| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
It's not about servers
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. |
It's not about servers
On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:27:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: 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. === I wonder if that attitude is pervasive among the so called liberal elite. So far we've got a sample size of two, maybe three counting Bill. :-) |
It's not about servers
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." -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
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." 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. |
It's not about servers
On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:47:39 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: 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. === And neither does he. Hillary is cooked and I don't think her party has a backup plan. |
It's not about servers
|
It's not about servers
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's not about servers
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. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
It's not about servers
On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:13:37 -0500, 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... It's hard to uncover the truth when the truth is hidden on a server in Arkansas. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner *behavior* causes problems. |
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
|
It's not about servers
|
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
|
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. |
It's not about servers
|
It's not about servers
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. |
It's not about servers
On 3/5/2015 10:24 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
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. At this point, what difference does it make? :-) BOA is missing the point. It matters not what is contained in the emails. What matters is her continued demonstration of arrogance and dishonesty. |
It's not about servers
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. |
It's not about servers
|
It's not about servers
On 3/5/2015 11:55 PM, 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. 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? |
It's not about servers
|
It's not about servers
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. |
It's not about servers
On 3/6/2015 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. There's a joke there regarding Hillary but I won't go there. |
It's not about servers
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. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
It's not about servers
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. |
It's not about servers
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. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
It's not about servers
On 3/5/2015 9:28 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
So what would you like to find on HRC's State Dept emails? Evidence that she has done a good job as SOS and represents the best interests of the USA. That she does use her diplomatic influence for personal gain. Why the arrogant bitch refuses to obey the law. -- 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 3/6/2015 7:52 AM, 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. Barry O'Bama gets his love of the white man and the United States from his mentor of 20+ years, Jeremiah Wright. -- 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 Thu, 05 Mar 2015 20:21:14 -0500, 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. Get original, it's 'Bush, Bush, Bush'. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner *behavior* causes problems. |
It's not about servers
|
It's not about servers
On 3/5/2015 10:37 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:47:39 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. If CNN has it right the 2009 law required that all Emails on private servers had to be forwarded to the government archive immediately and the 2013 law banned them outright. If she really was doing state business on a private server, security could be an issue. It is still unclear to me if she actually had the server at her house or whether she just had the domain name registered at her address and it was actually hosted at another server. Having your own web server still does not answer all of the connection questions but it does give you total control of all of the data, When you are talking about transparency, That's all transparency was, Talk. Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com |
It's not about servers
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:29:38 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
Indeed, I'm sure if McCain were POTUS, we'd have troops on the ground engaged in new shooting wars in what, three or four more countries? And Romney, of course, would have privatized our military and sold it off to the lowest bidder. Here, your own personal copy. Don't share this! http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-con...03/unnamed.jpg -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner *behavior* causes problems. |
It's not about servers
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 11:05:22 -0500, John H. wrote: Putin is ready to jump right in. Putin seems to be interested in the Caucuses, particularly Ukraine as a land bridge to his bases in Crimea but he doesn't seem very interested in jumping into any of the places where we are fighting. He is smarter than that. They learned their lesson in Afghanistan, a lesson that went right over our head. Stay the hell out and let these people kill each other. It is none of our business. Their main beef with us is that we are in their country. If we left, they would turn back to killing each other and forgets about us. When the Russians were there, a US reporter interviewed a mujahideen fighter. The fighter said it was good the Russians were there. Otherwise we would be killing each other. |
It's not about servers
Keyser Söze wrote:
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. That's a response or are you also disgusted with the liberal potentials? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com