6 ms·

She was offered a compliant Blackberry by Mull. http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-know-so-far-about-hillarys-shady-blackberry-use/ http://da

by 13years 10y ago

She was offered a compliant Blackberry by Mull. http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-know-so-far-about-hillarys-shady-blackberry-use/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-know-s... >No such evidence exists, which is why all inquiries and investigations came to the conclusion I stated above. That doesn't mean there was no evidence. It only suggests that evidence wasn't proven. You can not draw the conclusion there was none. The FBI also came to the conclusion that Clinton wasn't intelligent enough to understand confidential markings. Then the stunt the FBI pulled just before the election I would say the FBI has shown itself to be incompetent. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/7/fbis-comey-hillary-clinton-not-sophisticated-enoug/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/7/fbis-comey-hi...

lern_too_spel 10y ago
> She was offered a compliant Blackberry by Mull. http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-know-s.. http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-know-s.... Mull was the Executive Secretary of the State Department at the time he sent that email (two years after the NSA had denied Clinton's request). He was in no position to overrule the NSA and make that offer. At no point during Clinton's tenure were Blackberry devices authorized to access state.gov email servers. He was very likely referring to http://www.zdnet.com/article/nsa-wanted-hillary-clinton-to-use-this-secure-windows-phone/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/nsa-wanted-hillary-clinton-to-u..., which was the only authorized device up to 2015 and was the device that the NSA offered (but not supported by State department infrastructure) http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-refused-clinton-a-secure-blackberry-like-obama-so-she-used-her-own/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-re.... > That doesn't mean there was no evidence. Then where is it? Aside: citing the Moonie Times and the Daily Caller projects know-nothingism. Here are the three top articles on the Daily Caller right now: 1. Charlie Sheen Offers America The Most Insane Ticket To Take Down Trump 2. TPM’s Josh Marshall Reduced To Tweeting Porno Link Of ‘Teasing, Licking’ ‘Angela & Strawberry’TPM’s Josh Marshall Reduced To Tweeting Porno Link Of ‘Teasing, Licking’ ‘Angela & Strawberry’ 3. ‘FK YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter‘FK YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter None of this is news.
- 13years 10y ago
  >Then where is it? It was given. Apparently you don't like the source. Here's another. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v-State-Mull-deposition-01363-1.pdf http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v... Also, there were a lot of questions being asked about FOIA considering there was no evidence. http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-new-hillary-clinton-email-answers-given-oath/ http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judic... Again, your original assertion is not defensible that there was no evidence. Again evidence does not equal proven. Simply there was information that suggests a rationale.
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    It's not that I didn't like the source. It's that the evidence didn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny. Mull simply did not have the ability to give Clinton a Blackberry. Aside: you are aware of what Judicial Watch is, right? They're the conservative group that led the prosecution against Clinton on this issue and repeatedly failed. Of course they are going to ask questions about FOIA, the Espionage Act, and anything else they can try to stick on her. You're being misled by listening to only the prosecution and not the judge or the defense that totally dismantled their case.
    - 13years 10y ago
      >It's that the evidence didn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny So there was evidence? >Mull simply did not have the ability to give Clinton a Blackberry. That is irrelevant to establishing a motive. The emails don't suggest that Clinton was aware of that fact and they do suggest that Mull for some reason thought this information that would be important to Clinton's decision. >you are aware of what Judicial Watch is, right Yes, but this is to be expected. When the right is in power, I expect left leaning groups to lead the charge to accountability and vice versa. It is rare that a group ever holds itself accountable. >judge or the defense that totally dismantled their case. They thought it was good enough to proceed with questioning. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-orders-clinton-answer-written-questions-email/story?id=41523306 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-orders-clinton-answer-w... I'm not sure what you mean by dismantled. They requested a deposition and was granted. Clinton did not answer all questions and they have requested through federal court that she answer all questions. I have not seen an update on that request.

by 13years 10y ago

lern_too_spel 10y ago

> She was offered a compliant Blackberry by Mull. http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-know-s.. http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-know-s.... Mull was the Executive Secretary of the State Department at the time he sent that email (two years after the NSA had denied Clinton's request). He was in no position to overrule the NSA and make that offer. At no point during Clinton's tenure were Blackberry devices authorized to access state.gov email servers. He was very likely referring to http://www.zdnet.com/article/nsa-wanted-hillary-clinton-to-use-this-secure-windows-phone/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/nsa-wanted-hillary-clinton-to-u..., which was the only authorized device up to 2015 and was the device that the NSA offered (but not supported by State department infrastructure) http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-refused-clinton-a-secure-blackberry-like-obama-so-she-used-her-own/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-re.... > That doesn't mean there was no evidence. Then where is it? Aside: citing the Moonie Times and the Daily Caller projects know-nothingism. Here are the three top articles on the Daily Caller right now: 1. Charlie Sheen Offers America The Most Insane Ticket To Take Down Trump 2. TPM’s Josh Marshall Reduced To Tweeting Porno Link Of ‘Teasing, Licking’ ‘Angela & Strawberry’TPM’s Josh Marshall Reduced To Tweeting Porno Link Of ‘Teasing, Licking’ ‘Angela & Strawberry’ 3. ‘FK YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter‘FK YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter None of this is news.

13years 10y ago
>Then where is it? It was given. Apparently you don't like the source. Here's another. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v-State-Mull-deposition-01363-1.pdf http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v... Also, there were a lot of questions being asked about FOIA considering there was no evidence. http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-new-hillary-clinton-email-answers-given-oath/ http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judic... Again, your original assertion is not defensible that there was no evidence. Again evidence does not equal proven. Simply there was information that suggests a rationale.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  It's not that I didn't like the source. It's that the evidence didn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny. Mull simply did not have the ability to give Clinton a Blackberry. Aside: you are aware of what Judicial Watch is, right? They're the conservative group that led the prosecution against Clinton on this issue and repeatedly failed. Of course they are going to ask questions about FOIA, the Espionage Act, and anything else they can try to stick on her. You're being misled by listening to only the prosecution and not the judge or the defense that totally dismantled their case.
  - 13years 10y ago
    >It's that the evidence didn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny So there was evidence? >Mull simply did not have the ability to give Clinton a Blackberry. That is irrelevant to establishing a motive. The emails don't suggest that Clinton was aware of that fact and they do suggest that Mull for some reason thought this information that would be important to Clinton's decision. >you are aware of what Judicial Watch is, right Yes, but this is to be expected. When the right is in power, I expect left leaning groups to lead the charge to accountability and vice versa. It is rare that a group ever holds itself accountable. >judge or the defense that totally dismantled their case. They thought it was good enough to proceed with questioning. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-orders-clinton-answer-written-questions-email/story?id=41523306 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-orders-clinton-answer-w... I'm not sure what you mean by dismantled. They requested a deposition and was granted. Clinton did not answer all questions and they have requested through federal court that she answer all questions. I have not seen an update on that request.