(03-05-2015 06:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The left leaning media have decided that Hillary isn't socialist/communist enough for them.

Just goes to show Bill wears the pants in that family. Dems let him get away with everything but they are getting on her about this email stuff.

State Dept Had “Clear-Cut” Rule On Personal Email Accounts Before Hillary Took Office…



Uh ohhh. Pantsuit may wanna dig a hole and crawl into it ASAP.

Quote:The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal e-mail accounts for government work, a regulation in force during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state that appears to be at odds with her reliance on a private email for agency business, POLITICO has learned.

The policy, detailed in a manual for agency employees, adds clarity to an issue at the center of a growing controversy over Clinton’s reliance on a private email account. Aides to Clinton, as well as State Department officials, have suggested that she did nothing inappropriate because of fuzzy guidelines and lack of specific rules on when and how official documents had to be preserved during her years as secretary.

But the 2005 policy was described one of several “clear cut” directives the agency’s own inspector general relied on to criticize the conduct of a U.S. ambassador who in 2012 was faulted for using email outside of the department’s official system.

“It is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized [Automated Information System], which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information,” the Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual states.

Spokespeople for the State Department and Clinton stressed earlier this week that the agency had “no prohibition” on the use of private e-mail for work purposes

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/st...15804.html

Looks like the 6 month Hiatus was not long enough.........

And yes, Obama wants a "mini-me" in the office after him.

And let the double standards begin.

Quote:Clinton used personal email – but ousted ambassador was chastised for doing the same

While Hillary Clinton tries to deflect suggestions of wrongdoing in her use of a personal email account to conduct governmental business during her years as secretary of state, a U.S. ambassador under her watch was sharply reprimanded for doing the same -- and reportedly, it contributed to his being forced to resign.

Scott Gration, then-ambassador to Kenya under Clinton, resigned shortly before the release of a damning inspector general report in 2012. Many aspects of Gration's leadership style were called into question -- including an apparent habit of "publicly berating" staffers and personally "attacking" them -- but a central issue was his handling of the computer and email systems.

"He has willfully disregarded Department regulations on the use of commercial email for official government business," the 2012 IG report said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/...oing-same/

Is Pantsuits still considered a slur? Please, help a brother out here!!

(03-05-2015 09:00 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Is Pantsuits still considered a slur? Please, help a brother out here!!

Shouldn't be, they're sold and worn everywhere and hide pasty kankles.

No, pantsuits is not a slur.

But when it comes to Clinton, there are a boatload of appropriate slurs.

Libs only care about advancing the cause (socialism). If they see that Hillary probably cannot win in 2016, they're going to dump her in a NY minute. She'll be toast, and then forgotten ...

Clinton herself sent out a memo to State Department staff telling them no personal email use for State business. The fact she had an email server in her home clearly states her true intentions.

Can't believe I'm gonna do this.. but I will defend HRC in one instance here.

If the state dept isn't lying: The requirement for the usage of govt. servers for emails was not required for cabinet members until _AFTER_ a few years of Hillary being made the Sect of State.

So basically, did she do something stupid in not using a govt. secured e-mail system? absolutely

Now does this cast questions/doubts about what happened to her email conversations? Yes it does... but unless something comes up that says the state dept. employees _had_ to use govt. servers, then I can see this being a bigger problem.

But was it illegal? I'm not so sure right now.

Because here's my other question: You always get a "From:" address in your emails... shouldn't someone at the State Dept at least questioned Hillary about her header not including @deptstate.us.gov (or whatever the e-mail header is), if it were illegal for her to use a non-govt account for her work communications?

(03-06-2015 09:56 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Can't believe I'm gonna do this.. but I will defend HRC in one instance here.

If the state dept isn't lying: The requirement for the usage of govt. servers for emails was not required for cabinet members until _AFTER_ a few years of Hillary being made the Sect of State.

