Half Moon Bay Review
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

Secretary of State Clinton violated no laws or policies

State Department confirms Hillary Clinton email violated no laws or policies

Web Link

The State Department publicly confirmed today that Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email while serving as Secretary of State violated no laws or policies that were in place at the time, bringing an end to the substantive side of the “email scandal” if certainly not the political side. Clinton’s opponents in the 2016 election and their followers have been hoping the issue would force her out of the election, but now they’ll be reduced to simply trying to create a scandal where none exists, after the department’s official words today.


The FBI and DOJ determine whether a law was violtated, not the State Department. She's still in hot water regarding the handling of classified material, which applies to her as well as others serving in government.

Furthermore, if she did nothing wrong, she wouldn't have had to lie to the American people.

Sorry Coasters- I'm with FD on this one.

Whether or not it was legal is still up for discussion, and to make the argument clear consider that one of the prime reasons it may have been illegal would be if classified information had been housed on that server. But we cannot know that at the moment because her staff made a deliberate attempt to deny the public the right (which we all have) to review her emails while in office, and further: Her staff made it nearly impossible to definitively determine WHAT was on that server, in what form, and in what state.

Additionally: There had to be backups made- to do otherwise would have been scandalously stupid, so the question is this: Where are the backup media and why haven't they been provided to investigators. (Or did staff destroy the backup media as well??)

This stinks to high heaven. It shows an incredible lack of judgment in the first iteration, and in the subsequent evolution it shows a deliberate attempt to cherry pick and deny access to that which is owned by you and me.

Coasters- I get that you are a partisan Democrat who is going to support Hillary to the death, but that support should not ignore basic factual decency and observation- which argue very forcefully in this case that Ms. Clinton worked aggressively to cloak her work in a deliberate veil of secrecy- the antithesis as it were of an open and transparent government.

As a result she deserves every bit of angst that will come from this disaster- and supporters like you would do well to let it run before making declarative statements like you did in the OP.



From the article coasters cited;

"Hillary Clinton opted to bypass the wonky email servers provided by the department due to the fact that they couldn’t, for instance, properly work with mobile email apps on smartphones. Previous Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have acknowledged having done the same. "

I wonder if Congress is investigating Powell and Rice?

First of all I personally take issue with the idea that something which is "wonky" is not a sublimely effective and well-designed system. The nerve of some people!!

Second: They should absolutely have been investigated if they did this. (Although the statute of limitations would likely have expired long ago, so doing anything now is a complete waste of time...)

Third: I don't get to drive 100 on Highway 101 because I think the speed limit of 65 is too wonky for a sophisticated individual like me- the law is the law, and circumventing the law because you would be inconvenienced is the worst of possible excuses one could offer.



^^^ Sorry Coasters- I'm with FD on this one. ^^^

That's going to leave a mark ...

^^^ I wonder if Congress is investigating Powell and Rice? ^^^

Did they have classified data on an unsecure server used to avoid transparency?

Did either of them violate 18 US Code 793?: Web Link

And does it matter? Does it really matter to you if she broke the law, and that law in particular?

>>>That's going to leave a mark ...<<<

Don't know why it would- in my experience Coasters is at least minimally accepting of opposition viewpoints if they are clearly articulated and described. And in this case we simply disagree.

If everyone agreed about everything there wouldn't really be any need for TA would there??!!

>>>Does it really matter to you if she broke the law, and that law in particular?<<<

Yes it does. And so far I haven't seen any explanation which can withstand any scrutiny. Essentially I keep seeing supporters saying "nothing to see here, move along" without providing any coherent narrative as to why what she did isn't wrong.

Benghazi- a non-issue as far as I am concerned. Emailgate- should be the end of her presidential aspirations.

Just my .02 as always...


providing any coherent narrative as to why what she did isn't wrong.


At the risk of incoherence, Clinton continues to state - and the State Dept supports her - that she handled no state secrets through that account. She's also handed over here emails. So where's the harm?

As governor, Jeb Bush had a private server and selected which emails were turned over as work-related from his private account. No legal issues.

Dubya Bush ran a private RNC server in the White House that he and Rove used for private comms and from which millions of emails were deleted. No legal issues.

Colin Powell used a private email for state business. No legal issues.

Condi Rice did the same. No legal issues.

So did Rick Perry as Gov of Texas. Bobby Jindal used one to communicate with his direct staff and has refused to release those emails. No legal issues.

Scott Walker used the exact same set-up as Clinton as Milwaukee County Executive. No legal issues.

The precedent, while slightly problematic, is common. I have to give huge props to the political henchmen who have amplified this failrly common practice into something seen as a crime and make it an Achilles Heel for Hillary. I think it's more a testament to Hillary's perception problem. I've often stated I'm not a fan of the Clintons and their lack of trustworthiness is at the heart of that.

I do not think this is a real, legal problem, however. It's just more politics.


