Hillary was warned.

News Buzzard wrote:One of the articles I read said that E-mail security was a motive for the personal server, and no, I don't think scandal mongering is sexism. I just think this is a very desperate attempt to do anything to derail Hillary, and that's not going to happen!!

It's the Dims who are pushing these issues to the front page.




.

News Buzzard wrote:"...Kerry is the first Secretary of State to rely solely on the government server..."

Kerry responded to questions of Hillary's reliance on private e-mails by saying.

"I'll think about it, and respond when I have some free time".

Is this an answer consistent with Kerry taking Hillary's place on the Dim ticket?



.

WHL wrote:You HAVE to be kidding.  The gov is useless, I agree, but to  say a private email is safer than the State Department email???????

Out yesterday:

Fox News’s Catherine Herridge reports 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."
National Review

Hillary banned the "Private E-mail" practice for her SoS Underlings.

News Buzzard wrote: And which law(s) did Hillary violate??  

Nobody knows for sure if she broke any laws as it is still being investigated.  There is no question she broke some rules including her own.

According to an internal 2011 State Department cable, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office told employees not to use personal email for security reasons,  while at the same time, Clinton conducted all government business on a private account.

Hillary criticized the Bush admin for personal email accounts before she was Secretary of State. So she knew exactly what she was doing.

How do you feel about her violating Obamas policy, which insisted they all use .gov addresses?  Obama knew this was taking place, how could he not? How does this affect your judgment for Obama? He set the policy and didn’t enforce his own policy from even his own cabinet positions.

Whats that say about him?

[

Outerlimits wrote:Nobody knows for sure if she broke any laws as it is still being investigated.

That's just right wing speak for she didn't break any laws, and she didn't do things all that much differently than her predecessors. In the end it's not going to mean a hill of beans anyway!

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/05/bad-news-republicans-voters-care-hillary-clintons-emails.html


Hillary in 2016!!

[quote="News Buzzard"] "...In the end it's not going to mean a hill of beans anyway...!"

You mean the MSM won't be reporting or investigating the scandal?

News Buzzard wrote:
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/05/bad-news-republicans-voters-care-hillary-clintons-emails.html
Hillary in 2016!!

From YOUR source:

Leaders in Iran also condemned Netanyahu’s speech.

Comrade NB has got a friend in Ayatollah Khameini!

Change the subject or post a stupid picture if you can't make an argument! In the end, you lose! We're going to do a deal with Iran and save the blood and limbs of thousands of our young, despite you and Netanyahu!! Thank you, Mr President!!

News Buzzard wrote:

WHL wrote:You HAVE to be kidding.  The gov is useless, I agree, but to  say a private email is safer than the State Department email???????

What's your point? Hillary didn't break any laws or rules, she has already released some 55 thousand pages of E-mails, and she asked the State Department to release all of them.

I am not interested in the 55K pages, I want to see the other ones that were not turned over.

News Buzzard wrote: That's just right wing speak for she didn't break any laws, and she didn't do things all that much differently than her predecessors. In the end it's not going to mean a hill of beans anyway!

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/05/bad-news-republicans-voters-care-hillary-clintons-emails.html


Hillary in 2016!!

Right wing speak?

When did ABC become right wing?


Hillary Clinton Was in Violation of State Dept. Policy for Nearly 6 Years

Hillary Clinton was in violation of State Department rules governing the use of non-governmental email accounts during her entire tenure as secretary of state and for nearly two years after she left the job, ABC News has learned. A senior State Department official tells ABC News that under rules in place while Clinton was secretary of state, employees could only use private email accounts for official business if they turned those emails over to be entered into government computers. They were also forbidden from including sensitive but unclassified information on private email, except under some very narrow exceptions

https://gma.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-violation-state-dept-policy-nearly-6-025013770--abc-news-topstories.html

You still got nothing!

1-She turned over the E-mails to the State Department.

2-How do you define SBU (sensitive but unclassified) and how do you know that any of her E-mails were SBU?

3-She still didn't break any laws!!

It is unclear if laws were broken as the investigation is not complete.

However...

The origination, processing, handling, storage, declassification and destruction of all official US Government classified material, including emails and servers, are governed by a number of US Laws, Rules and Regulations. This includes correspondence based upon or including information derived from classified material. The use of servers and/or private email accounts is also governed by these laws and requires both official approval for use and compliance with federal oversight. All such correspondence remains the property of the US Government, not the individual/company/corporation.

