Clinton Broke Federal Rules With Email Server, Audit Finds

[Vyxn]

It's probably a little more severe, but it's still the same type of "infraction". It's not remotely illegal, just bad form.

no it is not the same type of infraction
the policies rules and regulation set in place on how to handle emails and classified in information is done so to help keep the department members from creating a situation where laws can be broke when it comes to the handling of classified information and FOIA request

so tell me what law is broken if some one doesn't dress correctly?

once again you insistence of that absurd comparison shows nothing but your utter desperation

first you argued that H. Clinton did nothing wrong that she followed government policies with her handling of her emails she had authorization to do what she did, and now thanks to the IG report that defense of Clinton has been blown out the water leaving you thoroughly discredited so you move the goal post and now your on the well she didn't break the law defense
where are you going to move the goal post too when the FBI does find infact she did break the law is your defence now going to be well she didnt kill any one?

[Orlong]

This is all because HRC really wanted to keep using her Blackberry and wouldn't go for the secure laptop. For this scandal to really have legs there needs to be some bleeding victim at the end. The composition of the Supreme Court matters much more to me than HRC's insistence on her Blackberry.

"We began examining options for (Secretary Clinton) with respect to secure 'BlackBerry-like' communications," wrote Donald R. Reid, the department's assistant director for security infrastructure. "The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive."

"... the request was driven by Clinton's reliance on her BlackBerry for email and keeping track of her calendar. Clinton chose not to use a laptop or desktop computer that could have provided her access to email in her office ..."

http://www.cbsnews.com/.../emails-show-nsa-rejected.../

And thats because she is a stupid old lady who doesn't know how to use anything made after 1999, and apparently isnt capable of learning

- - - Updated - - -

We know she's broken rules, this reaffirms it. We also know that plenty of lawmakers break rules all the time. It's not good that they do, but that's the sad reality.

What this has all been about, specifically on behalf of Republicans, is whether she broke any laws and can be prosecuted for it.

And what good are rules if there is no punishment for breaking them??? Any regular employer will fire you for breaking the rules, not give you a promotion.

- - - Updated - - -

That certainly looks like a reputable film, one that's not at all trying to tell a very specific story and pushing very hard for a candidate.

Why does that matter as long as its true information??

[ArguesWithStrangers]

She willfully broke the law both during her time as Secretary of State and in her failure to cooperate with the investigation. It does not really matter though. A Democrat run Department of Justice will never charge her with a crime. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, we don't live in a country ruled by the law. We live in a country ruled by two large tribes who are hostile to each other. The rule of law only applies if a majority of the people demand someone of their party be prosecuted when they break the law. That is clearly not the case, and has not been the case for some time.

[Orlong]

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.

Thats because the "source" is always some far left wing blog like Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Politico, or Salon. When a real source posts it like Wall Street Journal, or CBS news, then Ill look into it

- - - Updated - - -

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

When the results of violating that policy exposes national security concerns, then yes, they all need to go to jail. I dont know if other SOS had their emails hacked but we know for a fact Guccifer hacked Hillary's. He has admitted it and shown proof and is currently assisting the FBI

[Orbitus]

Thats because the "source" is always some far left wing blog like Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Politico, or Salon. When a real source posts it like Wall Street Journal, or CBS news, then Ill look into it

- - - Updated - - -



When the results of violating that policy exposes national security concerns, then yes, they all need to go to jail. I dont know if other SOS had their emails hacked but we know for a fact Guccifer hacked Hillary's. He has admitted it and shown proof and is currently assisting the FBI

They have, you just don't want to read them because it would crush your little worldview.

[Vyxn]

Damning report on E-mailgate shows Hillary can’t be trusted

A devastating report by the State Department’s inspector general Wednesday shows just why Americans are right to distrust Hillary Clinton.

The 78-page document (by an Obama appointee, no less) concludes that Clinton’s server and e-mail practices as secretary of state violated department policy — and she and her team lied about it repeatedly.

It says she and her inner circle defiantly stonewalled the investigation, despite Hillary’s repeated assurances that she’d “talk to anybody, anytime.” It also says:
•Clinton never sought an OK from State’s legal staff to use a private server, as required, and as her aides claimed. If she had, permission would’ve been denied.
Instead, her IT aides were warned “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system” — and neither her server nor her Blackberry “met [even] minimum security requirements.”
• Despite her repeated denials, there were at least two attempts to hack into her system. Neither was ever reported to State’s security personnel, as required.
• Clinton claimed she used a private system strictly for convenience. But when urged to also use an official e-mail address, she refused, citing the risk that personal e-mails might become publicly accessible.

Tellingly, Clinton and top aides Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills refused to be interviewed by the IG.

Here’s the bottom line: Virtually everything Clinton has said about her e-mails has been a lie. And no longer can supporters laugh off E-mailgate so easily.

Hillary’s culpability and her flouting of the law now seem clear. But that leaves one more shoe to drop: Will Attorney General Loretta Lynch indict the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee? If she doesn’t, she’ll need a good excuse why.
http://nypost.com/2016/05/25/damning...nt-be-trusted/

how can you Clinton sycophants still defend this women still think she is acceptable and qualified to be president?
your arguments have been reduced well others did or do the same thing. when in the hell did that argument ever work with law enforcement it is an argument that kids used to try to get out of trouble "Jimmy down the street did it also" like some how others doing it made it ok for you to do the same it is laughable argument at best

then the most absurd argument is the one Endus is using making the claim it is no worse what Clinton did as breaking the dress code

[zenkai]

This whole attitude is why the GOP has basically zero credibility left when it comes to scandals involving Clinton.