So basically, did she do something stupid in not using a govt. secured e-mail system? absolutely

Now does this cast questions/doubts about what happened to her email conversations? Yes it does... but unless something comes up that says the state dept. employees _had_ to use govt. servers, then I can see this being a bigger problem.

But was it illegal? I'm not so sure right now.

Because here's my other question: You always get a "From:" address in your emails... shouldn't someone at the State Dept at least questioned Hillary about her header not including @deptstate.us.gov (or whatever the e-mail header is), if it were illegal for her to use a non-govt account for her work communications?

Have you ever seen the urban legend about what happens to underlings who question the Clintons? Would you be willing to put that legend to the test?

(03-06-2015 09:56 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Can't believe I'm gonna do this.. but I will defend HRC in one instance here.

If the state dept isn't lying: The requirement for the usage of govt. servers for emails was not required for cabinet members until _AFTER_ a few years of Hillary being made the Sect of State.

So basically, did she do something stupid in not using a govt. secured e-mail system? absolutely

Now does this cast questions/doubts about what happened to her email conversations? Yes it does... but unless something comes up that says the state dept. employees _had_ to use govt. servers, then I can see this being a bigger problem.

But was it illegal? I'm not so sure right now.

Because here's my other question: You always get a "From:" address in your emails... shouldn't someone at the State Dept at least questioned Hillary about her header not including @deptstate.us.gov (or whatever the e-mail header is), if it were illegal for her to use a non-govt account for her work communications?

It was against the State Dept.'s own rules to use personal email (see post #262 in this thread.

It was against the Freedom of Information Act to not have them ALL available for disclosure. (aka Sunshine/Transparency)

The State Dept had fired someone previously in 2012 for using personal email for official business.(post #264 in this thread)

I would guess employees did notice the send address...but no one would dare question or cross HRC. Things don't end well if you do that. You get fired as in Travelgate...or worse in the case of Vince Foster (and others).

I heard (can't confirm) that the govt. server rule wasn't actually mandated, just recommended, until sometime after 2008 when it became mandatory, mptn. So if she had the server in use beforehand, would it fall under the illegality clause?

So let's say the rule was not in effect prior to .. 2010 (and I'm just picking some year).

Did the Ambassador only start using his personal email accounts after that year? We know Hillary was using hers PRIOR to that date (although you'd think she'd have stopped using it after that rule change). And yes, I believe HRC had used a double standard using that point against the Ambassador, when she herself was doing it.

FOIA: I agree with you on that part.

Again, my only issue is not that she shouldn't have used her personal server, but can we call what she did illegal?

Hillary Clinton Banned Use of Private Email by State Department Employees … While She Conducted All Her Business By Private Email



What a typical hypocritical leftie. Do as I say, not as I do. An evil woman, no doubt. How anyone could think this pathetic excuse for a person is qualified to be President....Wait, she acts like all libs, so no biggie for them I guess.

Quote:Fox News’s Catherine Herridge reports (via Fox’s Greta Van Susteren) that, in an internal 2011 State Department cable, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directed employees not to use personal email accounts for official business due to security concerns. Nevertheless, throughout her tenure as Secretary, Mrs. Clinton used personal email accounts to conduct her State Department business – setting up her own personal servers in her New York home precisely to avoid the State Department system under which government electronic communications were maintained and disclosed pursuant to federal law.

Ms. Herridge elaborates:

Sent to Diplomatic and Consular Staff in June 2011, the unclassified cable, with Clinton’s electronic signature, makes clear to “avoid conducting official Department from your personal e-mail accounts” and employees should not “auto-forward Department email to personal email accounts which is prohibited by Department policy.” The Cable was addressed to all diplomatic and consular posts with the subject line “Securing Personal E-mail Accounts.” While the cable told employees to secure personal/home email accounts given increased targeting of government employees, it makes clear that these personal accounts should never be used for government business and cites the departure procedures which prohibit the practices.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414...-while-she

(03-06-2015 10:39 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I heard (can't confirm) that the govt. server rule wasn't actually mandated, just recommended, until sometime after 2008 when it became mandatory, mptn. So if she had the server in use beforehand, would it fall under the illegality clause?

So let's say the rule was not in effect prior to .. 2010 (and I'm just picking some year).

Did the Ambassador only start using his personal email accounts after that year? We know Hillary was using hers PRIOR to that date (although you'd think she'd have stopped using it after that rule change). And yes, I believe HRC had used a double standard using that point against the Ambassador, when she herself was doing it.

FOIA: I agree with you on that part.

Again, my only issue is not that she shouldn't have used her personal server, but can we call what she did illegal?

I don't know all of the details about the rules/laws of her cabinet office nor the details around the 2012 ambassador's dismissal. The details of exactly what rules and laws she did or did not break will come out over the next weeks if the media continues digging.

I do know that the FOIA rule is a big one for her to have chosen to thwart. Public employees have to use secure institutional email for everything official so that it was accessible for FOIA and they are subject to dismissal if they don't. I don't know if they are subject to prosecution. I would guess it would depend on the level of material they dealt with and whether it appeared that they used other email regularly to be purposefully deceptive or if it was a few times just for convenience.

HRC dealt with classified materials and her personal server was not nearly as secure as a government server so it would've been much easier to hack. Gucifer knew HRC was using personal email back in 2009 because he hacked Sidney Blumenthal's email and found emails from HRC.

Everyone needs to ask themselves with regard to this:
HRC had access to secured government email, with tech support at her disposal and all of her email communications would've been easily accessible for FOIA and archiving. She could've had multiple accounts if needed. Her coworkers/employees email accounts should've all been on the same server making interoffice email communication even more secure.

For what logical, legitimate reason could she have needed to set up her own server, in her home, and use if for official business? (She set it up just one week before she took the oath as SoS so it is obvious she set it up for that purpose.)

If she really could justify its use, why did she not get security clearance and approval before doing so? If she had their approval the government would've likely paid for it but instead she paid for it out of pocket.

Things that make you go hmmmmm………

People are forgetting that is just common sense to NOT use personal email when transmitting State Dept communications. Common sense.

(03-06-2015 11:28 AM)VA49er Wrote:  People are forgetting that is just common sense to NOT use personal email when transmitting State Dept communications. Common sense.

Exactly…using a government supplied email account is simpler, easier, secure, easily archived, easily available for FOIA and FREE.

With all of those benefits explained above, what legitimate reason is there that she chose to go out and pay for her own email server, housed in her own home, owned by her and with access permitted only by her? (especially since she set it up just one week before she became Sos so it's not like it has been her habit to do this since the dawn of email)

There isn't one legitimate reason for her to have done this.

This won't go anywhere. It's interesting to see the liberals are gong after her though.

(03-06-2015 12:41 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This won't go anywhere. It's interesting to see the liberals are gong after her though.

It's really cut and dry, which is why libs even see that what Hillary did was not right. What will be interesting to see if her actions actually change any libs minds as to her worth as POTUS candidate. My guess is they'll biatch but then fall back in line.

Hillary is being sent up the river.....

In the mid 1990's former CIA Director John Deutch was caught mishandling classified data on his home computer. He was accessing computers at Langley from home and using an AOL email account. He has his Security Clearance suspended for 3 months and no criminal prosecution.

2001 Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was caught removing classified documents pertaining to the Clinton Administration efforts against UBL from the National Archives. He was fined and had his Clearance suspended.

Petraeus gets caught with unsecured classified info and shares it with his FWB. What the former DCI had in his possession was far beyond reasonable. He had TS/SCI information in his Home Office that shouldnt have left the SCIF. He was sentenced to two years Probation, fined $40K, and had his Clearance revoked.

Hillary did at least as worse as Petraeus, probably more serious, since she had direct email communications with Obama, world leaders, etc on her Server.

I bet DOJ Sends her a Target Letter next week,,,,