It's not about servers
 

On 3/5/2015 10:13 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/5/15 9:41 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 07:44:55 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Joe Scarborough had it right this morning on "Morning Joe".

With regard to Hillary's emails, her supporters have rallied
quickly to excuse the email thing as a minor issue and blames
the GOP for blood hunting.

Joe's point is spot on. It's not about emails, servers or
how long her personal, private server keeps her emails while
serving as Secretary of State.

She served as SofS from 2009 to 2013. In 2009 federal laws
were changed that mandated that official, government emails
be sent and received (encryted) via a government email address and on
government servers designed to archive and preserve them.
It's the law, not a "preference".


You actually believe Crazy Joe Scarborough? LOL.
Here's the "law" in effect when HRC was Sec of State.
BTW, violating this "law" carries no criminal penalty.

"According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, which
Schmidt provided in an email, "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."

HRC is a lawyer. Joe still isn't over his days in Congress, when he
impeached her husband. Shades of Whitewater,Vince Foster, Travelgate,
et al. All went nowhere. Joe appears to be a sore loser.

And to think, without the Benghazi hearings, this would all be totally
hidden.

You'd best stick to your knowledge of ISIS.


You mean the seven, nine, or a dozen Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi
hearings that uncovered...nothing?

I'm getting a laugh out of this. I don't know if Hillary will run, but
if she does, she'll wipe the floor with any of your GOP wannabes, all of
whom have much more in their deep dark closets than emails...



Hillery has more in her closet than most.
If Hillery should run and win it's because she is the lesser of evils.
In this day and age, where a politician with integrity is a rare find,
she has a shot. Could she possibly be more inept or corrupt than the
current office holder? At least she wouldn't try to destroy America. I
hope.

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

It's not about servers
 

On 3/5/2015 10:13 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/5/15 9:41 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 07:44:55 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Joe Scarborough had it right this morning on "Morning Joe".

With regard to Hillary's emails, her supporters have rallied
quickly to excuse the email thing as a minor issue and blames
the GOP for blood hunting.

Joe's point is spot on. It's not about emails, servers or
how long her personal, private server keeps her emails while
serving as Secretary of State.

She served as SofS from 2009 to 2013. In 2009 federal laws
were changed that mandated that official, government emails
be sent and received (encryted) via a government email address and on
government servers designed to archive and preserve them.
It's the law, not a "preference".


You actually believe Crazy Joe Scarborough? LOL.
Here's the "law" in effect when HRC was Sec of State.
BTW, violating this "law" carries no criminal penalty.

"According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, which
Schmidt provided in an email, "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."

HRC is a lawyer. Joe still isn't over his days in Congress, when he
impeached her husband. Shades of Whitewater,Vince Foster, Travelgate,
et al. All went nowhere. Joe appears to be a sore loser.

And to think, without the Benghazi hearings, this would all be totally
hidden.

You'd best stick to your knowledge of ISIS.


You mean the seven, nine, or a dozen Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi
hearings that uncovered...nothing?

I'm getting a laugh out of this. I don't know if Hillary will run, but
if she does, she'll wipe the floor with any of your GOP wannabes, all of
whom have much more in their deep dark closets than emails...

As you have probably deduced I dislike Hillary Clinton about as much
as you dislike GWB and Dick Cheney. I fail to see what qualifications
she has to be POTUS other than the desire to be the first female
president. She's a liar, she has had some very questionable actions
in the past and above all, she thinks she's special. Bill was a halfway
decent president although he really didn't have any major issues to deal
with and those that he addressed he sorta blew. Hillary seems to think
she's qualified because she is married to him.

It's not about servers
 

In article ,
says...


"According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, which
Schmidt provided in an email, "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 Hillary did not ensure her official electronic mail messages as SofS
were preserved in the "appropriate agency" (meaning federal) record
keeping system.


And you know this how? And what's the time limit for "ensuring?"
This just shows how the "requirement" is weak.
Without going into reasons "why" she used her own server for emails - I
can think of many - what is "official?"
Think about that in the realm of Dept of State, which is rife with
"personal" relationships.
The Dept of State can *never* operate entirely via gov email.


She kept them on her own, private server. Only now ... 2 years since
she resigned and the emails have been discovered is she offering her
screened and approved releases to the State Department.


You get what you get. So it is. That's why you have "memoirs."
I'm sure "official business" has all been preserved.

The intent of the law was to make official government related emails
available and preserved on government servers, not her own. Government
officials and employees are supposed to use a government email address
for these correspondences.


Yes. For "official" business. And I'm sure that business has all been
appropriately captured on gov systems.
What is it that you want?

First, she tried to claim that if she sent an email from her personal
email server address to a government email address ... it would be
preserved. But that doesn't account for them all.

What is "all of them?" A "Happy birthday!" to Angela Merkel?
Remember that Joe Scarborough would demand that too.
I'm not a fan of the Clintons. But I am resistant to to seeing unfair
attacks on anybody. And this just smells like...Benghazi, Benghazi,
Benghazi.

It's not about servers
 

On 3/5/15 8:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


"According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, which
Schmidt provided in an email, "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 Hillary did not ensure her official electronic mail messages as SofS
were preserved in the "appropriate agency" (meaning federal) record
keeping system.


And you know this how? And what's the time limit for "ensuring?"
This just shows how the "requirement" is weak.
Without going into reasons "why" she used her own server for emails - I
can think of many - what is "official?"
Think about that in the realm of Dept of State, which is rife with
"personal" relationships.
The Dept of State can *never* operate entirely via gov email.


She kept them on her own, private server. Only now ... 2 years since
she resigned and the emails have been discovered is she offering her
screened and approved releases to the State Department.


You get what you get. So it is. That's why you have "memoirs."
I'm sure "official business" has all been preserved.

The intent of the law was to make official government related emails
available and preserved on government servers, not her own. Government
officials and employees are supposed to use a government email address
for these correspondences.


Yes. For "official" business. And I'm sure that business has all been
appropriately captured on gov systems.
What is it that you want?

First, she tried to claim that if she sent an email from her personal
email server address to a government email address ... it would be
preserved. But that doesn't account for them all.

What is "all of them?" A "Happy birthday!" to Angela Merkel?
Remember that Joe Scarborough would demand that too.
I'm not a fan of the Clintons. But I am resistant to to seeing unfair
attacks on anybody. And this just smells like...Benghazi, Benghazi,
Benghazi.





It's Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi of course with Trey Gowdy trying to
gin up his reputation.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

It's not about servers
 

On 3/5/2015 8:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


"According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, which
Schmidt provided in an email, "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 Hillary did not ensure her official electronic mail messages as SofS
were preserved in the "appropriate agency" (meaning federal) record
keeping system.


And you know this how? And what's the time limit for "ensuring?"
This just shows how the "requirement" is weak.
Without going into reasons "why" she used her own server for emails - I
can think of many - what is "official?"
Think about that in the realm of Dept of State, which is rife with
"personal" relationships.
The Dept of State can *never* operate entirely via gov email.


She kept them on her own, private server. Only now ... 2 years since
she resigned and the emails have been discovered is she offering her
screened and approved releases to the State Department.


You get what you get. So it is. That's why you have "memoirs."
I'm sure "official business" has all been preserved.

The intent of the law was to make official government related emails
available and preserved on government servers, not her own. Government
officials and employees are supposed to use a government email address
for these correspondences.


Yes. For "official" business. And I'm sure that business has all been
appropriately captured on gov systems.
What is it that you want?

First, she tried to claim that if she sent an email from her personal
email server address to a government email address ... it would be
preserved. But that doesn't account for them all.

What is "all of them?" A "Happy birthday!" to Angela Merkel?
Remember that Joe Scarborough would demand that too.
I'm not a fan of the Clintons. But I am resistant to to seeing unfair
attacks on anybody. And this just smells like...Benghazi, Benghazi,
Benghazi.






Sounds to me like you are searching for justification. The answers to
your questions are easily obtained by watching any of the news media
outlets ... pro Clinton or not pro Clinton. All have acknowledged that
her methods were ... unusual.

It's not about servers
 

On 3/5/2015 8:21 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/5/15 8:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


"According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, which
Schmidt provided in an email, "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 Hillary did not ensure her official electronic mail messages as SofS
were preserved in the "appropriate agency" (meaning federal) record
keeping system.


And you know this how? And what's the time limit for "ensuring?"
This just shows how the "requirement" is weak.
Without going into reasons "why" she used her own server for emails - I
can think of many - what is "official?"
Think about that in the realm of Dept of State, which is rife with
"personal" relationships.
The Dept of State can *never* operate entirely via gov email.


She kept them on her own, private server. Only now ... 2 years since
she resigned and the emails have been discovered is she offering her
screened and approved releases to the State Department.


You get what you get. So it is. That's why you have "memoirs."
I'm sure "official business" has all been preserved.

The intent of the law was to make official government related emails
available and preserved on government servers, not her own. Government
officials and employees are supposed to use a government email address
for these correspondences.


Yes. For "official" business. And I'm sure that business has all been
appropriately captured on gov systems.
What is it that you want?

First, she tried to claim that if she sent an email from her personal
email server address to a government email address ... it would be
preserved. But that doesn't account for them all.

What is "all of them?" A "Happy birthday!" to Angela Merkel?
Remember that Joe Scarborough would demand that too.
I'm not a fan of the Clintons. But I am resistant to to seeing unfair
attacks on anybody. And this just smells like...Benghazi, Benghazi,
Benghazi.





It's Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi of course with Trey Gowdy trying to
gin up his reputation.


It has nothing to do with Benghazi and everything to do with compliance
to regulations, honesty and trustworthiness. Hillary is not exactly a
shining example of any of those. Sorry for being rather closed minded
about her but I think she's a snake in the grass and in no way qualified
to be POTUS. That is unless having the first woman president is more
important than anything else.

It's not about servers
 

On 3/5/15 8:34 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/5/2015 8:21 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/5/15 8:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


"According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, which
Schmidt provided in an email, "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 Hillary did not ensure her official electronic mail messages as
SofS
were preserved in the "appropriate agency" (meaning federal) record
keeping system.


And you know this how? And what's the time limit for "ensuring?"
This just shows how the "requirement" is weak.
Without going into reasons "why" she used her own server for emails - I
can think of many - what is "official?"
Think about that in the realm of Dept of State, which is rife with
"personal" relationships.
The Dept of State can *never* operate entirely via gov email.


She kept them on her own, private server. Only now ... 2 years since
she resigned and the emails have been discovered is she offering her
screened and approved releases to the State Department.


You get what you get. So it is. That's why you have "memoirs."
I'm sure "official business" has all been preserved.

The intent of the law was to make official government related emails
available and preserved on government servers, not her own. Government
officials and employees are supposed to use a government email address
for these correspondences.


Yes. For "official" business. And I'm sure that business has all been
appropriately captured on gov systems.
What is it that you want?

First, she tried to claim that if she sent an email from her personal
email server address to a government email address ... it would be
preserved. But that doesn't account for them all.

What is "all of them?" A "Happy birthday!" to Angela Merkel?
Remember that Joe Scarborough would demand that too.
I'm not a fan of the Clintons. But I am resistant to to seeing unfair
attacks on anybody. And this just smells like...Benghazi, Benghazi,
Benghazi.





It's Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi of course with Trey Gowdy trying to
gin up his reputation.


It has nothing to do with Benghazi and everything to do with compliance
to regulations, honesty and trustworthiness. Hillary is not exactly a
shining example of any of those. Sorry for being rather closed minded
about her but I think she's a snake in the grass and in no way qualified
to be POTUS. That is unless having the first woman president is more
important than anything else.




I wouldn't trust any of the current GOP POTUS wannabes with anything
more serious than lacing up a pair of shoes.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

It's not about servers
 

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 20:39:43 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

I wouldn't trust any of the current GOP POTUS wannabes with anything
more serious than lacing up a pair of shoes.

===

Thank you for your well considered and expert opinion.

It's not about servers
 

In article ,
says...


Sounds to me like you are searching for justification. The answers to
your questions are easily obtained by watching any of the news media
outlets ... pro Clinton or not pro Clinton. All have acknowledged that
her methods were ... unusual.

Presidential candidates are typically "unusual" persons.
I don't need justification to see the writing on the wall.
You still haven't said what you expect to find in HRC's emails.
Whitewater? Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi?
Sorry, but that's the upshot of it all.
The rules for emails have been changed now, but don't expect that to
hamper personal relationships.
Most "official" State Dept emails are exceedingly dry.
The juicy stuff is off the record. And it will continue to be so.
So what would you like to find on HRC's State Dept emails?

It's not about servers
 

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:28:02 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

So what would you like to find on HRC's State Dept emails?

===

Your question is kind of naive in my opinion. The only reason to take
your EMAIL private is to hide something. My guess is that she was
playing politics and managing her personal business on company time
among other things.