The salient question(s) have not been asked nor answered:

Did Hillary's servers, email accounts, personnel comply with all applicable federal laws/rules and regulations, in place, since it first started operation?

What agencies approved verified/certified, monitored and provided oversight of those servers, email accounts, server facilities, and personnel to ensure compliance?

Did Hillary's severs, email accounts, facilities and personnel meet all requirements for use, storage and transmission of classified material including encryption, security clearance, and destruction requirements?

Does State Department have archived copies of all emails, documents and classified material stored, originated, received or transmitted by these accounts and servers in their procession?

The only way this can be determined is for the government to seize the servers, facilities and all documentation related to the operation of and staffing of the facility. Then have the NSA conduct a complete analysis, risk and vulnerability assessment of the operation to include an evaluation of probable compromise of classified/sensitive material going back to when the operation was first established.

Violation of the Law(s), Rules and Regulations to be prosecuted, as directed by applicable Federal Law.

Compromised Classified Material to be handled as required by applicable Federal Laws, Rules and Regulations, with affected agencies and countries notified of the compromise(s)

As the Head of State do you think it reasonable that some of her emails have classified material in them?

If so, she committed the same crime that Gen David Petraeus just plead to. He was charged, along with other things, with not securing classified information. If she received or sent classified information from her pvt email address it would have been stored on the sever in her house. That server was no different that Petraeus's black book of notes.

As Head of State do you think it reasonable that she exchanged email with Diplomats and Head of States from other countries as well at individuals and organizations all as a legitimate part of her job? If so, the emails the State department release should have some of them mixed in with her correspondence with staff.

As Head of State do you think it reasonable that she exchanged emails with White House Staff even the POTUS? If so, they would know that she was using a no-government email address and thus a less secure email address?

ALL official State Department communications are classified. Therefore, private email or not, she is in all likelihood guilty of violating security regulations and laws regarding the transfer of classified government information.

So why hasn't the State Department issued a warrant and confiscated this personal server?

She either broke the law or the rules. Should we have confidence in a Secretary of State who thinks the rules (or the laws) are only for other people? Oh, yeah, I forgot that's Socialism and Communism. Rules and laws are only for the ruled.

Give me a break, Outerlimits! You're the one who said that the Sgt of Arms was going to take Eric Holder out of the chamber in cuffs after Fast and Furious! How did that work out for you? There is never any reasonable middle ground with you folks. First of all, Hillary was not in violation of the Federal Records Act because that was passed after she left office.

I see 2 issues here regarding her possible violation of State Department rules: One, did she publish any classified or "sensitive" information in her E-mails? Two, did she turn the E-mails over to the government to be entered into the federal servers? The rule doesn't give a timeframe of when that information has to be turned over, it only says that the violation ceases once the E-mails are submitted. On the first point, none of us know what's in the E-mails so we have no clue if any of the information is classified or "sensitive", and who is the arbiter of what is "sensitive"? On the second point, she turned everything over, so according to the stated rule she is no longer in violation of that rule.

I would say that Hillary used very bad judgment in this matter, only because she knows that the bloodsucking right wingers will do anything to take her out, but I don't think this matter comes anywhere close to derailing her campaign. In the end, you still got nothing!

News Buzzard wrote:Change the subject or post a stupid picture if you can't make an argument! In the end, you lose! We're going to do a deal with Iran and save the blood and limbs of thousands of our young, despite you and Netanyahu!! Thank you, Mr President!!

So to win in 2016, the National-Socialists have been scheming to make war a likelihood by enabling a guarantee of a nuclear Iran?

Yeah, thanks a lot, Obozo.



The difference between a weak President and a strong one was never more evident than when Jimmy Carter left office, and the "war-monger" Ronald Reagan stepped up. Iran released our 40 American hostages the same day!  




.

News Buzzard wrote:"...I would say that Hillary used very bad judgment in this matter, only because she knows that the bloodsucking right wingers will do anything to take her out, but I don't think this matter comes anywhere close to derailing her campaign. In the end, you still got nothing...!"

These attacks are originating from the "bloodsucking" Dim hopefuls: Kerry, Al Gore, and FauxCahontus...

(...and of course, the New York Times...)




.

News Buzzard wrote:You still got nothing!

1-She turned over the E-mails to the State Department.

1-She turned over the E-mails to the State Department.

There, I've corrected it for you.

News Buzzard wrote:3-She still didn't break any laws!!

No? The National Archives and Records Administration will be in touch with you.

