The Adventures of Secretary of State Hillary

Umm, . . . whom will pjstroh be backing in 2016, . . . and why?

Safe to say it won't be any of the attendees at CPAC.

Here is some criteria I wont be using to determine my vote:
- where candidates legally stored their email
- how many days candidates played golf
- church attended by candidates
- net worth and perceived elitism of candidates
- last names of candidates that are suspiciously Muslimy

Disqualifying attributes of any potential candidate would include (hence my statement about CPAC attendees):
- an economic platform that reconciles budgets by cutting taxes..and fairy dust
- a belief that he/she understands climate science better than climate scientists
- a foreign policy that centers around "kill them over there before they come here" or something
- a candidate's belief their religious values should be legislated upon the country - even those who don't share them
- an offered solution to conquer income disparity by granting more tax cuts to the top 1%

President Obama directed ALL OF HIS CABINET HEAD to run all email through the government server! Guess once again Hillary must have missed that directive, imagine that.

Newsflash: They are all crooked.

You guys act like it so tough to set-up a web server. I'd also ask any of you if you have used the latest versions of Microsoft Office with Outlook or even Apple's native mail program. Programs like these practically force you to run all your email though once centralized account. I guess if I set-up outlook and my master account was on my home computer I'd be guilty of something sinister lol.

Throwing out "straw-men scenarios" to cover for Ms. Clinton i. does not address the issue and ii. looks sorta desperate.

Why not address some real issues:

1. The discovery of Ms. Clinton's private e-mail scheme surfaced because a Romanian hacker, designated as "Guccifer" accessed the AOL account of well-known Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal and published some of the e-mails addressed to [email protected]. Along with Valentine’s Day greetings and a mention of Clinton “walking in my neighborhood,” the subject lines of those Blumnethal e-mails include repeated references to “intel” shared with the Secretary of State. One can find an excellent example at The Smoking Gun addressing "Libya Internal Government Discussions'.
There's other examples around the internet if one Googles a bit, . . . umm, but DonDiego suggests one Google looking for legitimate information, not excuses offered by biased commentators which one can repeat on the internets to "defend" Ms. Clinton.

It raises some questions like, . . . Is Mr. Blumenthal working for the State department? Was anyone else in the State Department aware of the contents of his "private messages" to Ms. Clinton. Is there any classified information in the correspondence transmitted via AOL? And why does Mr. Blumenthal use AOL?

2. As reported by the New York Times today, the Associated Press is considering legal action over unfulfilled Freedom of Information Act requests for government documents covering Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. The oldest request, the news organization said, was made in March 2010. That's practically 5 years ago. What's the delay?

__The AP requested "her full schedules and calendars and for details on the State Department’s decision to grant a special position to a longtime Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, among other documents."

__"In 2012, when Congressional investigators sought documents related to the attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, they were initially not supplied with emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account." Shocking! Simply shocking!
DonDiego wonders if they got all the pertinent e-mails when they were supplied. What if some of them placed Ms. Clinton in a bad light? Would those ever be released?

__"In 2013, Gawker submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and a close adviser, Sidney Blumenthal. Though some of that correspondence had been made public already, the State Department told Gawker that it could find no records responsive to the request, Gawker reported."
That the State Department could not find any records does not mean that records of such correspondence do not exist, . . . only that they are not on any State Department computer, . . . or, perhaps, someone does not want them found.

__The conservative group Citizens United is expecting a ruling this week on a lawsuit filed last year after the State Department would not disclose flight records showing who accompanied Mrs. Clinton on overseas trips. DonDiego supposes this information has to be in State Department records. Why won't they release it?

3. The issue is that the Ms. Clinton has total control over any and all her State department e-mails. She and what the White House spokesman referred to as "Hillary's Team" decide who gets to see the official business and anything else on Ms. Clinton's private server.
DonDiego suggests this is not a good example for the Secretary of State in the most transparent Administration in history to set.

Government offices generally do not like Freedom of Information Act requests, . . . as indicated in the issue over Ms. Clinton's flying partners. The existence of a private server in Ms. Clinton's house containing all of her State Department related e-mails makes denying legitimate requests or responding incompletely so much easier.
This is not a good thing.

If you're a national political figure it is likely you have many email addresses for your work, for your personal life, for your friends, for family, for business opportunities outside your work and so on. That is what programs like Outlook are for so you can get all of your email at one place instead of logging in and out of several different accounts.

When you set up the newest version of Office it asks you for your domain name and it wants by default to route all of your mail through that domain.

The only speculation I have seen is the speculation that she was running her own web server. If she checked her email at her home address or had say her outlook mail stored there it would show an IP address of her home ISP. That doesn't mean she had a web server or anything else. It probably means she uses Outlook or some other similar program to consolidate all her email. Speculation but then again other than she had an email account outside the government is the only thing in any of the stories that isn't speculation.

If she wanted to do something nefarious she wouldn't point the email back to her home address. That would be nuttier that a squirrel turd. I have this little service I pay $50 a year for and I can have my IP appear to be from anywhere in the world I want it to be. If you want to do something on the Internet in secret the first thing you have do is mask your IP address otherwise there is a trail everywhere you go associated with that IP.

PJ, stay on topic. The topic is about Hillary's private email server.

PJ, you're quite predictable. When you have nothing, you change the topic. At least you don't use those funny pictures like when Mally is stumped. I see a lot of those.

You're right, Boiler! I am predictable. I have the same position on issues regardless of which political party is involved. I can care less about Hillary's email...and Jeb Bush's email...and Mitt Romney's tax records. If I cared about one and not another that would make me a hypocrite like you and I have far too much respect for my integrity to stand for that.

This topic is only as serious as the contributors genuine concern about disclosure.

Disingenuous people have double standards and get upset when you point to their hypocrisy - hence Boilerman's reaction to my post. Boillerman has about as much integrity complaining about disclosure as he does complaining about political witch hunts.