere.

But she's never come out of a campaign with nothing to show for it. That's the definition of a successful career.
 

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
I would argue that she's gotten everything she's ever set out for except for the 2008 nomination and Hillarycare. If she had wanted to be in more elections she would have been.

Much like Herbert Walker, she's padded her resume with a bunch of important bullet points, but really hasn't had a long stretch anywhere.

But she's never come out of a campaign with nothing to show for it. That's the definition of a successful career.
Fair point
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Who said a crime was committed. It is an investigation. I said there was a criminal investigation. I will say it again. It is a criminal INVESTIGATION.
So why were you saying if the FBI was not being stalled she would be out of the race?

And I noticed you left out the other part.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
So why were you saying if the FBI was not being stalled she would be out of the race?

And I noticed you left out the other part.
I believe what I said was 1. If the FBI had any balls and released what they had she might not be in the race. And 2. If the individual who is being investigated testified against her she could be in hot water. I didn't say she would be out of the race. I said might. You are taking liberties again. And there is a criminal investigation ongoing. The initial target has been granted immunity if he will testify. That's prima faca that they already have enough on him. They are obviously prepared to take it to trial if he doesn't take the deal.
 
Last edited:

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Trey Gowdy’s Former Top Lawyer Undercuts The Benghazi Committee
The former general said he believed military officials did everything they could to save four Americans.
05/16/2016 12:01 am ET | Updated 11 hours ago
Michael McAuliff
Senior Congressional Reporter, The Huffington Post

ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — Shortly before the House Benghazi committee ramped up its battles with the Department of Defense in its probe of the 2012 terrorist attack, the committee’s own top lawyer admitted at least four times in interviews with military officials that there was no more they could have done on that tragic night.

That’s according to a letter obtained by The Huffington Post that was sent Sunday to the chairman of the committee, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), from the top Democrats on the Benghazi panel and the House Armed Services Committee, Reps. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.).

The Democrats are sending the letter after relations between the GOP-led Benghazi committee and military officials recently took a turn for the worse. The military accused the committee late last month of demanding increasingly frivolous interviews from irrelevant service members; Gowdy responded by calling that charge a “partisan attack.”

But in Monday’s letter, which includes four separate comments from Gowdy’s recently departed chief counsel, Democrats say Gowdy’s own staffer agreed with the military.

According to the letter, that staffer, former Gen. Dana Chipman, said in interviews with former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and former Defense Department Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash that the department did all it could on that night when Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

“I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or in Tripoli or elsewhere in the region,” Chipman told Panetta in the committee’s January interview with the former defense secretary, according to transcribed excerpts. “And, sir, I don’t disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made, and the decisions you directed.”

Chipman was similarly deferential to Bash.

“I would posit that from my perspective, having looked at all the materials over the last 18 months, we could not have affected the response to what occurred by 5:15 in the morning on the 12th of September in Benghazi, Libya,” said Chipman, who himself served 33 years in the Army.

“I don’t see any way to influence what occurred there,” he told Bash at another point. “But what I am worried about is we’re caught by surprise on 9/11, we’ve got nothing postured to respond in a timely manner — and you can debate what’s timely, what’s untimely, but nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi.”




That interview was also in January. Chipman left the committee not long after. His statements appear to confirm the general findings of the eight previous investigations into Benghazi, which found flaws in readiness and coordination but no signs of wrongdoing. Those reports also repeatedly debunked rumors that the military was ordered to stand down.

But after Chipman’s departure, the Defense Department noted in its recent complaint, requests to interview people based on things such as Facebook posts and allegations on talk radio shows started to spike.

Those commenters, on the air and online, generally seek to revive some sort of stand-down scenario. Gowdy has said that it’s his obligation to seek out all sources of information, including from rank-and-file service members, not just the people who gave the orders that night.

In a statement provided by the committee, Chipman said he backed Gowdy’s dogged pursuit of fresh witnesses, although he did not contradict his comments mentioned in the Democrats’ letter.