"Open government is embedded in the mission of the National Archives".
www.archives.gov/.../open...

(Although Hillary could get Sandy Berger to steal anything incriminating—a $40,000 fine being nothing for the Clinton Foundation's foreign donations to come up with).

If her secret email stash is found to be illegal, she's amply qualified to become a Democrat.




.

It's very possible that Hillary may not have violated any rules! It appears there may have been a rush to judgment by certain media outlets, including the New York Times!

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/06/cnn-debunks-the-clear-cut-clinton-email-narrati/202797

I guess this forum likes the liberal media on odd days, and dislikes it on even days!

"Clinton was not automatically in violation of State Department policy when she exclusively used a private email during her four years as America's top diplomat." CNN further reported that 2005 guidelines insisting that employees use government-provided email "were filled with exemptions that could allow Clinton to use a private account."

So why don't they tell us what those exemptions are???? Or is this just another typical CNN make believe story? They say whatever they want as long as it benefits their boy or their girl

So in other words, none of us really know if Hillary did anything wrong!!

With the Clintons, Only the Shadow Knows
MARCH 7, 2015
Photo

The portrait of Bill Clinton by Nelson Shanks. Credit Nelson Shanks/National Portrait Gallery, via Associated Press


Maureen Dowd



This story is included with an NYT Opinion subscription.

WASHINGTON — SOMEWHERE in Smithsonian storage sits a portrait of Bill Clinton with two odd features: He is standing next to a shadow meant to conjure Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress, and he is not wearing his gold wedding ring.

As we have been reminded by a recent wild cascade of stories, everything about the Clintons is convoluted. Nothing is simple, even a celebratory portrait.

Nelson Shanks, picked by Clinton to do his portrait for the National Portrait Gallery, revealed to the Philadelphia Daily News that he had used a blue dress on a mannequin to evoke the shadow of the Lewinsky scandal in the portrait.

I called the 77-year-old artist to ask about his devilish punking.

“It’s an extra little kick going on in the painting,” he said. “It was a bit humorous, but there was also a sort of authenticity to it. To do a Pollyanna, basically meaningless, symbolically neutral painting of somebody that has had a powerful influence on society is really copping out.” He said that Clinton’s lack of a wedding band has no ulterior meaning, noting: “I just forgot the ring.” But Clinton aides weren’t buying it.

He said when the omission first made news after the portrait was unveiled in 2006, Hillary Clinton sent him “a lovely little note saying don’t worry about it, this is just a tempest in a teapot.”

In a blog post last week, Eugénie Bisulco, a Clinton administration staffer who led the search team for a White House portrait artist, said it wasn’t Shanks’s attempt to put in “a moral compass” that grated. (The Clintons didn’t even know about that.) Bisulco said that it was that the portrait made Clinton look like “a disheveled Ted Koppel.”

Other Clintonistas dismissed the allegorical shadow as “put-a-bunny-in-the-pot crazy.”

Shanks said it was “like an ice pick going through my back” when he learned that his portrait was “exiled to the dark recesses” in 2009. On a visit to the museum a year and a half ago, he heard a docent telling a tour group that the Clintons put the kibosh on the painting.

He asked Kim Sajet, now director of the National Portrait Gallery, and she confirmed his darkest fears in an email, saying that they took it down because the Clintons disliked it. But, in response to a query, Sajet admitted that she was “repeating unfounded gossip,” according to a spokeswoman, and insisted that the painting is merely in rotation.

Shortly after the art imbroglio broke, an email imbroglio broke. The Times’s Michael Schmidt reported that, as secretary of state, Hillary did not preserve her official correspondence on a government server and exclusively used a private email account. She used a private server linked to her Chappaqua home, only turning over cherry-picked messages in December at the State Department’s request.

Given the paranoid/legalese perspective that permeates Clintonland, this made sense: It’s hard to request emails from an account you don’t know exists. And your own server can shield you from subpoenas and other requests. If you want records from the Clinton server, you have to fight for them. Clinton Inc. can tough it out and even make stuff disappear. Instead of warning the secretary that she could be violating regulations, her aides fetishized her clintonemail.com account as a status symbol. Chelsea took on the pseudonym Diane Reynolds.

Near midnight on Wednesday, Hillary tweeted that she had asked the State Department to release the emails she had coughed up when pressed, noting: “I want the public to see my email.”

Less true words were never spoken.

I couldn't care less about the dress, painting, or its painter, although I can certainly understand his disappointment. What I care about...

Hillary Clinton needs to step aside and let someone else run for President as the Democratic nominee.