You cannot have a justice system where people are innocent until proven guilty and make statements like these with any sense of credibility.

The GOP is great at taking opportunities and just screwing them up by being too rabid and too overeager to find fault. If they could take their skill at distilling issues into bumper stickers (which they are AMAZING at) and apply that to attacking their opponents they'd wipe the Dems out.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, you could really apply this exact statement to Trump and only change the pronouns and it would apply just as well. Makes it as ammo against Clinton rather thin if you want to rally support for her opponent.

EDIT -- next time people complain these forums are a liberal circlejerk I'm going to link them to the first page of this thread. That was some breathtaking forum circular masturbation by our conservative friends here!

But this thread isn't about Trump, it's about Clinton, Trump is an idiot for different reasons. So no you couldn't change the sentence around because Trump was never a Government employee.

[Toppy]

It's sad that Trump will be the best candidate simply because he is honest.

The issue is isnt that Hillary broke the rules. A lot of people did in this case and a lot of the fault falls on those who were supposed to be keeping an eye on this in the first place.

The problem is she lied and lied to cover her lies, and keeps on lying.

She simply cannot be trusted. She lies constantly and never takes responsibility for her actions.

[Daerio]

• Clinton claimed she used a private system strictly for convenience. But when urged to also use an official e-mail address, she refused, citing the risk that personal e-mails might become publicly accessible.

Pretty sure this whole thing is about Clinton hiding everything she does from everyone. The fact that somebody might leak something she actually said and meant to the public? Unacceptable.

Having people check her words against her actions is very politically damaging for Clinton. Better to have no information at all and spin until everyone is dizzy.

[jdbond592]

At worst she is guilty of several federal offenses, at best she is grossly incompetent. Not sure how she has the voters she does...

Because she is competing against a moron? Clinton is not liked at all. If Romney were running against, he likely would thrash her. Fortunately for her, Trump is no Romney. He is a buffoon who says things like "she has said nasty things about me so I am releasing 30 year old gossip on Bill Clinton"...

[Noradin]

so the bar is the standard is now as long as she didn't break the law

It always was.

[Toppy]

Because she is competing against a moron? Clinton is not liked at all. If Romney were running against, he likely would thrash her. Fortunately for her, Trump is no Romney. He is a buffoon who says things like "she has said nasty things about me so I am releasing 30 year old gossip on Bill Clinton"...

I dont know if you've noticed, but she too is a moron.

[Noradin]

are you actually going to try to make a comparison between breaking a dress code and breaking rules and regulations set in place so to protect government classified martial and so to conform to FOIA request which is federal law

you reek of desperation to make such absurd comparison

Yes. If they were important then there would be laws covering them (as you have pointed out), since she hasn't been found to have broken any laws the rules she broke cannot have been that important.

[tankbug]

Still a saint compared to Trump.

[jdbond592]

I dont know if you've noticed, but she too is a moron.

Well a bigger moron then

- - - Updated - - -

Still a saint compared to Trump.

That is the real issue. Trump is a thin skinned, egomaniac buffoon who lies every-time he speaks. He is incapable of separating reality from universe his lies create. We know Hillary is corrupt, a liar and not very competent. Trump is completely unknown and that makes him dangerous. He is deadpool of politics, ready to push that nuclear button just because China said something "nasty" about him.

[Toppy]

Well a bigger moron then

I wouldnt even say that. She had a tendency to quote shitty studies to make herself look smart and has never shown herself to be much more than just ignorant.

The choices will be

A big moron who likes to act smart and lies constantly

A big moron who is at least honest

[Daerio]

Clinton was witty in her day, when she didn't have to adopt the sock puppet face 100% of the time.

She's just a shriveled old prune now. The only time you see the "real" HRC now is when she's yelling at protesters to get off her lawn. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC4Pvm6Oj4A

[jdbond592]

I wouldnt even say that. She had a tendency to quote shitty studies to make herself look smart and has never shown herself to be much more than just ignorant.

The choices will be

A big moron who likes to act smart and lies constantly

A big moron who is at least honest

I am confused. Who is this honest person? I thought your first line covered both.

[Toppy]

Clinton was witty in her day, when she didn't have to adopt the sock puppet face 100% of the time.

She's just a shriveled old prune now. The only time you see the "real" HRC now is when she's yelling at protesters to get off her lawn. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC4Pvm6Oj4A

Its almost as if she was never put under any scrutiny till now, and with people actually looking for faults its all they can find. She had a free pass for years due to her husbands scandle and how she rode Obama's coat tails pretty hard.

- - - Updated - - -

I am confused. Who is this honest person? I thought your first line covered both.

Just because you dont like someone, doesnt mean they are a liar. Trump does it no doubt, but no where NEAR the extent of Clinton.

[shimerra]

It's sad that Trump will be the best candidate simply because he is honest.

The issue is isnt that Hillary broke the rules. A lot of people did in this case and a lot of the fault falls on those who were supposed to be keeping an eye on this in the first place.

The problem is she lied and lied to cover her lies, and keeps on lying.

She simply cannot be trusted. She lies constantly and never takes responsibility for her actions.

What? He's not honest at all. And on top of that he's got retarded shit under his belt like birtherism and anti-vaxx statements. Trump University? Very honest. He's loud, obnoxious, and appealing to a populist anti-government sentiment and you're confusing that with honesty.