“I agree with Chairman Gowdy. If some witnesses refer the committee to other witnesses, the responsible thing to do is interview them,” Chipman said. “The committee has an obligation to the American people to determine what can and cannot be substantiated, so if an individual makes public allegations about Benghazi, the committee should interview that person.”

A spokesman for the committee, Matt Wolking, added that the letter and the excerpted statements from the general were more examples of the Democrats’ partisan attempts to curb the real progress the probe is making.

“No matter how many dishonest letters Democrats waste time writing, Republicans will continue conducting a thorough, fact-centered investigation that includes all relevant witnesses, regardless of rank,” Wolking said.

He also argued that the committee has made progress, despite the minority party’s efforts.

“Democrats have peddled the same politically motivated, predetermined conclusions from the very beginning, so it’s no surprise they’re still clinging to their false claim everything has been ‘asked and answered,’ even after the Pentagon admitted the map it previously provided to the committee showing the forces available on the night of the attacks was incomplete,” Wolking said. “Democrats’ false attacks on legitimate congressional oversight are proof they’re nervous about the new information committee investigators have uncovered.”

Chipman is not the first former staffer to cause heartburn for Gowdy. A military investigator who was fired from the committee accused it of running a “partisan investigation.”

The Benghazi committee has been working for more than two years and has cost about $7 million and counting. Democrats estimate that other government entities have spent about $13 million more responding to the committee’s requests.

And while it’s interviewed some 100 witnesses, its most notable revelation has been that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conducted her State Department business on her personal email server. The FBI is investigating whether she violated any laws.
 

jsmith6919

Honored Member - RIP
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
28,407
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
This is how fascism comes to America

This is how fascism comes to America

By Robert Kagan

The Republican Party’s attempt to treat Donald Trump as a normal political candidate would be laughable were it not so perilous to the republic. If only he would mouth the party’s “conservative” principles, all would be well.

But of course the entire Trump phenomenon has nothing to do with policy or ideology. It has nothing to do with the Republican Party, either, except in its historic role as incubator of this singular threat to our democracy. Trump has transcended the party that produced him. His growing army of supporters no longer cares about the party. Because it did not immediately and fully embrace Trump, because a dwindling number of its political and intellectual leaders still resist him, the party is regarded with suspicion and even hostility by his followers. Their allegiance is to him and him alone.

And the source of allegiance? We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

That this tough-guy, get-mad-and-get-even approach has gained him an increasingly large and enthusiastic following has probably surprised Trump as much as anyone else. Trump himself is simply and quite literally an egomaniac. But the phenomenon he has created and now leads has become something larger than him, and something far more dangerous.

Republican politicians marvel at how he has “tapped into” a hitherto unknown swath of the voting public. But what he has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” Conservatives have been warning for decades about government suffocating liberty. But here is the other threat to liberty that Alexis de Tocqueville and the ancient philosophers warned about: that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms. As Alexander Hamilton watched the French Revolution unfold, he feared in America what he saw play out in France — that the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.

This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called “fascism.” Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. “National socialism” was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Führer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about the tough man who single-handedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.

To understand how such movements take over a democracy, one only has to watch the Republican Party today. These movements play on all the fears, vanities, ambitions and insecurities that make up the human psyche. In democracies, at least for politicians, the only thing that matters is what the voters say they want — vox populi vox Dei. A mass political movement is thus a powerful and, to those who would oppose it, frightening weapon. When controlled and directed by a single leader, it can be aimed at whomever the leader chooses. If someone criticizes or opposes the leader, it doesn’t matter how popular or admired that person has been. He might be a famous war hero, but if the leader derides and ridicules his heroism, the followers laugh and jeer. He might be the highest-ranking elected guardian of the party’s most cherished principles. But if he hesitates to support the leader, he faces political death.

In such an environment, every political figure confronts a stark choice: Get right with the leader and his mass following or get run over. The human race in such circumstances breaks down into predictable categories — and democratic politicians are the most predictable. There are those whose ambition leads them to jump on the bandwagon. They praise the leader’s incoherent speeches as the beginning of wisdom, hoping he will reward them with a plum post in the new order. There are those who merely hope to survive. Their consciences won’t let them curry favor so shamelessly, so they mumble their pledges of support, like the victims in Stalin’s show trials, perhaps not realizing that the leader and his followers will get them in the end anyway.

