Topic: Hillary conducted official State business on her private e-mail account — ALL - page 3. (Read 8872 times)

An Open Letter to [email protected]

WASHINGTON — SINCE open letters to secretive and duplicitous regimes are in fashion, we would like to post an Open Letter to the Leaders of the Clinton Republic of Chappaqua:

It has come to our attention while observing your machinations during your attempted restoration that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our democracy: The importance of preserving historical records and the ill-advised gluttony of an American feminist icon wallowing in regressive Middle Eastern states’ payola.

You should seriously consider these characteristics of our nation as the Campaign-That-Must-Not-Be-Named progresses.

If you, Hillary Rodham Clinton, are willing to cite your mother’s funeral to get sympathy for ill-advisedly deleting 30,000 emails, it just makes us want to sigh: O.K., just take it. If you want it that bad, go ahead and be president and leave us in peace. (Or war, if you have your hawkish way.) You’re still idling on the runway, but we’re already jet-lagged. It’s all so drearily familiar that I know we’re only moments away from James Carville writing a column in David Brock’s Media Matters, headlined, “In Private, Hillary’s Really a Hoot.”

More...http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-an-open-letter-to-hdr22clintonemailcom.html?_r=1

This is rich, I've never seen a liberal feminist go to town on Hillary like this before. Quite impressive even if I don't normally hold Ms. Dowd in high regard.

‘Kelly File’ Files FOIA To Get Hillary’s OF-109 Form



If she didn’t sign it, it’s improper, but probably not criminal. If she did sign it, it means she committed perjury, because she had not returned ‘all government property/records’ as required, according to the form.



http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/03/13/new-questions-about-clinton-foundation-ties

Hillary Clinton: A Pay-Phone Candidate in an iPhone World
The Democrat trots out tired tactics and stale strategies in email news conference.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is an ancient presidential candidate. Not age-wise. Attitude-wise.

Staggered by self-inflicted wounds, the former secretary of State faced a choice between the right way and wrong way to manage a public-relations crisis in the post-Internet era, when the 1990s tactics of deflection, deception, and victimization are far less effective. She chose the wrong way.

Rather than be transparent, completely honest, and accountable, Clinton doubled down on the 1990s. She refused to turn over her emails stored on a secret service in violation of federal regulations. She defended contributions to her family's charity from foreign nations that discriminate against women and support terrorism, a brazen contradiction to her public profile.

"I fully complied with every rule I was governed under," she said, a legalistic dodge that rivals Al Gore's lame defense of his fund-raising shenanigans in 1997: "There is no controlling legal authority."

She dodged legitimate accusations, parried accusations that were never in play, and coolly laid out a defense that you could boil down to five words: "Trust me, I'm a Clinton."
...
Clinton had a four-point response:

1. She decided to use her personal email account for both work and private business as a matter of convenience. "Looking back," she said, "it would have been better had I simply used a separate account."

That was as close as Clinton got to contrition, and even this talking point was misplaced. Nobody questions her right to use a personal account for work-related matters. Nobody seeks to make truly private emails public. The issue is Clinton's clear violation of federal regulations requiring her to store official emails on government servers. For reasons she left unsaid, Clinton went rogue.

A home-brewed server gives her full control of government records. Theoretically, she can delete or withhold public documents without the public ever knowing.

2. The "vast majority" of her emails went to government authorities, which means they would be captured by people who (unlike her) followed federal rules. Clinton didn't put a number to "vast majority" or characterize what material was contained in the "minority" of emails lost. Presumably, though, they're on the server she won't cough up.

3. After she left the State Department, House Republicans investigating the Benghazi attack discovered that they had none of her emails and notified State. The agency asked all former secretaries of State to turn over their emails. With her cache secured on an off-the-books server, Clinton decided which ones to turn over: only 30,490 of 62,320 emails, according to her office. More than 31,000 were deleted! It is irrelevant that Clinton says the notes are private. Those are our emails, not hers. A government archivist, not a Clinton, is suppose to decide what is private and what is public.

4. She took the "unprecedented step of asking the State Department to make my work-related emails public for everyone to see." Gee, thanks. We can see the emails you want us to see?
...
Trust me, I'm a Clinton. This is part of a decades-old pattern: For all their strengths, Hillary and Bill Clinton have a weakness for victimization, entitlement, and their unbounded belief that the ends justify the means.

Rules are for little people, not them.

She had a choice—the right way or the wrong way, the new way or the old way. She chose to turn back the clock to the 1990s, when her husband's White House overcame its wrongdoing by denying the truth, blaming Republicans, and demonizing and bullying the media.

She unleashed the hounds of Whitewater. David Brock demanded a correction from The New York Times, which broke the email story. James Carville dismissed the charges as "right-wing talking points." A slightly less-worn henchman, Howard Dean, called one of my stories "trash." These retreads made Clinton look small.
...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-a-pay-phone-candidate-in-an-iphone-world-20150310

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/03/13/judge-orders-state-dept-to-release-records-from-clinton-trips/

Do you run a government agency but hate complying with the law? Then you need DC Matic, the Hillary Clinton-approved email server!

who cares, who ever is potus is a puppet, the more you focus on it, the less you will see. if there is a rogue magician, what does the wizard? freeze both of his hands, start to chock his troth and ask, are you sure you know magic... then you see his eyes, raw fear, because he saw death... who said that "magic" was for pikers?