The term "statute of limitations" applies only to crimes. Lots of legal violations are not crimes. This case is about whether she violated a regulation, not a law. And violating a regulation would in no way constitute a criminal act punishable in a court of law: Web Link

Your own Highway 101 speeding example is a good one... speeding is a violation of the law, but it is not a criminal act.

Does that help?

Honeyfudge posted the following statement in a post about "email shenanigans" in the Obama administration:

It's a bit of a disappointment to learn that some find such practices acceptable, even someone like "Coasters." Despite assertions to the contrary, there is no evidence that such practices "cross party lines." But it appears to be standard operating procedure in the Obama Administration, particularly His IRS, EPA and State Department.

As you can see above in my prior post, Honeybunch, it crosses into the GOP a lot.

This is not a partisan issue, but another case of technology racing ahead of regulation. It's a gray area which makes it fair game for debate, but nothing more than a tempest in a teapotty until regulations better define email comportment for State and Federal officials.

>>>At the risk of incoherence, Clinton continues to state - and the State Dept supports her - that she handled no state secrets through that account. <<<

OK- prove it. (Oh- you can't, because she controlled all of it, and tried to destroy any useful evidential trail...)

>>>She's also handed over here emails. So where's the harm?<<<

Except the ones she didn't- and they have already found numerous examples of this happening...

>>>Your own Highway 101 speeding example is a good one... speeding is a violation of the law, but it is not a criminal act.<<<

Technically Mike- if I were doing 100MPH on 101 as posited it would be a crime- anything over 25MPH above the posted speed limit is a misdemeanor.

Additionally: Statutes of limitation can apply to both civilly actionable events and criminally actionable events. When you violate the law you violate the law. Whether the violation is civil or criminal depends solely on what section of Code you fave violated. Violate the criminal or penal code and it is a criminal violation. Violate civil code and it is a civil violation.

Coasters- I cannot validate (nor am I going to try) all of the examples you have given in your previous post, but if accurate I would (and do) feel exactly the same way about each of them. We either stand up to the increasing secrecy and lack of transparency in our government, or we should just give up. The "everyone else is doing it too" excuse holds no water with me.

This isn't about technology outstripping our ability to regulate, it's about technology facilitating an opaque and murky set of backroom deals that the public will never see- because the pols running the asylum don't want us to see them.

It's about a deliberate and highly coordinated set of events- not a single mistake, all intended to hide our government behind the curtains.

It is in a word: Unacceptable.



^^^ And violating a regulation would in no way constitute a criminal act punishable in a court of law: ^^^

Tell that to David Petraeus, who was convicted of violating the same law that Hillary did.

Web Link

The FBI has found hundreds of "classified" emails from her server that indicate she violated 18 US Code Section 793(d) -- the same article that ensnared Gen. Petraeus.

There's no question in my mind that she maintained her own server to avoid FOIA requests. Some think that is good governance. I think it's skirting the letter and the spirit of the law. We need less of that in DC, not more.

The above examples of Jindal, Walker, or even Rice have little to do with the current legality regarding top secret classified data.

If you've been listening to IT people with current, top security clearances you'll understand that there was no way for the kinds of documents that are supposedly on Clinton's computer to have gotten there without someone breaking the law.

The State Dept computers are in no way connected to the outside Internet. These documents could not have been emailed to her.

People would have had to enter a very

high security room requiring two people in attendance and illegally copy files on to another format.

And then she jokes about it.

Same law? Yeah, right. Not even close. Nice try, though.

The law Petraeus pled guilty to, 18 US Code Section 793(d), is about "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information." He illegally kept secret military data and gave it to his mistress:

"Petraeus in 2011 unlawfully gave Broadwell the black books of classified information including identities of covert officers, code word information, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic talks and information from high-level White House National Security Council meetings." Web Link. That's a criminal act punishable by law.

Hillary is accused of violating 36 CFR 1236.22 (CFR stands for Code of Federal Regulations), which is entitled "What are the additional requirements for managing electronic mail records?" Web Link

Failing to adhere to the regulation is not a criminal act and carries no legal punishment. Presumably it can get you fired, but that's about it.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but how can we argue about what Hillary is (or is not) guilty of- since the emails in question were (presumably) deleted by her staff.

Arguing about potential civil or criminal violations is silly at this point a there isn't enough raw data available to us to allow an objective evaluation to occur.

Just my .02 as always...


"There's no question in my mind that she maintained her own server to avoid FOIA requests."

And therein lies the problem.

Some might counter with - what mind? Others may counter with so what?

The best counter, however, is what we have seen to date; the available data. And that available data supports what Coasters and others have been saying all along. The basis for those opinions comes to roost at the feet of wonk's latest contribution just above: there isn't enough raw data available to us to allow an objective evaluation to occur.

Funny how that works, huh? But that's what happens when some let emotion rule the day over facts. Those pesky facts, ...

All of this only benefits my candidate Bernie Sanders. Keep piling on Hillary!!!!

We are now leading in New Hampshire and Iowa is a horse race.

