Clinton Broke Federal Rules With Email Server, Audit Finds

[Cthulhu 2020]

as in? so what government rules and regulations has Trump broken and lied about not doing so?

Which ones has Clinton? In all these years you have yet to provide any proof of your own accusations. You've posted a lot of stuff you WANT To be illegal, or things that she hasn't done, and we're all used to the same old tired song and dance. You don't even read most of your sources, where you're asked this question, and then you post some article that doesn't actually show her doing anything illegal, just a bunch of angry ranting about something Clinton did that wasn't illegal.

[Edge-]

Which ones has Clinton?

Erm...the ones that the report this thread is about specifically called out? Those are rules she broke. They're not laws, but they're rules.

[Cthulhu 2020]

That is a pretty dumb ruling for mostly false ... one, they say "Regularly used email" ... what is regularly used email? How is that defined? Why should I care if it is common place or not? If another SoS did the same thing, even less regularly, I say that should count to being true. Also, they include because Colin Powell didn't use a private server in his own home ... he still used a private email, was it a government or public server he used? If it is public, how is Colin Powell not worse than Hillary? Hell, if it was even government, why does that matter?

Hey dude, TheRealColinPowell@yahoo.com is a perfectly secure email I'll have you know.

[Mormolyce]

Oh no, not federal record rules! It has the word federal in it do that must be serious!

[Cthulhu 2020]

Erm...the ones that the report this thread is about specifically called out? Those are rules she broke. They're not laws, but they're rules.

Best remove her as SoS then.

Trump is a frequent and pathological liar, going right up to and sometimes over the line of legality, but always somehow manages to get away with it. His series of construction projects both at home and overseas have used illegal migrants and wage slaves to build his properties, but he always has a couple of contractors/sub contractors and an army of lawyers between him and said workers to never get hit with culpability.

Here's my entire point in all of this: Trump and Clinton have both skirted the lines of legality, Trump in many more ways than Clinton. Most of us know that Clinton did not follow rules to the letter. When you post sources of the things Trump has done, the Trump fellaters just whine about how the source is bias and Trump is perfect.

[Orlong]

Internal investigation found that Hillary broke office policy. I mean, yeah, we knew that already. It was a bad decision on her part, and that goes toward her judgement. She probably lied about certain aspects as well, which goes toward her character.

However, this report does make it quite clear that Hillary is not the only SoS to engage in shoddy email practices. Seems to be quite commonplace actually. Not good.

Everyone who did it should be strung up and thrown in jail

[Edge-]

Best remove her as SoS then.

I...what? I'm not sure how is is a response, or even relevant, but alright. I guess you think I'm some anti-Hillary right winger or something?

Trump is a frequent and pathological liar, going right up to and sometimes over the line of legality, but always somehow manages to get away with it. His series of construction projects both at home and overseas have used illegal migrants and wage slaves to build his properties, but he always has a couple of contractors/sub contractors and an army of lawyers between him and said workers to never get hit with culpability.

None of which is relevant to this thread, which is about the State Department investigation which found that she broke federal rules. It may all be very true (much of it is), but it bringing it up seems kinda pointless for this thread.

Here's my entire point in all of this: Trump and Clinton have both skirted the lines of legality, Trump in many more ways than Clinton. Most of us know that Clinton did not follow rules to the letter. When you post sources of the things Trump has done, the Trump fellaters just whine about how the source is bias and Trump is perfect.

Ok, but I don't see how driving discussion off topic with Trump discussion in this thread benefits anyone.

Everyone who did it should be strung up and thrown in jail

That would potentially be the case if they broke any laws. These are federal rules, not actual laws. The FBI is investigating to see if any laws were broken, so we'll see what the outcome is when they announced their findings.

[TZucchini]

Everyone who did it should be strung up and thrown in jail

Thrown in jail for violating an email policy? That's kinda intense.

[Xeones]

Thrown in jail for violating an email policy? That's kinda intense.

Thats pretty mild for a guy who wants watch people die of hunger in the gutter.

[Vyxn]

Which ones has Clinton? In all these years you have yet to provide any proof of your own accusations. You've posted a lot of stuff you WANT To be illegal, or things that she hasn't done, and we're all used to the same old tired song and dance. You don't even read most of your sources, where you're asked this question, and then you post some article that doesn't actually show her doing anything illegal, just a bunch of angry ranting about something Clinton did that wasn't illegal.

typical you didn't even read the IG report before you commented on it
hell it is in the fucking headline saying she broke federal rules

Clinton Broke Federal Rules With Email Server, Audit Finds

- - - Updated - - -

I...what? I'm not sure how is is a response, or even relevant, but alright. I guess you think I'm some anti-Hillary right winger or something?



None of which is relevant to this thread, which is about the State Department investigation which found that she broke federal rules. It may all be very true (much of it is), but it bringing it up seems kinda pointless for this thread.



Ok, but I don't see how driving discussion off topic with Trump discussion in this thread benefits anyone.



That would potentially be the case if they broke any laws. These are federal rules, not actual laws. The FBI is investigating to see if any laws were broken, so we'll see what the outcome is when they announced their findings.

so what do you think should happen to a federal employee that blatantly broke those rules and lied about not doing so? what repercussion should happen to them?
the least that should be done is them loosing any type of government security clearance correct?

[Edge-]

so what do you think should happen to a federal employee that blatantly broke those rules and lied about not doing so? what repercussion should happen to them?

What I think should or shouldn't happen is irrelevant, I'm involved in those decisions. I have no clue what punishments, if any, there are on the federal level, but whatever they are she should be subject to them.

the least that should be done is them loosing any type of government security clearance correct?

I have no clue what should or shouldn't be done. That's up to the State Department/federal government to set those rules, enforce them, and to create and administer the punishment for breaking them.

My personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant.

[Merkava]

Here's my entire point in all of this: Trump and Clinton have both skirted the lines of legality, Trump in many more ways than Clinton. Most of us know that Clinton did not follow rules to the letter. When you post sources of the things Trump has done, the Trump fellaters just whine about how the source is bias and Trump is perfect.

I think I'd be safely in the majority when I say we should hold cabinet level officials to a higher standard than real estate moguls and reality television stars.

[Edge-]

I think I'd be safely in the majority when I say we should hold cabinet level officials to a higher standard than real estate moguls and reality television stars.

I'd agree. But when said real estate moguls and reality TV stars are running for the highest elected office in the US, they should absolutely be held to the same standards, even for their past behaviors. They don't get a "get out of jail free" card because they weren't a politician back then.

[Vyxn]

I have no clue what should or shouldn't be done. That's up to the State Department/federal government to set those rules, enforce them, and to create and administer the punishment for breaking them.

My personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant.

it is relevant because I asked you a question I asked for your opinion which puts you in a no win situation because if you answer no nothing should be done proves you are a Clinton sycophant and that she is above any repercussions for breaking the rules and if you say yes something should be done like having any security clearance being stripped from her like it would be done to any other federal employ that broke the rules like she did will disqualify her from becoming president

[Vanyali]

Considering the punishment for breaking this rule is "no longer working as SoS", I'd say punishment has already been served, and "trap questions" that are actually full of shit should be discarded.

[Edge-]

it is relevant because I asked you a question I asked for your opinion which puts you in a no win situation because if you answer no nothing should be done proves you are a Clinton sycophant and that she is above any repercussions for breaking the rules and if you say

No, I'm not answering because I have no baseline for comparison/judgement to know what the type of punishment is for similar breaches of rules, if any. And any answer I give won't matter because it more than likely won't jive with whatever the official repercussions are.

Your problem is that you want to put me in one of two camps, the "Clinton sycophants" or the "anti-Hilary" group. I'm not a part of either and have no desire to be a part of either, I think both are stupid.

yes something should be done like having any security clearance being stripped from her like it would be done to any other federal employ that broke the rules like she did will disqualify her from becoming president

Is that what actually happens? I'm genuinely curious as to if breaches of rules like this would lead to other federal employees being stripped of security clearance.

Also for what the legality would be surrounding her being eligible or ineligible for president due to this.

Opinions and "feels" are irrelevant on such matters, they are purely an issue of law.

[Ghostpanther]

I don't think she would get thrown in prison even if she did do something illegal. I am just pointing out she's a liar and incompetent.

Agree. Obama would pardon her if she ever is convicted.

[Wells]

I think I'd be safely in the majority when I say we should hold cabinet level officials to a higher standard than real estate moguls and reality television stars.

Wouldn't it be so fucking awesome if that's all he was again?

[Vyxn]

No, I'm not answering because I have no baseline for comparison/judgement to know what the type of punishment is for similar breaches of rules, if any. And any answer I give won't matter because it more than likely won't jive with whatever the official repercussions are.

Your problem is that you want to put me in one of two camps, the "Clinton sycophants" or the "anti-Hilary" group. I'm not a part of either and have no desire to be a part of either, I think both are stupid.



Is that what actually happens? I'm genuinely curious as to if breaches of rules like this would lead to other federal employees being stripped of security clearance.

Also for what the legality would be surrounding her being eligible or ineligible for president due to this.

Opinions and "feels" are irrelevant on such matters, they are purely an issue of law.

yes less of infractions will cause you to lose your security clearance. for example when I was in the army working on helicopters the avionics dept. was required to code the secure radios on the aircraft. there was a encryption device you plugged into the aircraft radio that encrypts them which changes every month and it is the job of the avionics shop to do so once a month. the device is supposed to be signed out then signed back in and requires a security clearance to do so. a avionics tech with a security clearance signed one out but didn't sign it back in but left it in his locked tool box over night a violation of the regulations he lost his security clearance amongst other things for doing that.
so leaving a encryption device locked in a toolbox over night instead of turning it in that day makes you lose your security clearance then dam right what Clinton did would also be a required repercussion for what she did
and how can you be president of the united states with no security clearance?

[Edge-]

yes less of infractions will cause you to lose your security clearance. for example when I was in the army working on helicopters the avionics dept. was required to code the secure radios on the aircraft in there was a encryption device you plugged into the aircraft radio that encrypts them which changes every month and it is the job of the avionics shop to do so once a month. the device is supposed to be signed out then signed back in and requires a security clearance to do so. a avionics tech with a security clearance signed one out but didn't sign it back in but left it in his locked tool box over night a violation of the regulations he lost his security clearance amongst other things for doing that.

But does that extend to members of the federal government not in the armed forces? I'm aware of some of the rules/punishments around breaking rules, had a few friends involved in that over the years.

so leaving a encryption device locked in a toolbox over night instead of turning it in that day makes you lose your security clearance then dam right what Clinton did would also be a required repercussion for what she did

See above. Military and federal government have different rules, as far as I'm aware.

and how can you be president of the united states with no security clearance?

Can security clearance be reinstated in the federal government? Not the military, but the federal government?