Hillary Refused To Use Government-Protected State Department Blackberry



Piling on more embarrassment for Hillary Clinton amid a row about her emails, U.S. officials revealed Thursday that during her time as secretary of state she had declined a government-issued cellphone.

Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Clinton was “not issued a State Department BlackBerry, and that wasn’t a requirement — no one is required to be issued a State Department BlackBerry.”

The revelation is likely to raise more concerns about national security as well as speculation that the former first lady may have been hiding information that could embarrass her in her presidential campaign.

Clinton is at the center of a political firestorm about her use of a private email account during her four years as secretary of state, and her attempt earlier this week to douse the flames left many questions unanswered.

Clinton said Tuesday she had used her private account as “a matter of convenience” and that she did not want to carry multiple devices.



http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-email-blackberry/2015/03/12/id/629871/

The clintons have been above the law for more than 20 years now...

Time Magazine is right. The Clintons want to be above the law, make their own rules. Friggin´power hungry sociopaths as far as I´m concerned. To be avoided at all costs.

What about Billy Boy if Hillary runs. Isn´t he gonna be an inconvenient piece of baggage ? Maybe the powers that be/Wall St./the war industry will somehow send him to the great beyond ? Maybe they have been doing that incrementally for the past years ? Those wankers have resources enough and no conscience to worry about.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/fctry/hillary-clinton-action-figure

State Dept Won’t Say Whether Hillary Signed Crucial Records Form, Committed Felony





State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki couldn’t tell reporters on Thursday if Hillary Clinton signed an official records form presented to all employees as they leave the department — a crucial question in determining whether the former Secretary of State committed a felony by failing to turn over government e-mail records.

Former Department of Justice lawyer and National Review contributing editor Shannen Coffin noted this week that Clinton should have signed form OF-109 as part of her standard exit from the department. That form declares that she turned over all relevant records at the time of her departure — and stipulates that any failure to do so could result in felony fines and jail times.

Clinton did not turn over her government communications to the State Department until asked for them late last year.

A former DOJ attorney has asked if, under department policy, Secretary Clinton — like all officials here in this building, when they depart or separate from this office, has to sign something called a form OF-109,” a reporter asked Psaki on Thursday. “It’s a separation statement declaring that when you leave office, you turn over not just classified materials, but any documents for official purposes. Did she sign –”

“I think this has been asked,” Psaki interrupted. “It was more than two years ago. I don’t have an update on that specific question at this point.”


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415315/state-dept-wont-say-whether-hillary-signed-crucial-records-form-committed-felony

No one read Hillary emails before destruction


How did Hillary Clinton know that the tens of thousands of emails from her time in office she ordered destroyed were personal? Did she or even her staff scroll through her sent items scanning emails about “yoga routines” or “family vacations” before deleting them? Nope. No one looked at them. The Clinton campaign said those emails that did not crop up in a keyword search performed by her team were automatically deleted. No eyes. No one to be subpoenaed. Just highlight all and press delete. That method seems better for missing emails than to finding them. And it would sound reckless and haphazard coming from another politician. In this case, though it sounds like a woman covering her tracks in preparation for a long and bloody legal fight over subpoenas to come…

Time: “For more than a year after she left office in 2013, she did not transfer work-related email from her private account to the State Department. She commissioned a review of the 62,320 messages in her account only after the department–spurred by the congressional investigation–asked her to do so. And this review did not involve opening and reading each email; instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache–31,830 emails–did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be ‘private, personal records.’”



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/12/no-one-read-hillary-emails-before-destruction/

State Department: Oh, by the way, Hillary used a private Blackberry too, not a secure government-issued one


I think Psaki’s actually trying to help Hillary in saying this, strange as that may seem. Remember when Her Majesty said at her press conference that she thought it’d be inconvenient to carry separate Blackberries for her personal and work e-mail? And we all laughed at the suggestion that modern smart devices could only handle one dedicated e-mail account? There’s a reason she said that, says Psaki — until last year, if you wanted to access State Department e-mail remotely, you needed a secure Blackberry issued by State for that purpose. And that Blackberry only handled department e-mail, i.e. State e-mail accounts actually did require a dedicated device. Apparently Hillary was right in thinking that, if she wanted to read private e-mail too, she really would have had to carry a second device.

But rather than do that and endure the hardship of fitting two four-ounce smartphones in her purse instead of one, she chose to defy security protocols and conduct all of her business, work and personal, from her unsecured private device. She didn’t care enough about security to have an official State e-mail account created for her in the first place so why would she care enough to read sensitive messages on an official, secured State Blackberry? That adds a whole new level of risk to her e-mail habits, actually, since she was presumably using her personal Blackberry for work during overseas trips, when she was at greater risk from foreign surveillance. Between that and the fact that State IT techs warned her about the vulnerability of her private server, there’s really no question that she knowingly, willingly created a major hole in national security simply because her selfish political desire to keep her messages away from the voting public was more important to her.