>>>All of this only benefits my candidate Bernie Sanders.<<<

Eff you Mr. Bills. He's MY Candidate- not yours!! (And I ain't sharing!!)

Sheesh, some people think they own everything...

Wonk, legally speaking, 100MPH wouldn't be speeding... it would be reckless driving, which IS a misdemeanor.

But we're getting bogged down in terminology. My primary point stands... mishandling her email account doesn't remotely make Hillary a criminal, no matter how desperately the Republicans try to paint her as such.

If you think this issue is a determining factor, you're welcome to vote for somebody else, but in my opinion the idea that it "should be the end of her presidential aspirations" is a vast overstatement and will prove to be a nonstarter for the electorate in general.

There are lots of reasons why Hillary might not become president. This isn't one of them.

>>>Wonk, legally speaking, 100MPH wouldn't be speeding... it would be reckless driving, which IS a misdemeanor.<<<

Well technically it would be both speeding and reckless driving!! :)

But I think you got my point...

As to your proclamation about this not affecting Hillary's chances- you might be completely right, but you could be completely wrong. Until we know what was on that server, and what exposure there was, then all bets are off. (And yes, I realize we may never know what was there...) Imagine for a moment if there were not only classified information on the server, but the Feebs found a log that showed access by unauthorized entities. Think she'd survive that with no issues? I don't.

In any case to reiterate what I said above: Anyone suggesting that this is all a smokescreen is prematurely stating something that is not known, ditto those who say she should be carted off to jail. In my case the actions she took have eliminated her from consideration. (Well realistically I wasn't thrilled with the idea of voting for her in the first place, but that's another set of issues completely...)

Go Bernie!! (MY candidate- not yours!!)


OK- prove it. (Oh- you can't, because she controlled all of it, and tried to destroy any useful evidential trail...)

The burden of proof is on you and the rest since she's broken no regulation or policy, according to the State Dept. You're assuming guilt, no more no less.

"You're assuming guilt, no more no less." - which is typical of those that are emotionally rather than factually inclined.

On the one hand, we have rational, reasonable people that approach issues intellectually, collecting all the facts, sorting through them, weighing and measuring them and forming opinions and conclusions based on those facts. It's called due diligence.

On the other hand, we have emotional ignorance such as that that is displayed by some unfortunate souls like the troll from Gualala.

I know which side of the scale I like.

"There's no question in my mind that she maintained her own server to avoid FOIA requests."

Again, you're assuming guilt without proof. She could have just as easily maintained a private service because she has higher security standards. There are a lot of people on the outside and inside who would like to hack Hillary.

>>>You're assuming guilt, no more no less.<<<

I'm not assuming anything. It is a known fact that she had an email server which was hosted in her home. For at least the first three months of it's existence it used neither secure nor encrypted channels for communication, and it did not have an operable or valid security certificate. Ten years ago a Windows box that appeared on the internets would be attacked within roughly 30 seconds of appearance. Thus it is a certainty that her machine was probed and attacked, and since the security was so poorly set up I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that it was compromised. (Yes- that was one assumption...)

In any case I have only stated- and I only believe, that she is guilty of creating a reality wherein I cannot prove it- because she deliberately chose to deny me the rights of access that I, as a US Citizen, am entitled to exercise if I choose to do so. So telling me that the burden of proof is on me is disingenuous at best, and downright dumb at worst. She's running to be my president- I don't have to prove a damn thing to her- she has to convince me (and the rest of the country) that she is worthy...

In any case she is guilty of creating and maintaining an unsecure server to conduct the people's business. That is a statement of fact, and it is why this issue is not going to go away anytime soon. (In my opinion...) The rest- whether classified stuff was transmitted or stored, and everything else- we simply do not have enough data to come to any conclusions. (Which was sort of the idea when they created the server in the first place wasn't it?)

>She could have just as easily maintained a private service because she has higher security standards.<<<

That was possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen you say. (And you don't say dumb things very often...) See above for why that is as foolish an assertion as it is simply inaccurate- and frankly Coasters- you are starting to look like a shill for Hillary- and you aren't engaging on the issues like you usually do. You're making bold (and unsupported) statements without the benefit of factual knowledge or understanding.

Just my .02 as always- never thought I'd be arguing on the same side as Frank!!


>> She could have just as easily maintained a private service because she has higher security standards. <<

The book "Unlimited Access" was on just that topic. If you ever read it you'll know why the statement above is SO very wrong. Comically wrong.

she has to convince me (and the rest of the country) that she is worthy...

Absolutely no argument about that at all, but guilt is different than worth and you're presuming guilt in this case.

Web Link a review of the book similar to what I recall reading it years ago:

"This book by Democrat FBI agent [Gary Aldrich] is interesting whatever your politics, because of the insight into the inner-workings of security operations at the White House. 