A great number will simply kid themselves, refusing to admit that something very different from the usual politics is afoot. Let the storm pass, they insist, and then we can pick up the pieces, rebuild and get back to normal. Meanwhile, don’t alienate the leader’s mass following. After all, they are voters and will need to be brought back into the fold. As for Trump himself, let’s shape him, advise him, steer him in the right direction and, not incidentally, save our political skins.

What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing. He will have ridden to power despite the party, catapulted into the White House by a mass following devoted only to him. By then that following will have grown dramatically. Today, less than 5 percent of eligible voters have voted for Trump. But if he wins the election, his legions will likely comprise a majority of the nation. Imagine the power he would wield then. In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following, he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that lay down before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life? Does vast power un-corrupt?

This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac “tapping into” popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Oh god, give it a rest already.

If Donald Trump is so incompetent as a politician, he's not bringing anything to anyone.

He might ride the coattails of the fascism already brought to us by 100 years of Democrats in power, though (and more recently, neocons). Thanks, FDR, LBJ, Bush, and Obama. You gave us a guy who has infinitely more sway thanks to a century of unconstitutional expansion of the executive branch's power.

Fuck these liberal power grabbing assholes and anyone who supports them (I'm looking at Bipo). Now they want to cry because someone scary on the Republican side might use all the power they put their greedy little hands on when they were in office? Again, fuck them. Maybe when they try decreasing federal power I'll have some fucking sympathy. Until then... your tears are delicious.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
By Ryan Browne and Evan Perez, CNN



UPDATED: 04:49 PM EDT 05.25.16



A State Department Inspector General report said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed to follow the rules or inform key department staff regarding her use of a private email server, according to a copy of the report obtained by CNN on Wednesday.



The report, which was provided to lawmakers, states, "At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."



The report examined record keeping laws, policies and practices at the State Department from 1997 to present.



In producing the report, the Inspector General's office interviewed former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice.



Clinton and several of her staff members during her tenure declined to be interviewed, the report said.



The report draws attention to two staff members in the Office of Information Resources Management, who back in 2010 "discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director" of their office.



The report says, "According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary's personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further." The same director reportedly "instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary's personal email system again."



But the report notes that interviews with officials from the Under Secretary for Management and the Office of the Legal Adviser found "no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff" of the server.



Clinton has long maintained that she had permission to use personal email.



She told CNN's Brianna Keilar in July that "the truth is everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what anybody could have expected in making sure that if the State Department didn't capture something, I made a real effort to get it to them."




By Ryan Browne and Evan Perez, CNN



UPDATED: 04:49 PM EDT 05.25.16



But the report says that the Inspector General's office "found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server."



In a statement following the report's release, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon, wrote that "While political opponents of Hillary Clinton are sure to misrepresent this report for their own partisan purposes, in reality, the Inspector General documents just how consistent her email practices were with those of other Secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email."



But while the report acknowledges personal email use by previous secretaries, it also notes that the rules for preserving work emails sent from a personal email account were updated in 2009, the year Clinton took office.



The National Archives and Records Administration regulation, according to the report, says that "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system."



This is not the first time Clinton's use of a private email has been criticized by an inspector general.



In January the inspector general for intelligence agencies wrote a letter to Congress saying that two government agencies flagged emails on Clinton's server as containing classified information, the inspector general said, including some on "special access programs," which are a subset of the highest "Top Secret" level of classification, but are under subject to more stringent control rules than even other Top Secret information."



At the time a Clinton campaign spokesman alleged that the Inspector General for intelligence agencies had been intentionally leaking seemingly damaging information in collusion with Senate Republicans.



