Sorry, Righties, State Dept. Says There’s Nothing Illegal About Hillary’s Emails

[liberal N proud]

Sorry, Righties, State Dept. Says There’s Nothing Illegal About Hillary’s Emails (VIDEO)

On the Democratic side of the 2016 presidential race, people have been all over the so-called “scandal” surrounding Hillary Clinton’s private email server. The right has been treating the issue like it’s the new Benghazi (which, of course, is their other favorite “Hilary campaign slaying” non-scandal). They’ve even gone so far as to not only smear Hillary and claim that she is untrustworthy, but call for criminal prosecution. Who can blame them, really? After all, nobody on their side, even their unexpectedly popular frontrunner Donald Trump, has a snowball’s chance in Hell of beating Hillary Clinton in a general election.

Well, it looks like the right will have to find a new fake scandal to try to take Hillary down with. On Tuesday, a U.S. State Department spokesperson, John Kirby, told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on New Day that there was no policy violation regarding the use of private emails.

“We have said in the past, Chris that there was no policy prohibiting the use of a private email account here at the State Department, and that is still a fact. Now, obviously, we have policies in place now that highly discourage that, and you are supposed to use your government account so that there is a constant, permanent record of it, but at the time she was not violating policy….I can tell you that there was no prohibition for her use of this, and we’ve since changed the policy to discourage that greatly, and in fact, the policy is that you have to use your government account for business.”

Kirby also made sure to note that there was no change in policy during Hillary Clinton’s run as Secretary of State. So, in other words, as those of us who are on the sane side of the fence already knew, she didn’t do anything even a little bit wrong, much less illegal. That’s from the State Department itself.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/08/25/sorry-righties-state-dept-says-theres-nothing-illegal-about-hillarys-emails-video/

[gratuitous]

2. As if this investigation is going to hinge on facts

Facts! Pffft! As eminent philosopher Homer Simpson once observed, you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. Breathless speculation stovepiped onto sinister hints grafted to unsubstantiated rumors topped off with a dollop of polls show Clinton not trustworthy will be all the hot air needed to keep the scandal balloon inflated for the next five or six months. Everybody will "just know" that there's something there. Why else would congressional committees keep having hearings and taking testimony?

[merrily]

3. I have issues with Hillary that have nothing to do with emails. However,

there is a difference between using a private email account and using a private email account when you should be using your government account. There is also a difference between using a private email account and using a private email account on a private server when you should be using a government email account on a government server There is also a difference between (1) using a private email account on a private server when you should be using a government email account on a government server and (2) wiping a private server after you get an FOIA request.

Conflating all that into "using a private email account," which almost everyone in the world probably does at this point, is not especially honest.

[pnwmom]

5. No, it has been explained time and time again that her use of a private server

was never against the rules and doesn't change anything of significance. There isn't even any evidence that a .gov account would have been less hackable than her private server.

The only difference that mattered was whether an email should have been sent/received on a non-classified account (either on her personal server or a non-classified .gov account) or over a classified line. And the State Department still denies that she sent or received on a non-classified account any email that was classified at the time of origin.

[merrily]

8. If the issue is whether she followed policy, hackability or not is not the point.

"Classified at the time of origin" or "marked classified at the time of origin" is also a weasel term. I think you know that. She originated information whose nature was classified and very likely so did the people with whom she corresponded.

And you left out mention of wiping the server after an FOIA request.

If there is no difference between and among the things I mentioned in my prior post, why do they keep focusing on "using a private email account?" Besides a judge has said in an opinion that she did not follow policy and, IIRC, so did the President's press secretary.

I don't care to debate this because, as I said, the issues I have with Hillary pre-date and are much larger than the email issue. But the State Department's statement, as worded, is meaningless.

[pnwmom]

11. No, there is no evidence that she sent information out whose nature was classified, then or now.

The issue has always been about emails she received, and about retroactive classification.

Why does the media keep focusing on using a private email account? Why indeed. It's irrelevant.

Didn't you read that that judge wasn't even talking about Hillary in that statement about not following policy? the NYTimes messed up yet again. Not that that judge had any business bloviating about the situation because all he was stating was his personal opinion -- not a decision based on law.

Right, you don't care to debate this. You'd rather just keep repeating Rethug lies without getting called on it.

Fortunately, Bernie isn't descending to the level of his supporters. So if he gets the nomination, I'll still be able to support him.

[merrily]

12. Your post is still full of weasel phrases. As I said, I don't want to debate this.*

My issues with Hillary pre-date and outweigh the email business.

*Obviously what I post does not prevent anyone else from "calling me out" on anything, real or imagined, not even in very low ways.

[pnwmom]

13. You should read this, so you don't embarrass yourself by repeating Rethug lies again.

Although maybe you're not embarrassable.

The judge wasn't quoted directly. Two anonymous sources -- the usual non-reliable suspects -- put words into his mouth. But even they didn't refer to Hillary.


http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-media-chase-hillary-time-and-times-again/

[merrily]

14. .

[ruffburr]

4. I'm glad to see-

This and I'm a Bernie guy, When the wingnuts lose we all win, I have always said that this was a witch hunt , While I do not support Hillary at this juncture for the nomination I do not want to see her get screwed by right wing accusations.

[pnwmom]

6. As a person of integrity, you are supporting your candidate without lowering yourself

to spreading smears about another.

Thank you.

[AtomicKitten]

7. The FBI will be the final arbiter in this matter.

The IG found 4 classified emails in a small sampling and referred the matter to the FBI who are looking at another 305 emails.

[madville]

9. The State Department saying she didn't violate their internal policy

Has nothing to do with the FBI investigating the classified information angle.

If people think this private email policy statement somehow clears all that up they have no understanding of how serious the intelligence community and military take retention, transfer and storage of classified material.

That's not even counting the FOIA and record keeping questions that are unanswered, which again have nothing to do with Hillary actually using private email.

[AtomicKitten]

10. I understand that.

The FOIA requests are an issue. She sat on all data for a couple years post her tenure as SOS. So, it's related to but distinct from the security issue which has to do with the private server. There are two Federal laws she may have violated, the Federal Records Act and FOIA. That's what the FBI is looking at.

[madville]

15. This one has to come into play as well

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

I say that regarding the lawyer improperly storing and possessing the thumb drive now that it has come out he didn't have the proper clearance. Another question is who actually gave him the thumb drive? Hillary or one of her staff?