"The FBI agent describes the struggles he faced completing required background checks on most members of the Clinton staff. Such checks are required before anyone can be granted access to varying levels of secured documents. Unfortunately, with the majority of the staff unwilling to cooperate, the entire White House ended up operating with the same de-facto security clearance---Unlimited Access. That is, because most had no security clearance at all, all members of the White House staff could arguably gain access to all documents. Thus, there was no security and no clearance.

"Chelsea Clinton once told Aldrich, "My mom calls you guys pigs," and that seemed to set the tone for the rest of the staff. Aldrich faced a host of other security problems, along with a culture that had no respect for him and no appreciation for the work his agency did. 

"Based on the few criminal records he does secure, Aldrich surmises that the White House he worked in was staffed largely by one-time criminals. ...

"Many of the most revealing stories in the book involve Hillary Clinton and her staff. The most news-worthy of these is the mystery surrounding a computer the FBI tried to obtain after the death of Vincent Foster. The FBI--while conducting a possible homicide investigation--was denied access to Foster's office for nearly 24 hours. When they finally obtained his computer, the hard drive had been erased in a manner computer experts said could only have been done deliberately. Of course, nothing ever came of that..."


Why Democrats have allowed themselves to get painted into a corner with that wretch is beyond me. They used to be able to come up with new and exciting candidates, but all they have now is a bunch of angry white folk maneuvering for the minority and youth vote.

"They used to be able to come up with new and exciting candidates..." Yeah, like Clinton (Bill) & Obama - both of which cleaned up (most) of their republican predecessors' messes and brought us prosperity.

Interestingly, it seems the democrats can multitask. For an example, we need look no further than Obama. Obama's predecessor screwed this country (while fattening his own wallet) worse than any other President in our history, yet Obama has been able to get elected twice and turn out economy around while at the same time get us out of all his predecessor's wars that cost us trillions in dollars and thousands of lives.

Further, he has been able to do that despite republicans kicking and screaming at every turn.

Remarkable when you think about it. That takes real leadership.

The GOP is a dinosaur, extinct as they currently are with no imagination to escape and actually lead in today's world.

Bless their little hearts though; they just keep on trying and keep on making the same mistakes. Watching the GOP and what they promote as leaders reminds me of Groundhog Day - just another rerun day as if life were a loop.

"Of course, nothing ever came of that..."


It certainly does, as Nothing but soundbites from angry republicans have come from this alleged issue as well - but that hasn't and won't stop the republicans from continuing.

The sad part is the reality that with no brains, leadership skills, imagination and plain understanding of our system of government (let alone the lives of most) that is the best the republican 'leadership' can do - continue to search for something that doesn't exist.

What a few don't seem to get is that attempting to slander others isn't a leadership skill.

"Unlimited Access : An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House" was written by a Democrat FBI man in 1998.

The observant citizen will see that Hillary Clinton has continued the same dodgy behaviors over her several decades in the public sector- her sloppy handling of sensitive data. Her auto-response of lying when exposed. Coverups. Punishing those who question or expose the Clintons' actions. Surrounding herself with people of dubious character. The fact that she's always involved in scandalous turmoil.

If you expect anything to change if she's elected.... WHY? It can only get worse. Why would you want proven bad characters back in the White House?

Prove she did wrong. It's that simple. The rest is noise.

>>"Proven bad characters".. "Lying"... Coverups"<<... really? Like what, for instance?

You mean like Whitewater? Oh, yeah, turned out to be baloney.

You mean like the Rose Law Firm stuff? Uh, no, turned out to be GOP-invented garbage.

You mean like Vince Foster's alleged murder dressed up as a suicide because he was having an affair with Hillary? Once of the more contemptible of the many Republican wingnut smears against her.

You mean like Filegate? Ah, nope, the investigation cleared her.

You mean like Travelgate? Heavy duty. She fired some people. Whoop de do. Again, the investigation cleared her.

Maybe her futures trading? Nah, that didn't even rate an investigation.

You mean like standing by Bill after his bad behavior? Some people consider loyalty to be a GOOD character trait.

So after all these years of being the most investigated woman in American, what has Hillary been "proven" to have done wrong, as uffish claims?

NOTHING. Zero. Zilch. This tough, fearless old broad has walked away absolutely unscathed from a concentrated 20-year Republican smear campaign. And the email crapola, like the Whitewater and Foster and Rose and Filegate and Lewinsky crapola, will eventually dissipate into nothingness.

And unless she blunders and ticks off too many Democrats, the fact is that when the smoke clears, she'll be nominated, she'll destroy whatever poor sap the Republicans put up against her, and she'll be a tough, fearless old First Woman President and drive the conservatives nuts. This country has needed a dose of Maggie Thatcher (with a little Golda Meir mixed in) for a long time. It'll be great to see.

^^^ Prove she did wrong. ^^^

That will become much easier once they find those missing emails about Benghazi. Or the backup server. In due time.

Web Link ..... Name-word associations.

I love the long albeit partial list of Clinton scandals provided by Mike. And Coasters says -prove- she did something wrong.