And contrary to popular belief, Hillary didn’t say at her presser that she had never accessed classified information from her private account. She said she never sent classified “material.” What does that mean, wonders Andy McCarthy:


First, since we’re dealing with Clintonian parsing here, we must consider the distinction between classified documents and classified information — the latter being what is laid out in the former. It is not enough for a government official with a top-secret clearance to refrain from storing classified documents on private e-mail; the official is also forbidden to discuss the information contained in those documents.

The fact that Mrs. Clinton says she did not store classified documents on her private server, which is very likely true, does not discount the distinct possibility that she discussed classified matters in private e-mails. We would not be able to judge that absent reviewing the e-mails. If any of the 31,830 withheld e-mails from the private, non-secure system — involving America’s top diplomat who was in constant discussions with other important diplomats, top military and national-security officials, her trusted advisers, and even the president of the United States — touched on classified matters, that could land Mrs. Clinton in very hot legal water. It would be a powerful incentive to hit the “delete” key.





http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/12/state-department-oh-by-the-way-hillary-used-a-private-blackberry-too-not-a-secure-government-issued-one/

I love clever minimalist, borderline subliminal designs. This one is up there. Well done.

Clinton hides emails from period when account was reportedly unencrypted



Since the revelations involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server exploded last week, questions have swirled regarding her account’s level of information security. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” Clinton averred at a brief press conference on Tuesday.

Some are… skeptical about the assertion that the nation’s top diplomat never received any classified material via her email account at an agency that is often criticized for over-classifying information.

“I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified,” said an unnamed former official who spoke to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity. “Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine.”

Indeed, it is. At the very least, the nation’s chief diplomat spent much of her time dealing with sensitive information. Presumably the secretary of state’s “homebrew” server at least had some rudimentary security protocols in place to prevent hackers or cyber espionage agents from infiltrating the system. And Clinton’s email server did have a data encryption system in place… two months after she took office.

According to The Wall Street Journal’s reporting, Clinton’s emails lacked comprehensive data protections until weeks after she took office:

Mrs. Clinton took office in January 2009 and began using her private email system for both work and personal matters. Her office said the system used “robust protections” and “additional upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available.”

Kevin Bocek, a vice president at the Internet security company Venafi, said the Clinton server was encrypting data it sent and received as of March 29, 2009, about two months after she took office, based on a search he did of Internet records. During the first two months of her tenure, however, it doesn’t appear that Mrs. Clinton’s email had such protections, Mr. Bocek said.



It is unclear if Clinton’s emails were entirely unsecure in the period from when she took office in January of 2009 to the end of March of that year, but this report indicates that her emails at least lacked comprehensive protections.

If that’s true, State Department investigators don’t have the ability to scrutinize even the text of the emails sent during this period, much less the metadata associated with those communications, because they were among the majority of the email that Clinton withheld from investigators:





Anyone who is more concerned with America’s diplomatic security than they are with Hillary Clinton’s viability as a presidential candidate cannot help but be shocked by this revelation. The secretary’s cavalier approach to security in the preservation of her own level of “convenience” is reckless in the extreme. At a period in the secretary’s tenure when she was negotiating the “Reset” with Russia, a nation with one of the most sophisticated cyber intelligence operations on Earth, conducting official American business over unsecure channels is nothing short of a dereliction of her responsibilities.

Of course, we don’t know if she did. We may never know what the former secretary discussed via her email account in that two-month timeframe. That’s simply unacceptable. It might even be disqualifying.



http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/12/clinton-hides-emails-from-period-when-account-was-reportedly-unencrypted/

AP Suing State Dept To Force Release Of Hillary Clinton Emails, FOIA Request From 5 Years Ago Still Unfulfilled…




The Associated Press filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

The legal action comes after repeated requests filed under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act have gone unfulfilled. They include one request AP made five years ago and others pending since the summer of 2013.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, comes a day after Clinton broke her silence about her use of a private email account while secretary of state. The FOIA requests and lawsuit seek materials related to her public and private calendars, correspondence involving longtime aides likely to play key roles in her expected campaign for president, and Clinton-related emails about the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices.

“After careful deliberation and exhausting our other options, The Associated Press is taking the necessary legal steps to gain access to these important documents, which will shed light on actions by the State Department and former Secretary Clinton, a presumptive 2016 presidential candidate, during some of the most significant issues of our time,” said Karen Kaiser, AP’s general counsel.

“The press is a proxy for the people, and AP will continue its pursuit of vital information that’s in the public interest through this action and future open records requests,” she said.


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5f35e25c77194546822769b2f9672fe3/ap-sues-state-department-seeking-access-clinton-records



-------------------------------------------
After 5 years?