- Sep 16, 2012
- 57,856
- 51,420
- 3,605
Why private server? Hiding something?What about her private server? She should have the copies of all email correspondences, no?Everything you said is absolutely correct.
However, here is the rub. She conducted much of US government business through her private email server. None of these correspondences have been made immediately available to the public. She combed through them and censored what she wanted to make available. She did this to create her own paradigm of truth about what she was doing in the Obama administration. The reason she did this, is because most Americans are distracted by their own lives, entertainment, the NFL, shopping, what have you, to pay attention to what she was actually doing or HAS DONE. What she was doing was screwing America over.
Did she do anything illegal? NO. Did she do something nefarious to cover up who she actually is? You bet.
Stephen Mihm: Clinton isn't only one who didn't like to share records
Hillary Clinton kept emails on a private server - The Morning Call
In Clinton's case, the State Department has been provided with 55,000 pages of correspondence that she turned over to fulfill her obligations under the Federal Records Act. And when it comes to the emails on her private server, she said she had "broken no rules or laws." When Clinton was in the office, no rule explicitly prohibited federal employees from using private accounts. In October 2009, 10 months into her tenure at state, new regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration required federal agencies to ensure that records sent or received on private email systems "are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system."
These rules were tightened after she left office, in 2013, to require federal officials to use government email addresses to conduct official business. And that's the crux of Clinton's email problem. The trouble isn't that she had a private account; it's that she has behaved as though her public correspondence belonged in her personal archives.
See, she is the one that has gotten to decide which emails, "are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system." And there is no rule or regulation that says she can't. But this just speaks to her honesty and character. Does anyone think she even has the integrity of Nixon? Fat Chance. What IS she hiding?
Well, clearly she is hiding discussions with huge corporations that have stakes in the negotiations of the TPP. She was the MAIN government point man on getting that trade pact completed. The funny thing is, once it was done, and now that she has to run for president, she wants to somehow distance herself from all her work.
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine who actually thought Bernie Sanders had integrity. Well, I ended that thought real quick. See, the thing is, Sanders is a creature of Washington. So he knew, all along that Hillary was negotiating this trade deal.
In this article for Foreign Policy, she boasts about her accomplishment. SHE IS PROUD OF IT. But the reasons she doesn't want those emails to come to light is because she doesn't want her role in the construction of this trade deal to come to the fore.
America’s Pacific Century
The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.
By Hillary Clinton
America s Pacific Century Foreign Policy
Now, if you read that article, it's pretty damn clear who is behind the US efforts on the TPP, is it not? Likewise, it's pretty clear where she stands on this issue.
Now comes campaign season.
Bernie Sanders Goes After Hillary on TPP: ‘You Can’t Not Have a Position’
Sanders Hits Hillary on TPP You Can t Not Have a Position Mediaite
Seriously? If this isn't a Frank Underwood move, I don't know what is. Watching Bernie, it's clear he isn't really serious about a run at the oval office. HE KNOWS what her position is. Only idiots and dupes don't what it is. The whole CFR media knows. They also know that the American voter has the attention span of a Tasmanian gnat. That is why it is SO IMPORTANT that Hillary decides which emails go public, and which remain private. Bright sunshine can't be shown onto the public business that she was conducting. No evidence can be given by the independent media, or anyone else about what she was up to.
This was not a Democrat policy, it was GLOBALIST policy. It is why the Republicans were allowed to re-take the Senate. Because the Democrats couldn't be counted on to vote for the TPP. Republicans can always be counted on to destroy small businesses and American industry in favor of the globalist trade deals.
Hillary has no control over the copies of the emails on the government servers that she sent and received.
FOIA does not cover private servers.
Why private server? Everyone does, but the email also gets stored on public & government servers & databases. There is no way to hide an email. Deleting an email only means you can no longer see it, but it still exist in many other locations for others to see.
In theory. I think liberals partisans are making the assumptions that the person that is at the other end of the email is in the government. I don't understand why. I think anyone that she was doing business with has interest in keeping their correspondence a secret, so what does it matter if there is another record?
Wow. Not to tech savvy huh? No, Hillary is tech savvy, AND she knew exactly what she was doing. Those emails DON'T also get stored on public and government servers.
Why Hillary Clinton’s E-Mail Server Is Less Odd Than You Think
There are more pragmatic than pernicious reasons why a government official would want to use personal e-mail and their own server
Why Hillary Clinton s E-Mail Server Is Less Odd Than You Think - Scientific American
The two main reasons for the public to be concerned about her decision to use a home-based e-mail server rather than the one officially maintained by the Department of State are transparency and security.
As a public official, Clinton is required to ensure that copies of her correspondence enter the historical record. At least in theory, running a private mail server gives Clinton the power to cherry-pick e-mails she chooses for the record, permanently withholding or deleting the rest. As millions can attest, however, you can never be sure there are no copies that will surface later. A smart government official wishing to keep communications secret would do best to avoid anything electronic. In this case, Clinton's situation mirrors our own: How far should employers—in this case, us—have the right to monitor their employees?
Security is more complex. E-mail is an inherently insecure medium with many moving parts, each of which may be compromised, attacked or misconfigured. Encryption is critical to protect messages from interception or alteration, both in transit and at rest. It's increasingly standard practice to configure mail servers to use the TLS (transport layer security) protocol to encrypt all incoming and outgoing channels. Although the National Security Agency as well as the U.K.’s Government Communications Headquarters have reportedly compromised TLS, it will still defeat most would-be snoops. A mail server using TLS has a bit of cryptographic code known as a certificate, which both e-mail software and other servers check at each connection to verify the server's identity. Most servers pay a few hundred dollars to a certificate authority for a unique certificate; however, many smaller ones sign their own. Experts quoted by Bloomberg report that Clinton's server used a self-signed certificate shipped with the device on which her server runs. This is a vulnerability sites such as Gawker, Wired and Gizmodo have called out, noting that the government itself uses much more powerful military-grade encryption and certificates. Message-level encryption, which is built into e-mail client software rather than servers themselves, is a separate issue—ideally you'd want the secretary of State to be using this, too. It's unknown whether Clinton did.
That stated correction came only after conservative forces noted that there was no correction statement. And the NYT just shows that they're in the bag for their people as usual. It was a criminal inquiry. Nothing was 'misstated.'