Happily no proof is required to keep her out of office. She's been involved in enough shenanigans that the public thinks 'where there's smoke there's fire.'

That will become much easier once they find those missing emails about Benghazi. Or the backup server. In due time.

Well, of course absent any proof, the stompy-footed must predict evidence of guilt appeariung at some time in the future. It's CERTAIN!.

"The absence of proof is not the proof of absence" my pappy always said, when in fact absence is the greatest proof of absence. But most folks are irrational by nature and empiricism flies out the window with the emotional responses.

Perhaps we can dip Hillary in water? If she floats she's guilty, if she drowns Trig Palin is the 2nd coming of the Messiah!

^^^ Perhaps we can dip Hillary in water? If she floats she's guilty, if she drowns Trig Palin is the 2nd coming of the Messiah! ^^^

"Coasters" is really a sick individual that is obsessed with Madam Hillary. It's as though it believes there aren't any better candidates in all of the Democratic Party.

That is an illogical conclusion, Honeyblather. My point is about fact versus opinion, proof versus rhetoric. I know that confuses you.

I suppose if Coasters caught his SO under the sheets with someone else he wouldn't be concerned because after all, he didn't actually SEE them doing anything. "Where's the proof?"

It's OK, if he wants to play the cuckold he's welcome to. Most people don't go for that though.

PS - in fun.

Thank you for making my point, Uff. The thread started as an exoneration of the former Secty of State by the organization that sets the standards for communications.

Within 24 hours, it's about Bill's infidelity.

I've sent money to one candidate: Bernie Sanders. I have repeatedly stated that I'm not a Clinton fan. However, I am a fan of clear reason and what I see from several of you, including Wonkazoo, is a bunch of emotional responses with only a slight foothold in reality. It's the public opinion circus.

It's conformation bias on parade, actually.

Look at a statement like, ""Coasters" is really a sick individual ...".

Who says crap like? Certainly not normal, rational people.


It's just common sense that so very many scandals of do many different kinds say something about the person involved in them. It also says something about her willingness to smack down the opposition with whatever tools are available to someone in her position in order to save herself at the expense of innocents.

How could the country look up to someone like that?

^^^ that sets the standards for communications. ^^^

Despite what it claims, and as previously noted, they don't have any say whether The Inevitable Madam Hillary will be charged with violating the law and making the US less secure in so doing.

It says a lot about someone that pushes so hard for such a sleazebag.

>>>I am a fan of clear reason and what I see from several of you, including Wonkazoo, is a bunch of emotional responses with only a slight foothold in reality.<<<

I disagree with you and now I'm "emotional??!!"

Coasters- I started and ran a million dollar IT company that specialized in setting up and running email servers and local domains for small to medium companies- essentially exactly what Clinton used for her mail server. When I say that the server was likely compromised during its early life I am speaking from a position of knowledge.

When you state repeatedly that I am assuming things you are flat out wrong. I haven't said she's "guilty" of anything other than being unworthy of becoming president- because of her management of what should have been a highly compartmentalized and protected infrastructure for handling confidential communications.

I'm surprised that you would so mischaracterize my comments and inputs to this thread. You will also note that I haven't engaged in the conspiracy theory nonsense, the tired Vince Foster crap, or anything else other than: She had an insecure/barely secure server on which government business was transacted, and as a result not only were confidential documents likely obtained by the "enemy" I will never have a chance to review them- because she hid their presence and then deleted any possible trail to them.

Regards, Sniff Sniff


I started and ran a million dollar IT company

Past tense. Million. Big deal.

I have run cost centers that spent and managed $250M+ portfolios of assets and hundreds of staff. All supporting mission critical technical systems. That included email farms for some of the Fortune 500. Does that make me any more right or wrong? No.

I'll wait to see what happens with this issue with Clinton, so count me out of the panties-in-a-wad dogpile.

Speaking of reason, I thought this was very poignant:

Nation with Crumbling Bridges and Roads Excited to Build Giant Wall

Web Link

>>>Past tense. Million. Big deal.<<<

Now that's definitely not an emotional response...

What I find most interesting is that instead of focusing on the fact that I do have knowledge and experience you take a personal shot- which is more typical of one who has lost the reasoned argument and is simply reaching for emotional straws to support their position.

There is obviously no more reason to continue with you on this topic as there is clearly no new information to digest, and you appear to be uninterested in anything resembling a contradictory viewpoint.

Warmest Regards,


That wasn't a personal shot, it was a "so what?" shot. You can't throw a rock in the valley without hitting a guy like me or you. Neither of us is a big deal.

You don't like Hillary because you think she's a management liability. I get it. I think that's an odd reason to pillory Hillary when she has a fairly good management track record otherwise, though her detractors can produce anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Again, big deal.

Agree to disagree.


I'm surprised at you. There is absolutely NO evidence of "confidential documents likely obtained by the "enemy""... I would say that allegation puts you squarely into the territory of what you call "conspiracy theory nonsense" at a level that not even Donald Trump has achieved.

