4 ms·
Here are the two obvious one, and another one that's well. . . more in the vein of the Clinton's being the Clinton's IMHO. http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/2646
by at-fates-hands 10y ago
Here are the two obvious one, and another one that's well. . . more in the vein of the Clinton's being the Clinton's IMHO.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret-email-accounts/ http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillar...
- Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email.
- Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:
“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”
- MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell believes that the use of a personal emails server appears to be a preemptive move, specifically designed to circumvent FOIA:
- x0x0 10y agoNothing that links to the daily caller is a serious news source. Plus the article is a pile of stupid innuendo that conflates what Hillary did with Petraeus providing contemporaneously classified documents to his journalist fuckbuddy. Further, clearly nobody in government had a contemporaneous problem with it since they saw the email address every time they communicated with Hillary Clinton. Whenever they sent her an email, they saw Hillary Clinton <hdr22@clintonemail.com> show up in the email composition window, which certainly cannot be mistaken for a state department email...
- rue 10y agoMy email client just shows the name… And in any case, “nobody complained about it” isn’t actually a valid legal defense.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago>>> Nothing that links to the daily caller is a serious news source. Neither is linking to the LA Times for that matter. I was simply fighting fire with fire.
- x0x0 10y agoThe LA Times is a news source while the Daily Caller is an avowed conservative publication founded by Tucker Carlson and one of Dick Cheney's advisors.
- zaroth 10y agoIn the just released state department report, there are several instances where staff complained about Clinton's use of a private server, and they were told that she had permission to do it and never to mention it again. In fact, no permission was ever sought or given. IT staff reported issues with clintonemail going to SPAM folders and insisted Clinton use her .gov account, and she refused. IT staff further complained of security issues with her email server and were ignored. It is simply not the case that no one had a problem with it. Many people did, and they were told to pound sand.
- zip1234 10y agoI worked in Federal Government for 7 years. She knew about Records Management, had a records custodian that worked for her, and clearly used clintonemail.com in an official capacity, circumventing State Department and other Federal regulations regarding official records. Here is the official IG report: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03...
- Brendinooo 10y agoAd hominem? Sure, news sources can be biased and we should be discerning when we look at them, but that doesn't automatically mean that the source is automatically wrong 100% of the time.
- x0x0 10y agoSecret Muslim Barack Obama's new house is near a mosque, and the daily caller is on it! http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/26/obamas-fancy-new-mansion-is-located-1000-feet-from-the-islamic-center-of-washington-dc/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/26/obamas-fancy-new-mansion-i...