Just like Colin Powell, Karl Rove, and numerous other Bush Administration officials (estimated to be around 80 individuals). Or does the label of entitlement only apply to HRC?MDDad wrote:The Sun Queen feels she’s entitled to more ease and convenience than the rest of the human rabble who have to use the government server? It’s so typically Clintonian that it’s almost laughable.
- John Q. Public
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19710
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 4 times
No idea about government software but the one I had to use was slow to start, then you had to type your name and PW every time (no "remember me" function) and then you had to wait for a text (on a second device) and type in that PW and then wait again and then you had to use a very cumbersome interface. Much easier to just pull up Outlook and type. At least for us. A lot of us did that unless it was going to somebody at the main office.MDDad wrote:How is it easier? For many years I sent and received business emails to and from government agencies and large corporations all over the world. It wasn’t one bit more difficult than emailing my sons on my Yahoo account.
No argument on the second part.
John Q. Public
Likewise, I would expect someone of your intelligence to grasp nuance a bit more capably. Perhaps my comments were not written clearly enough, but my point was that the fact that she actually set up her own server and kept personal custody of her own emails concerning US government business/diplomacy is to me the greater offense. That's because it's a deliberate violation. Being stupid enough to send classified information over an inadequately secured server is indicative of her competence but is not what most concerns me. The former is a conscious violation, the latter is mere expected incompetence.Vilepagan wrote:You don't care whether she's actually guilty, but you're pretty sure she is. Well, you'll forgive me if I don't decide on who to vote for based on your keen insight and understanding of our criminal justice system. I certainly expected more from a man of your intelligence.
And I didn't recommend who you vote for, not that that is ever in question.
That is absolutely untrue JQ, and if you do not know that, then you should. No Secretary of State has ever set up his own server and kept personal custody of all his government email correspondence. That is an enormous distinction. Further, previous Secretary of State's only conducted some of their email correspondence via AOL, etc. She conducted virtually all of hers on her own server. You understand that that means she has personal custody of them? Have you stopped to think why she would've gone to all that trouble, what her motivation was? It certainly wasn't convenience or security.John Q. Public wrote:The only difference between Hillary's case and what "everybody else" had also done is that she used a private server and the others had used Hotmail, AOL, Time Warner or whoever their accounts were with.
And you don't grasp how significant that distinction is? In the former case the government can seize those records from a third-party if need be (not that it should have to go to the trouble of doing so). When she has personal custody she can erase or "misplace" whatever the hell she wants, and no one should have that ability. The relative degree of security of AOL, etc. versus Clinton.com is not the issue.John Q. Public wrote: Their servers are probably no more or less secure than hers was and they aren't required to keep backups longer than 6 months. The only thing "unprecedented" there is that it was a private server vs. a corporately owned - and shared - one.
This issue is pretty black-and-white, partisan protestations to the contrary. If you choose not to see the inherent corruption in this behavior then there's nothing further I can add to the discussion...........................LucaJohn Q. Public wrote:Yes, she should have been going through government servers (which are also under constant attack), just like many of us ("many of us" are not the US Secretary of State) should only be doing company email through our company servers (and often don't), but considering that "everybody else" had done something similar, (no, "everybody else" had not done something similar) her actions were stupid, irresponsible and self-centered (yes, they were) but hardly criminal. (It was not legal – and certainly not ethical – for her to do so) Unless you want to prosecute all of the others, too. ...IMHO.
Lol. That must be the case since you have stated as such. Your rationalizations as to why are priceless. You admit previous SecStates have used private email accounts stating that it was only "some" of their email. Does "some" (a vague term at best) mean it's okay to use a private email account? As was shown during the Bush Email Controversy. During that administration both private email accounts (Hotmail, AOL, etc) and private servers were used by high ranking Bush officials. I have to give you credit for being capable of ignoring facts that don't support your claim. Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it didn't happen or isn't true. Conservatives only care about this matter now because their fair haired boy (Trey Gowdy) couldn't find anything useful with his Benghazi committee. I was watching Fox News at the gym and the commentators were practically touching themselves with glee while reporting HRC's meeting with the FBI. I'll make a bet. That Jennifer Connolly is my baby momma before HRC gets indicted. Any takers?.....................WabashLuca wrote:This issue is pretty black-and-white, partisan protestations to the contrary. If you choose not to see the inherent corruption in this behavior then there's nothing further I can add to the discussion...........................Luca