Furthermore, the government server on which Clinton was "supposed" to transact business was itself unsecured, according to an AP story just out: Web Link

The story, entitled "Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton thus far", says "there is no evidence of emails stored in Hillary Clinton's private server bearing classified markings."

If new evidence surfaces that the wiped server contained deleted emails where government business was conducted, that would certainly change the situation. But no such evidence has emerged thus far.

And again there is ZERO evidence, or even a credible allegation as far as I know, that confidential/classified information has fallen into the hands of America's enemies as a result of Hillary's mishandling her email accounts.

Heck, there's no need for anything other than the court of public opinion.

Laissez les bon temps roulez!

I think we've gotten off the beaten path a bit.

Mike- see above for the details of how the server was left exposed for at least three months- when a couple of days probably would have been enough.

In any case my point has been completely, utterly lost here.

I belong to an organization which is dedicated to open and transparent government. And whether you think it was legal, illegal, or something in between it remains the case that the course that Clinton knowingly chose was to deny the general public access to documents and records which belong to each one of us.

That concerted, deliberate, and enduring effort is why I cannot support her, and that alone shows that her presidency would be a continuation of one of the most unfortunate parts of Obama's legacy- his war on open and transparent government. (Which was why I did not vote for him the last time around...)

Whether her actions were legal or illegal simply doesn't matter to me.



Well, wonk, if open and transparent government is your most important issue, I wish you luck in finding someone to support who measures up to your standards. Not in the campaign, but once elected.

Many run for high office on a platform of open government. Perhaps you can think of one who has kept that promise. I cannot. Call me cynical, but I see no chance in the world that Bernie Sanders or anyone else will throw the doors wide in DC and allow the sunshine to stream in on our government. I dismiss all promises to do so as empty rhetoric and choose to focus on objectives I consider both more important and more achievable.

I will be sincerely delighted if you and your organization are proven correct in your idealism, and I'll be happy to renounce my skepticism when it happens. Again, best of luck.

>>>I wish you luck in finding someone to support who measures up to your standards. Not in the campaign, but once elected.<<<

That one's easy Mike:

Deborah Penrose

Deborah Ruddock

Sabrina Brennan

There's three who stand regularly and repeatedly (if not always in public view) for open and transparent government- even when it makes their lives more difficult as a result.

Wonk, there could not be 3 better examples.

Unfortunately, Nicole David has decided open is not better. Check the agenda for Wednesday's meeting. Nicole is very anxious to minimize citizen participation.

It looks like we made a mistake supporting her and it will be nearly 15 months before we can take corrective action.

Boney, Nicole has the 4 year term which ends in 2018.

Wonk, we were discussing the presidential campaign... note I said "high office" and referred to DC.

However, you're right, it's very possible to make that happen in local politics, and to your three examples I would add Gary Burke, Bruce MacKimmie and JB Cockrell, along with our friend Seal. The Fire Board campaigns were a shining example of openness winning out. (I didn't follow the bridge controversy, but I understand your own work on that issue fit the description as well.)

That phenomenon is not, however, translatable to national politics.

Seal, damit, you are right and I was wrong, again

As my German Grandfather would say "die kacke "

Well, at least we know from the latest email dump how detail-oriented Hillary is... and that she is paying attention to the right issues.

If you love gefilte fish as I do...

Web Link

^^^ I'm surprised at you. There is absolutely NO evidence of "confidential documents likely obtained by the "enemy" ^^^

Okay, that's one security expert that has no way of knowing secrets weren't stolen.

Other security experts think otherwise: Web Link

Maybe it only resulted in "conservatives" within US spy rings becoming compromised or killed, which would make Hillary's security faux pas acceptable to the zealots that continue to support her.

More of Franny's Fairy Tales. As if the Secretary of State runs US spy rings.

It's not about whether Hillary's account was hackable. Every account is hackable. The government server Clinton was supposed to use was ALSO unsecured and easily hacked: Web Link. It's about there being nothing Top Secret to hack.

But hey, keep making stuff up about dead conservative spies if it keeps you inside. At least the wind won't blow your foil hat off.

"More of Franny's Fairy Tales. As if the Secretary of State runs US spy rings."

Aw, c'mon Mike; don't you watch the movies? Like the Mission Impossible series or the Bourne series?

It is indeed getting more serious for The Inevitable Madam Hillary. As such, it will become increasingly difficult for washed up sportscasters to spin her nefarious deeds into acts

of no consequence.

From the guys that broke the phone "Rathergate" story: Web Link

The State Department has just released a batch of about 7,000 emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server. Approximately 150 of them are redacted because they contain classified information.

It's against the law to handle such documents so carelessly as Hillary has done.

As to the assertion that the State Department isn't involved in spying is downright laughable.

Hillary's email scandal for dummies explained:

Web Link

From the above-linked piece:

It's no wonder U.S. spy agencies are angry about this security breach, because it's their data Clinton staffers mishandled.