Clinton's campaign and the State Department have long denied that any information was handled improperly, saying that the information and emails in question were all retroactively classified.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Caught fibbing, Trump scrambles to address veterans controversy
05/25/16 08:41 AM—UPDATED 05/25/16 08:48 AM
facebook twitter 3 save share group 211
By Steve Benen

In a normal year, in a normal party, with a normal candidate, it would be the kind of controversy that effectively kills a presidential candidate’s chances of success. In January, Donald Trump skipped a Republican debate in order to host a fundraiser for veterans. He boasted at the time that he’d raised $6 million for vets – which led to a related boast that Trump contributed $1 million out of his own pocket.

The Washington Post reported this week that Trump’s claims simply weren’t true. He did not, for example, raise $6 million. And what about the $1 million check the Republican bragged about? His campaign manager insisted this week that Trump did make the contribution.

Except, that wasn’t true, either. The Post reported last night:
Almost four months after promising $1 million of his own money to veterans’ causes, Donald Trump moved to fulfill that pledge Monday evening – promising the entire sum to a single charity as he came under intense media scrutiny.

The check is apparently going to a group called the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, whose chairman received a call from Trump on Monday night, the day the campaign controversy broke.

Let’s put aside, for now, why the Trump campaign said he’d made a donation that did not exist. Let’s instead ask why it took nearly four months for the candidate to do what he claimed to have already done.

“You have a lot of vetting to do,” Trump told the Washington Post yesterday.

That might be a decent response were it not for the fact that the New York Republican doesn’t appear at all interested in vetting veterans’ groups – as the story of the sketchy “Veterans for a Strong America” helps prove.

CNN, meanwhile, reported last night that when it comes to the candidate’s support for veterans’ groups, there have been “discrepancies between the amount of money Trump touts, and the amount actually donated.”

You can find one example right on Trump’s own website, where Trump boasts of saving an annual veterans parade in 1995 with his participation, and a cash donation, “Mr. Trump agreed to lead as grand marshal,” and “made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nation’s Day Parade.”

Trump did save the event, according to the parade’s organizer, but he didn’t give $1 million to it.
He actually donated “somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000” – about a third of what he claimed – and Trump was not the parade’s grand marshal, a honor reserved for actual veterans.

CNN’s report has not been independently verified by NBC News, but if accurate, the revelations will only make the controversy more severe.

I can appreciate why some observers get tired of the “imagine if a Democrat did this” framing, but in this case, it’s worth taking a moment to consider. If Hillary Clinton and her campaign had been caught making blatantly false claims about donations to veterans’ charities, is there any doubt that it would be one of the biggest stories of the election season? How much punditry would we hear about this being proof about Clinton’s dishonesty and willingness to say anything to get elected?

Postscript: Asked about the January fundraiser, and his claim that he’d raised $6 million for veterans, Trump told the Washington Post yesterday, “I didn’t say six.” Reminded that he did, in reality, use the specific $6 million figure – out loud, in public, on video – Trump changed the subject.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
By Ryan Browne and Evan Perez, CNN



UPDATED: 04:49 PM EDT 05.25.16
.
Still all very confusing nothing here is different than has allready been reported.

She most definitely used a private email server outside of normal regulations but she did not set this precedent.

It is time for the FBI to shit or get off the pot.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Still all very confusing nothing here is different than has allready been reported.

She most definitely used a private email server outside of normal regulations but she did not set this precedent.

It is time for the FBI to shit or get off the pot.
The primary question is whether her personal server was used for classified documents. A lot of personal servers are utilized in government but only agency approved encryption can be utilized for classified transmissions.
 

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
Still all very confusing nothing here is different than has allready been reported.

She most definitely used a private email server outside of normal regulations but she did not set this precedent.

It is time for the FBI to shit or get off the pot.
She did set precedent. A private email account and a private server are two different things. She defends herself by bringing up Colin Powell, who used a private email address, he didn't use a private server. She used both.

The primary question is whether her personal server was used for classified documents. A lot of personal servers are utilized in government but only agency approved encryption can be utilized for classified transmissions.
She did send and receive classified documents, but says (and it seems to be true) non were classified at the time. I think her bigger issue, is going to if this was an attempt to circumnavigate the FOIA, and that she was warned she was hacked, all communications were stopped, she didn't tell anyone and kept using the server.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom