It's not about servers
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/6/15 7:31 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/6/2015 5:37 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/6/15 1:00 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Now *you* are being dishonest. Who said anything about "hate"?
I mentioned to Harry that I *disliked* Hillary to about the same
degree
that he dislikes GWB and Dick Cheney. Never said I hated her.

Please try to keep your accusations accurate, huh?

OK. I recall Harry wanting GWB and Cheney hung by the balls and
eviscerated. Along those lines anyway.



If I said that about Bush, I retract it. He was too stupid and naive to
know what the hell he was doing. Cheney, however, should have been
hanged a long time ago.



You probably didn't include Bush in your fantasy sentencing. BOA has a
habit of miss-quoting ... or just making **** up.



I don't think and didn't think Bush was evil. I think Cheney and the
neocons led him by the nose. I do think Cheney is the most evil and
deceitful man to ever hold high office in this country, and I include
Dick Nixon in my consideration.

"My belief is that we will, in fact, be treated as liberators." Dick
Cheney, March 2003

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five
days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to
last any longer than that." Donald Rumsfeld, November 2002

"There's been none of the record in Iraq of ethnic militias fighting
one another...along with the requirement for large policing forces to
separate those militias." Paul Wolfowitz, March 2003


Your boy Jebbie gets his foreign policy advise from the same sort of
neocon warmongering assholes.



Your boy Biden is a daily joke in every late show monologue.

It's not about servers
 

Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 3/5/2015 9:28 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
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?


I guess you just don't get it. It doesn't matter what is in the emails.
The issue at hand is the arrogance of Hillary Clinton, her disregard for
regulation, her sneaky methods of operation and general dishonesty.

I am usually not so critical of a potential candidate for the highest
office in this country but Hillary really gets to me. Seems I am not
alone. Even her own party rejected her in favor of a relative unknown
back in 2008.
You're right. With some exceptions, I don't get hate. But it's your
right to hate her.

You're a kind man, Kevin.

It's not about servers
 

On 3/5/2015 7:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

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".

True to form however Hillary decided that she's so important
that she's above the law. It's another demonstration of her
deceit and her sense of being "special" compared to others.

This is not a minor issue that can be swept under the rug like
other issues have been in her 30 year public career. It's a
vivid example of the moral character of the person the Democrats
want as the next POTUS. Some Democrats and liberal pundits are
beginning to have reservations about her.

I think emailgate may be the demise of Hillary's aspirations to
be the first woman president. She can't be trusted with the keys
to the White House. It's one thing to discover after the fact
that a politician lied in order to be elected but quite different
to nominate or elect someone *knowing* they have a long history
of lying and deceit. I hope the voters of this country wake up.







Unfortunately, I think the writing is already on the wall. She will be
elected by hook and crook by loyal democrats and their dead voters...

It's not about servers
 

On 3/5/2015 7:41 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:27:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


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".

True to form however Hillary decided that she's so important
that she's above the law. It's another demonstration of her
deceit and her sense of being "special" compared to others.

This is not a minor issue that can be swept under the rug like
other issues have been in her 30 year public career. It's a
vivid example of the moral character of the person the Democrats
want as the next POTUS. Some Democrats and liberal pundits are
beginning to have reservations about her.

I think emailgate may be the demise of Hillary's aspirations to
be the first woman president. She can't be trusted with the keys
to the White House. It's one thing to discover after the fact
that a politician lied in order to be elected but quite different
to nominate or elect someone *knowing* they have a long history
of lying and deceit. I hope the voters of this country wake up.



Wait, wait...one of our very own said this just yesterday:

"Hey, the Repubnants have nothing in terms of viable candidates, so Hillary's email
account *prior* to the law change is news."


That will be the line fed to the masses and continued by the MSM until
otherwise decent folks will never get the truth...

It's not about servers
 

On 3/5/2015 7:47 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/5/2015 7:41 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:27:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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".

True to form however Hillary decided that she's so important
that she's above the law. It's another demonstration of her
deceit and her sense of being "special" compared to others.

This is not a minor issue that can be swept under the rug like
other issues have been in her 30 year public career. It's a
vivid example of the moral character of the person the Democrats
want as the next POTUS. Some Democrats and liberal pundits are
beginning to have reservations about her.

I think emailgate may be the demise of Hillary's aspirations to
be the first woman president. She can't be trusted with the keys
to the White House. It's one thing to discover after the fact
that a politician lied in order to be elected but quite different
to nominate or elect someone *knowing* they have a long history
of lying and deceit. I hope the voters of this country wake up.



Wait, wait...one of our very own said this just yesterday:

"Hey, the Repubnants have nothing in terms of viable candidates, so
Hillary's email
account *prior* to the law change is news."



The government email requirement and server became law in 2009, the year
Hillary assumed her role as Secretary of State.

Don't know what Harry is talking about.


He is spewing the current party line. This is what most everyday
Americans will be told. You will hear them saying it at work and on the
street. Remember, libs don't really care about truth, they just want to
be told what o thing and be well taken care of.

It's not about servers
 

On 3/5/2015 9:00 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/5/2015 8:44 AM, 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."

And Hillary did not ensure her official electronic mail messages as SofS
were preserved in the "appropriate agency" (meaning federal) record
keeping system.

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.

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.

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.

I suppose to the Clintons it matters what "@" means.




It has been the clinton game for decades to stall long enough to flush
and cleanse records... then turn them over with a bit "whoops". You are
right Hillary is a lawyer, she knows exactly what she did but also knew
a crooked DOJ and Media will give her a pass...

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


OH, you are sure! LOL... No, you are bought and paid for and will say
what they tell you to say...




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 3/5/2015 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.




Only liberals would use a deal like Benghazi as a pejorative to mock
another crime. Seems military and other officials don't really matter to
dems and party line guys like you.

It's not about servers
 

On Saturday, 7 March 2015 12:31:51 UTC-4, KC wrote:
On 3/5/2015 7:41 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:27:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


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".

True to form however Hillary decided that she's so important
that she's above the law. It's another demonstration of her
deceit and her sense of being "special" compared to others.

This is not a minor issue that can be swept under the rug like
other issues have been in her 30 year public career. It's a
vivid example of the moral character of the person the Democrats
want as the next POTUS. Some Democrats and liberal pundits are
beginning to have reservations about her.

I think emailgate may be the demise of Hillary's aspirations to
be the first woman president. She can't be trusted with the keys
to the White House. It's one thing to discover after the fact
that a politician lied in order to be elected but quite different
to nominate or elect someone *knowing* they have a long history
of lying and deceit. I hope the voters of this country wake up.



Wait, wait...one of our very own said this just yesterday:

"Hey, the Repubnants have nothing in terms of viable candidates, so Hillary's email
account *prior* to the law change is news."


That will be the line fed to the masses and continued by the MSM until
otherwise decent folks will never get the truth...

What the 'ell would you know about "decent folks"?

It's not about servers
 

On 3/6/2015 3:37 AM, Califbill wrote:
Boating All Out wrote:
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?

Every email that should have gone to a government server per the law.
Makes her a criminal for breaking the law of the land.


Real liberals don't care, they have no moral core, just want to win and
keep getting free stuff.