But it gets worse. Because top-secret information travels on entirely separate systems throughout the federal government, it is virtually impossible that a Clinton staffer blithely or unknowingly pasted a top-secret paragraph into an unclassified email.

On the contrary, it seems increasingly likely that Clinton's staff was engaged in a systematic effort to take details off classified IT systems and strip them of proper classification markings (every paragraph in an intelligence report is classified separately) before sending them out electronically. This was not only a violation of numerous federal regulations, but also a crime — a felony when it involves top-secret information.

Many difficult questions now present themselves, and presumably the FBI is asking them. Did Clinton staffers in the State Department violate federal laws systematically and independently? If not, who told them to do this?

Problems, problems, problems, and all them brought upon herself in an attempt to avoid accountability.

The article above is what the

This woman is so far removed from reality. Web Link ..... Bloomberg

"Clinton herself has dismissed the prospect that her e-mails were hacked... [So laughable. How would SHE know?]

Speaking in March, she said the system used for the private e-mail "was set up for President Clinton's office..." [A 1990's system? Twenty years old? WHY? How are security programs supposed to run on that old setup. Something is wrong there.]

"And it had numerous safeguards... [As brilliant as her 'secret' email account name "clintonemail.gov"? ]

"It was on property guarded by the Secret Service... [They were guarding her bathroom? No wonder a SS assignment to Hillary Clinton is literally considered a punishment]

"And there were no security breaches" U.S. officials familiar with the probe tell us the FBI is not so sure. "

As Hillary insists "there were no security breaches" someone is selling her hacked, top security emails for $500,000. ..... Web Link

HDR22@ClintonEmail.com Nice Job, Obama and Clinton.

We'll see whether Democrats care about national security soon enough, bon't get your hopes up.

Well, this could explain it:

Web Link  ..... "How can a candidate who began with such an enormous edge that twelve months ago she was deemed "inevitable" have fallen so far?  The usual explanation is that the Clintons are too secretive, too paranoid, and too much like lawyers.

"Consider another possibility: Hillary may be dumb."

Nah, we Democrats don't give a tinker's damn about national security. Dump Hillary!'

Even though John Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star with V, three awards of the Purple Heart, Combat Action Ribbon, Navy Presidential Unit Citation, Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal he and other Democrats still donot love our country like Uffish or Francis do. Dump Hillary

Your top Dems left the door wide open for the world to come steal our secrets. Hillary Clinton is treating this like a joke while Obama likely knew about it all along and did nothing. So go ahead and follow your idols' lead in dismissing this but it is an absolute catastrophe to the country.

I'll never vote for Obama again and Hillary is as dumb as a rock!

Keep bashing Hillary - what about the Arkansas land scandal and the cattle deal? You guys can really help.

Feel the Bern. Bernie Sanders for President

>>I'll never vote for Obama again<<

And BB doubles down on the humor of this...

Uffish, you and your compatriots are doing the job for Bernie. Without the big corporate bucks Bernie relies on you guys to get the word out--and you are getting the job done.

"Polling Trajectory Shows Bernie Sanders Winning the Democratic Nomination. It's Time for America to Notice". Web Link

^^^ Uffish, you and your compatriots are doing the job for Bernie. ^^^

Actually, Hillary is doing it to herself. All we have to do is watch the downward spiral.

And the hysterical antic of her supporters.

Don't you go and start being modest Francis. Bernie couldn't do it without your help. Keep digging buddy.n

They must be getting closer to a "smoking gun" that the press can no longer ignore or play down. Now a CA Democrat is grovels in the NYT for shutting down the Benghazi Committee:

Web Link

Apparently, Rep. Adam Schiff believes that stonewalling or running for president exempts one from the law or any accountability. That's good to know!

Thank God the Democrats have such a strong group of candidates ready to take the place of The Inevitable Madam Hillary.

My question is: Does Hillary still hold top security clearance? She isn't Secretary of State anymore.

Seal, the answer to your question is "nobody is saying "

Web Link

As if the GOP doesn't have enough to worry about this week, this is the week that Clinton testifies before the Select Committee on Benghazi and with all that has happened in the last two weeks, it is expected that another GOP induced crisis and accusation will wither away on the vine - much like the GOP itself.

"This week marks the end of the Benghazi ‘scandal’", Web Link

"Hillary Clinton will be testifying before the Select Committee on Benghazi on Thursday, and by the time she walks out of that hearing room, chances are that all the Republicans’ hopes of using this issue to bring Clinton down will be officially gone."

We should probably be very patient and forgiving here. The GOP is bound to get something right sooner or later. I mean, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

They just need a little more time to sort things out, I suppose.

"Saturday Night Live" had a hilarious skit (10/17) about the Democratic debate and Larry David played the part of Bernie Sanders. It was one of the best skits I've seen in a long time. I think it is still on the SNL website.