I marvel at how many shadows might have been on a portrait of Newt Gingrich while he was engaged (so to speak) in impeaching Bill Clinton. ...

Schmidt’s scoop followed The Wall Street Journal revelation that at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department when Hillary was in charge had funneled more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Certainly, Hillary wants a lot of control. She has spent a lifetime cleaning up messes sparked by her overweening desire for control and her often out-of-control mate. She always feared that her emails could become fodder for critics, and now they have.

Everyone is looking for signs in how Hillary approaches 2016 to see if she’s learned lessons from past trouble. But the minute this story broke, she went back to the bunker, even though she had known for months that the Republicans knew about the account. The usual hatchets — Philippe Reines, David Brock, Lanny Davis and Sidney Blumenthal — got busy.

The Clintons don’t sparkle with honesty and openness. Between his lordly appetites and her queenly prerogatives, you always feel as if there’s something afoot.

Everything needs to be a secret, from the Rose Law Firm records that popped up in a White House closet two years after they were subpoenaed to the formulation of her health care plan.


Yet the Clintons always act as though it’s bad form when you bring up their rule-bending. They want us to compartmentalize, just as they do, to connect the dots that form a pretty picture and leave the other dots alone.

If you’re aspiring to be the second president in the family, why is it so hard to be straight and direct and stand for something? Why can’t you just be upright and steady and good?

Given all the mistakes they’ve made, why do they keep making them? Why do they somehow never do anything that doesn’t involve shadows?

WHL wrote:"...If you’re aspiring to be the second president in the family, why is it so hard to be straight and direct and stand for something...?

Hillary could be famous as the first female US President.

She's already famous for being the first "co-President" of the US.




.

News Buzzard wrote:So in other words, none of us really know if Hillary did anything wrong!!

Illegal Immigrants Have Right to Work in US

President Barack Obama's nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, believes illegal aliens have the "right to work" in America, violating multiple federal crimes in the process.

The revelation came during her first day of confirmation hearings Wednesday on Capitol Hill. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) asked Lynch about her position on enforcing America's immigration laws...:

Lynch: Senator, I believe that the right and obligation to work is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here. When one is here, regardless of status, I would prefer they be participating in the workplace than not be.
Truth Revolt

So even if Hillary is found to have broken the law, she'll be "investigated" by the agency headed by this woman.




.

New Hampshire's Own Mark Steyn Interview...

MARK STEYN: Yes, I think there's no doubt that it was deliberate. This is why the usual spin isn't going to work - because she essentially set up a shadow operation to supplant the normal exchange of information within a cabinet department. At midnight last night, I posted a story that a friend of mine, a diplomat, tipped me off - not an American diplomat, interestingly enough, but a non-U.S. diplomat - about how the American ambassador to Kenya was fired just three years ago during Hillary's term for precisely this, for using commercial email systems instead of secure government ones for official business. Hillary Clinton's State Department fired the U.S. ambassador for Kenya for doing that in 2012.

The story's now been picked up by the Weekly Standard and Drudge and people, and I'm glad, I'm very glad of that, because I think it actually gets to the heart of the matter here - that this country is decaying from a republic into a banana republic, where if you're an inconsequential person the rules apply to you, but if you're a select few, at the Hillary Clinton level, then the laws and the rules don't apply. This should be a disqualifier. She essentially freelanced - and presumably with the knowledge of the President and other people - she essentially, in defiance of the law, she essentially freelanced an entire cabinet department to Clinton HQ for four years.

—steynonline.com

Hmmm. The story's "getting legs" outside of the Democrat power structure...




.

Some addresses found by a hacker of Chappaquiddick (Clinton) Headquarters:

hdr@clintonemail.com
hdr18@clintonemail.com
hdr19@clintonemail.com
hdr20@clintonemail.com
hdr21@clintonemail.com
h.clinton@clintonemail.com
Hillary@clintonemail.com
contact@clintonemail.com
mau_suit@clintonemail.com

Did the now-dead ambassador try to reach Secretary H. Clinton at these addresses?




.

But she didn't do anything wrong. She just wanted to have all those emails because, because , ah, because ???

News Buzzard wrote:http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/05/bad-news-republicans-voters-care-hillary-clintons-emails.html

Hillary in 2016!!

And yet with decades of Hillary Clinton corruption, criminality, concealment, arrogance, entitlement, evasion, prevarication, and stench, this is the best the RATS can do for a 2016 candidate for POTUS?