WWTBAM Bored

I'm sure he's working on posting something about Hillary Clinton today. Unless, of course, he gets told to disseminate a story about nutjob legislation in Idaho.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I'm sure he's working on posting something about Hillary Clinton today. Unless, of course, he gets told to disseminate a story about nutjob legislation in Idaho.

You mean the fact that she failed to comply with laws and regulations that didn't yet exist during her tenure at the State Department, and didn't become the first Secretary of State to primarily use a state.gov e-mail account? (That honor goes to John Kerry.) --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I'm sure he's working on posting something about Hillary Clinton today. Unless, of course, he gets told to disseminate a story about nutjob legislation in Idaho.

Don't poke the bear.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I'm sure he's working on posting something about Hillary Clinton today. Unless, of course, he gets told to disseminate a story about nutjob legislation in Idaho.

You mean the fact that she failed to comply with laws and regulations that didn't yet exist during her tenure at the State Department, and didn't become the first Secretary of State to primarily use a state.gov e-mail account? (That honor goes to John Kerry.) --Bob

Oh, of course. Nothing there. It's Hillary. She can do what she wants. Sorry.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I'm sure he's working on posting something about Hillary Clinton today. Unless, of course, he gets told to disseminate a story about nutjob legislation in Idaho.

You mean the fact that she failed to comply with laws and regulations that didn't yet exist during her tenure at the State Department, and didn't become the first Secretary of State to primarily use a state.gov e-mail account? (That honor goes to John Kerry.) --Bob

Oh, of course. Nothing there. It's Hillary. She can do what she wants. Sorry.

Yes, I am busy. No law was broken. She did exactly what her predecessors did.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I'm sure he's working on posting something about Hillary Clinton today. Unless, of course, he gets told to disseminate a story about nutjob legislation in Idaho.

You mean the fact that she failed to comply with laws and regulations that didn't yet exist during her tenure at the State Department, and didn't become the first Secretary of State to primarily use a state.gov e-mail account? (That honor goes to John Kerry.) --Bob

Oh, of course. Nothing there. It's Hillary. She can do what she wants. Sorry.

Which part of what I wrote is inaccurate? Because if it's entirely accurate, then, like Oakland, there is no there there. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I'm sure he's working on posting something about Hillary Clinton today. Unless, of course, he gets told to disseminate a story about nutjob legislation in Idaho.

You mean the fact that she failed to comply with laws and regulations that didn't yet exist during her tenure at the State Department, and didn't become the first Secretary of State to primarily use a state.gov e-mail account? (That honor goes to John Kerry.) --Bob

Flock must not have been watching "the mainstream media"- they made a big deal of this last night- and really didn't do a good job explaining that she didn't break any laws (in fact, that's how ABC News, at least, teased the story..."might Hillary Clinton have been breaking laws?")

So not only did she not break laws, as they didn't exist when she was SecState- she also turned over all her emails anyway when she left the job.

See, this is where I lose my wingnut creds. In Texas any govt entity personal emails are still searchable, ina record request, if dealing with public business, which moots the point. Realize fed foia laws are diff, but still. Only concerns would be server hackability, correct preservation, and motive. Good luck with that.

Jeemie wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I'm sure he's working on posting something about Hillary Clinton today. Unless, of course, he gets told to disseminate a story about nutjob legislation in Idaho.

You mean the fact that she failed to comply with laws and regulations that didn't yet exist during her tenure at the State Department, and didn't become the first Secretary of State to primarily use a state.gov e-mail account? (That honor goes to John Kerry.) --Bob

Flock must not have been watching "the mainstream media"- they made a big deal of this last night- and really didn't do a good job explaining that she didn't break any laws (in fact, that's how ABC News, at least, teased the story..."might Hillary Clinton have been breaking laws?")

So not only did she not break laws, as they didn't exist when she was SecState- she also turned over all her emails anyway when she left the job.

Sure she did. But there's nothing wrong here. What difference does it make?

It perplexes me how she's still viable as a candidate for anything. She has never accomplished anything but generate hype, she has no ideas, only tired rhetoric and is rife with scandals and unanswered questions. But the people who will vote for her will vote for her even if she's found over a dead body with a bloody knife in her hand. Beats me.....

What laws did she break, Flock?

And as to her being a viable candidate, well...that's an entirely different argument.

But when you point out which laws she broke, then we can talk about the original post in greater detail.

Jeemie wrote:What laws did she break, Flock?

And as to her being a viable candidate, well...that's an entirely different argument.

But when you point out which laws she broke, then we can talk about the original post in greater detail.

It all depends on your point of view.

If you think government officials can be trusted to archive all their job-related correspondence, like they did before the Internet age, then Hillary did nothing wrong.

But if you're looking for the "smoking gun" email about Benghazi, it's gone now.

jarnon wrote:

Jeemie wrote:What laws did she break, Flock?

And as to her being a viable candidate, well...that's an entirely different argument.

But when you point out which laws she broke, then we can talk about the original post in greater detail.

It all depends on your point of view.

If you think government officials can be trusted to archive all their job-related correspondence, like they did before the Internet age, then Hillary did nothing wrong.

But if you're looking for the "smoking gun" email about Benghazi, it's gone now.

Doubtful. The recipient of such an e-mail (if one existed) very probably has a state.gov e-mail address.

And it's not just that she broke no laws. It's also that no previous Secretary of State primarily used a state.gov e-mail address. She's getting increased scrutiny (which I'm reaching the view is also unfair scrutiny) for doing things the way all of her predecessors also did them. --Bob

Jeemie wrote:What laws did she break, Flock?

And as to her being a viable candidate, well...that's an entirely different argument.

But when you point out which laws she broke, then we can talk about the original post in greater detail.

Apparently Title 36 › Chapter XII › Subchapter B › Part 1236 › Subpart C › Section 1236.22(b). (2009)

Before Bob numbers gives me the legal mumbojumbo defense (I've seen it, so spare me), and BJ makes his idiotic response, the email flap ties to the foreign donations to her foundation which ties to so many other things. A lot of new stuff is coming up about Hillary now.

What I though ironic was that BJ feels he needs to warn us about what some nutjob blogger reports on about bills in Montana, but apparently stories the NY Times publishes need to be vetted a bit. (Well I agree with him there).

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:What laws did she break, Flock?

And as to her being a viable candidate, well...that's an entirely different argument.

But when you point out which laws she broke, then we can talk about the original post in greater detail.

Apparently Title 36 › Chapter XII › Subchapter B › Part 1236 › Subpart C › Section 1236.22(b). (2009)

Before Bob numbers gives me the legal mumbojumbo defense (I've seen it, so spare me), and BJ makes his idiotic response, the email flap ties to the foreign donations to her foundation which ties to so many other things. A lot of new stuff is coming up about Hillary now.

What I though ironic was that BJ feels he needs to warn us about what some nutjob blogger reports on about bills in Montana, but apparently stories the NY Times publishes need to be vetted a bit. (Well I agree with him there).

(b) 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 recordkeeping system.

And they were.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Before Bob numbers gives me the legal mumbojumbo defense (I've seen it, so spare me) . . . .

You seem to use that word to refer to arguments that yield a result you don't like. [Fezzik]I do not think that word means what you think it means.[/Fezzik] --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Before Bob numbers gives me the legal mumbojumbo defense (I've seen it, so spare me) . . . .

You seem to use that word to refer to arguments that yield a result you don't like. [Fezzik]I do not think that word means what you think it means.[/Fezzik] --Bob

You mean mumbojumbo? Like "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"? That kind of mumbojumbo?

She retained control of all her emails. She, after the fact, had them copied to the government servers. Who knows if all of them are there? Do you know? Tell me how you know.

Now if you want to compare what she did to others, let me ask you: Exactly what law did Richard Nixon break that led to his impeachment papers and caused him to resign? Was it a law he broke or his unethical behavior? Does Hillary have a bit of an ethics problem, or is it a right wing conspiracy that continues to hound her with all these charges of ethical miscues?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Before Bob numbers gives me the legal mumbojumbo defense (I've seen it, so spare me) . . . .

You seem to use that word to refer to arguments that yield a result you don't like. [Fezzik]I do not think that word means what you think it means.[/Fezzik] --Bob

You mean mumbojumbo? Like "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"? That kind of mumbojumbo?

She retained control of all her emails. She, after the fact, had them copied to the government servers. Who knows if all of them are there? Do you know? Tell me how you know.

Now if you want to compare what she did to others, let me ask you: Exactly what law did Richard Nixon break that led to his impeachment papers and caused him to resign? Was it a law he broke or his unethical behavior? Does Hillary have a bit of an ethics problem, or is it a right wing conspiracy that continues to hound her with all these charges of ethical miscues?

He was accused of obstruction of justice and perjury.

Those are real laws, Flock.

Now- he was pardoned by President Ford, so he was of course never convicted of those because there was no trial. But the evidence was fairly strong that he would have been convicted had he not been pardoned.

Clinton, OTOH, did everything she was required to do with the e-mails, and in keeping with what other officials did.

If you want to speculate she actually didn't copy all her e-mails over to the government server, then think of how many people who acted in the exact manner she did you would have to investigate, both R and D.

Shall we spend time and taxpayer money investigating each and every public official who did this?

Or do you have evidence that we should be more suspicious of Hillary Clinton than any other government official who handled their e-mails in the exact same manner?

Jeemie wrote:
Those are real laws, Flock.

Now- he was pardoned by President Ford, so he was of course never convicted of those because there was no trial. But the evidence was fairly strong that he would have been convicted had he not been pardoned.

Clinton, OTOH, did everything she was required to do with the e-mails, and in keeping with what other officials did.

If you want to speculate she actually didn't copy all her e-mails over to the government server, then think of how many people who acted in the exact manner she did you would have to investigate, both R and D.

Shall we spend time and taxpayer money investigating each and every public official who did this?

Or do you have evidence that we should be more suspicious of Hillary Clinton than any other government official who handled their e-mails in the exact same manner?

What difference does it make?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:
Those are real laws, Flock.

Now- he was pardoned by President Ford, so he was of course never convicted of those because there was no trial. But the evidence was fairly strong that he would have been convicted had he not been pardoned.

Clinton, OTOH, did everything she was required to do with the e-mails, and in keeping with what other officials did.

If you want to speculate she actually didn't copy all her e-mails over to the government server, then think of how many people who acted in the exact manner she did you would have to investigate, both R and D.

Shall we spend time and taxpayer money investigating each and every public official who did this?

Or do you have evidence that we should be more suspicious of Hillary Clinton than any other government official who handled their e-mails in the exact same manner?

What difference does it make?

Because until you come up with reasons to treat Secretary Clinton differently from her predecessors, you're coming across as a partisan shill who's doing nothing more than repeating the latest talking points and who has no actual ability to independently evaluate the points that you're parroting. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:
Those are real laws, Flock.

Now- he was pardoned by President Ford, so he was of course never convicted of those because there was no trial. But the evidence was fairly strong that he would have been convicted had he not been pardoned.

Clinton, OTOH, did everything she was required to do with the e-mails, and in keeping with what other officials did.

If you want to speculate she actually didn't copy all her e-mails over to the government server, then think of how many people who acted in the exact manner she did you would have to investigate, both R and D.

Shall we spend time and taxpayer money investigating each and every public official who did this?

Or do you have evidence that we should be more suspicious of Hillary Clinton than any other government official who handled their e-mails in the exact same manner?

What difference does it make?

Because until you come up with reasons to treat Secretary Clinton differently from her predecessors, you're coming across as a partisan shill who's doing nothing more than repeating the latest talking points and who has no actual ability to independently evaluate the points that you're parroting. --Bob

None of her predecessors, as far as I am aware, are involved in an investigation involving the deaths of 4 embassy personnel in Libya, in which their communications are very relevant.

Again, I ask you, how do you know that all her pertinent communications were sent to State Department servers, other than her word? I do not know either, but it sure looks pretty fishy, along with her foundation soliciting donations from foreign sources while she was SoS.

And my reason for posting this subject was to point out what a partisan shill your namesake is. You seem to be joining him by your unquestioning position.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: And my reason for posting this subject was to point out what a partisan shill your namesake is.

I believe the saying about the pot, the kettle, and the color black was created precisely to cover statements like this one.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: And my reason for posting this subject was to point out what a partisan shill your namesake is.

I believe the saying about the pot, the kettle, and the color black was created precisely to cover statements like this one.

Apparently Republicans have forgotten the George W. Bush email scandal. The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Over 5 million emails may have been lost or deleted. The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Again, I ask you, how do you know that all her pertinent communications were sent to State Department servers, other than her word? I do not know either, but it sure looks pretty fishy . . . .

So as far as you're concerned, she's guilty until proven innocent? Or is that more legal mumbojumbo?

And why does it look fishy when Secretary Clinton does what her predecessors also did? --Bob

In the Future everyone will have an email server in the basement.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:In the Future everyone will have an email server in the basement.

I wouldn't be surprised if that turns out to be a mistake in reporting. I read another report that she was using a standard Internet mail service, e.g. Gmail.