"GOP Congressman Already Floating Impeachment For Hillary Clinton" / "She hasn't even secured the Democratic nomination.", Web Link

"WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton isn't president yet. She hasn't even won the Democratic nomination. But a Republican congressman is already getting ready for the opportunity to impeach her -- on the first day of her hypothetical presidency."

"Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) recently spoke with talk radio host Matt Murphy and said the real issue with Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state is "how many lives she put at risk by violating all rules of law that are designed to protect America's top-secret and classified information from falling into the hands of our geopolitical foes who then might use that information to result in the deaths of Americans."

"Brooks added Republicans are going to make sure this issue follows Clinton into office, should she be elected president in 2016."

"And in my judgement, with respect to Hillary Clinton, she will be a unique president if she is elected by the public next November, because the day she's sworn in is the day that she's subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors," he said.

Where does one go from that? Just amazing ... and another pitiful example of what the republican party has become. Really nothing to add; this piece says it all.

It makes a difference to thinking adults whether she broke the law 9email servers) or acted incompetently in the lead-up to the tragedy in Benghazi.

To childlike and shallow partisan thinkers, it doesn't matter whether she broke the law or was incompetent. It doesn't matter to them whether or not she lied to the American people.

At least that's what one can easily gather from their foolish comments on the subject.


Come on you guys. Enjoy the skit, referred to above.

Biden is jumping into the race.

"Benghazi panel outs CIA source, then tries to cover its tracks", Web Link

"The Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi hastily deleted the name of a high-level Libyan defector from one of its public releases on Monday, shortly after Yahoo News reported the panel had inadvertently revealed the defector’s name in an effort to embarrass Hillary Clinton."

"The disclosure, followed by the quick wiping out of the name of ex-Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa (who had defected and become a source for the CIA on Libya), once again put the panel on the defensive on the eve of Thursday’s slated testimony from Clinton."

"The incident was especially awkward for GOP chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy because just two weeks ago he had sought to make an issue over Clinton’s handling of an email that contained Koussa’s name."

"At the time, Gowdy said, an email sent to Clinton on March 18, 2011, by her longtime friend and adviser Sidney Blumenthal contained the “name of a human source” for the CIA and was therefore “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community.”

And the hits just keep on coming.

Isn't it funny how the old saying that lies beget lies is so true? What a tangled web this group leads, huh?

This one's for you, Seal: Web Link

Yes, it was good and it is always good when the one being poked joins in the fun. Bernie says he went out and bought a second pair of underwear.

I also heard Biden is going to run. Saw a piece on it this AM. Unfortunately, I'm still hoping he doesn't, but I suspect he figures why not - damn near everyone else is and he's got as good a shot as any of them.

Thanks George, Also, I sure got a kick out of Larry David's skit.

Instead of making the case that Hillary Clinton broke no laws -- which is becoming increasingly more difficult to do -- George scrapes the barrel to try to make the pathetic case that the Committee itself broke laws.

Not only is it not true, but it's the childish "but they did it too!" argument. The perfect level for myopic hyperpartisans like George Muteff.

Any observer can see that the Democrats are desperately trying to besmirch and marginalize the committee they fear will find the truth about what happened before, during and after Benghazi. Folks like George are too stupid to realize that the truth may make a few Republicans look bad on Benghazi as well. But that's how shallow hyperpartisans roll ....

"Bill Press: Benghazi hearing is a sham", Web Link

"It’s not rocket science that’s missing in Washington today — it’s just plain common sense. And common sense would tell House Republicans to pull the plug on Thursday’s hearing of the House Select Committee on Benghazi."

"According to Politico, even before Boehner created the Select Committee, Benghazi had already been the subject of 13 congressional hearings, 25,000 pages of documents and 50 briefings — none of which uncovered any wrongdoing on Clinton’s part. In fact, a bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded, “There were no efforts by the White House or any other executive branch entities to ‘cover-up’ facts or make alterations for political purposes.”

"So why convene a Select Committee? Because the committee’s primary purpose was to discredit and derail Clinton’s candidacy for president in 2016."

"That’s why, when Issa failed to destroy Clinton, largely because he was preoccupied with his own self-promotion, Boehner took the job away from him and handed it to Gowdy. And that’s why, when Gowdy’s Benghazi digging also came up empty-handed, the Speaker suddenly ordered the committee to focus on the former secretary’s emails — even though that issue had also already been the subject of countless congressional hearings, with zero results."

"The Select Committee on Benghazi has been part of a partisan political witch-hunt from Day 1. And, unfortunately for House Republicans, that was confirmed by none other than Mr. Malaprop himself, GOP Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), when he famously told Fox News: “Everybody thought that Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.” His candid take on the committee’s real purpose was later echoed by Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.), who told WIBX in Utica: “This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual: Hillary Clinton.”

"So, the cat’s out of the bag. Republicans are using a House committee and taxpayer dollars — $4.5 million so far — to play politics against Hillary Clinton."

"If Trey Gowdy had any self-respect, he’d resign as chairman, rather than continue to lead such a travesty of governance."

At what point do Americans say enough is enough?

Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium