Hillary Clinton's little email fuss: Beyond 'servers in the basement'
Posted by freedomforall 10 years, 1 month ago to Technology
The author has great technical understanding, but may have underestimated how the omission
of emails may generate fallout for Ms Slime.
"We don't yet know what machinations President Obama will try, but if he's like all of his predecessors, he is going to do his level best to keep records out of the public archive. If you'd like to read the gory details of how presidents from Reagan to George W. Bush tried to slither around records act requirements, read the "Historical Perspective" chapter of my book, "Where Have All The Emails Gone?" It's a free download. No administration is without blame."
http://usspi.files.wordpress.com/2010/01...
of emails may generate fallout for Ms Slime.
"We don't yet know what machinations President Obama will try, but if he's like all of his predecessors, he is going to do his level best to keep records out of the public archive. If you'd like to read the gory details of how presidents from Reagan to George W. Bush tried to slither around records act requirements, read the "Historical Perspective" chapter of my book, "Where Have All The Emails Gone?" It's a free download. No administration is without blame."
http://usspi.files.wordpress.com/2010/01...
And speaking of technology, I wonder how many times Al Gore used email. After all, he invented it, right?
"If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
Funny how this becomes such an invasion of privacy when it's a political insider like Ms Slime.
I thought I knew what is is.
I thought I knew what sex is.
I thought we had three co-equal branches of the government.
I thought I knew what wrong is.
I’m so confused.
Jan
I'm a little curious what her email was? Blondeambition@ ?
Imnotbill@
QueenHilary@
Headingbacktowhitehouse@
Vote4meImaWoman@
I dunno, but hey it's Friday, have some fun!
Whatdifferencedoesitmake@
Thanks for the laugh!
All of these people, from either side of the aisle, worship at the Altar of Political Expediency despite the illegality and immorality and oblivious to the irreparable hurt that they're doing to our ideals of a democratic republic and our way of life. And the electorate doesn't seem to care as long as it's within the realm of their personal self interest. All of this changes, of course, when a politician acts in someone else's interest!
Well, Ben Franklin did warn us of this day.
Oh, wait...she's a conservative.
Never mind.
I have zero respect for either of them in terms of their business acumen. And I do want someone with Business Smarts in the Big Chair in the WH. I believe neither of them are qualified.
imnsho
Assuming your comment was about condoleeza Rice, what exactly is your grounds to despise her so that you would use such a disguised expletive.
while I'm not sure of the extent of her conservatism I would certainly prefer her outlook to Hillary clinton's by a long shot.
Fred Sspeckmann
Hilarious Hillary - any time!
However, neither Rice nor Clinton are worthy of service in any respectable republic.
I'll take an intelligent woman with a stong foreign poicy right now. I'm pretty sure she's fiscally conservative, too - isn't she?
Being a strong black woman doesn't hurt our cause either - refuting the claim about how racist we all are.
A person doesn't have to be perfect to be the better choice. And being a "conservative" isn't even on my check list.
She won't run though. She's too smart to throw herself into that meat grinder.
If Rice runs as a GOP candidate, she will have been 'vetted'. That means she will be guaranteed to serve the party masters and will not serve the sovereign people. She is part of the problem, not part pf the solution. As long as you continue to accept the enemy of liberty as the defender of liberty the result will be more dictatorship. There is no excuse for the actions that Rice has taken as a part of 'nation building' and 'spreading democracy.' None of it was in the interest of individual liberty. Rice is as much a big government looter as Clinton.
I will be forever grateful Bush "won" his first election because we needed a Texan in office in time of war. (Gore would have been negotiating peace w/Bin Laden before the end of his first term.) That doesn't mean I think Bush conducted the war well.
Like most OBJ's I support regime change through shock and awe then go back home. (I suppose I could be persuaded to leave 10's of thousands of garrisoned troops to preserve the victory - just as we did at the end of WWII. But the fighting would be over.)
But for the current election I'd just be happy with someone who knows the current war is far from over.
However, I don't doubt that Gore would have earned as much scorn as GWB.
In short (one more time) there are no acceptable choices from the DemRep party and there have not been any in 31 years. Any vote for any candidate of the DemReps is a wasted vote.
The "war" that is not over is the one we have to fight to regain our liberty and sovereignty from the looting elite in the Dark Center, WallSt and banksters, the UN, the CFR, Builderburgers, et al.
Bring all the troops home immediately, disband the fatherland security jack-boot looters, and train the military to patrol the borders.
Issue letters of marque authorizing private companies and individuals who wish to defend their private investments on foreign soil.
(Not that there's anything WRONG with that! - Ha!)
I dream of some future day when OBJ's and Libertarians trade jibes and elections in some Space Hab somewhere.
The Foreign Policy would swing wildly but it would be a free and prosperous Nation to be sure.
And a Power to be reckoned with!
(I had to throw that in! Ha!)
These days so-called 'conservatives' in the GOP imagine they could co-exist with socialists if they would just mind their own business.
Talk about a statement that cries out for a premise check!
Unfortunately we live in an election process that we must decide on who is actually nominated. It is not a perfect system as this present administration will attest.
However, the neo-con label has no real meaning as no two people can ever agree on what it means. However I would be willing to wager that most conservatives would be happy with another Bush rather than another Clinton or Obama.
This is certainly not an endorsement of Jeb Bush. I too am done with dynasties no matter who they are.
Fred
Instead of offereing a rational argument you just argue that no one knows what a neocon is? You are conceding the game to the looters by accepting their doublespeak methods.
With all due respect to your commentary, ironically I happen to agree with much of your premise. However, I must say that you seem to infer many things that I neither implied nor stated outright.
What I said about neocons, was that many people have different definitions of that term. I would also say that it's a word description that it's a word that is nonsensical, at least to me. It is used when people don't seem to know how to explain their own position clearly.
I was describing only the fact that we do have a system of choosing candidates no matter how faulty we know that it is.
We certainly do need a better system, but that system needs to be implemented at the grassroot level beginning at your own door.
That serious changes need to be made, we are in complete agreement on.
I do also disagree that no conservatives are allowed to run, do you remember ronald Reagan?
the problem with most conservatives is that they can't seem to put two words together that make sense to the voting public. We must of course also keep in mind that all politicians live and die by the false promises they make and we now liver in a society where half the public pays no taxes and receives the largess of the liberal politicians at the expense of the other half. We are certainly closer to the political concept of socialism than we are to a democratic republic as we were meant to be.
needless to say, we are in complete disagreement of whether I'm offering a rational argument or not. The fact that we disagree on some matters doesn't make my argument any less rational than yours. Rationality of an argument can only be determined by an audience and whether they are persuaded by the argument offered. i hope that is rational enough for you.
Fred Speckmann
I agree that there are practical obstacles for pro-liberty candidates. It is difficult for voters to make a rational decision when big government propaganda is in nearly every movie, every tv program, every newspaper article.
That includes sewing deliberate misleading reports about what a conservative is and who are conservatives, which gets back to the original point. I do know what a conservative is, and Rice is not.
I don't think the problem lies with conservative candidates as you appear to ("the problem with most conservatives is that they can't seem to put two words together that make sense to the voting public. ") One problem is that the big government biased media purposely manipulates any rational statement by a pro-liberty candidate into a threat against rationally challenged potential voters. This is why voting hasn't solved anything in the past 50 years (with the arguable exception of Reagan for one brief shining moment) and it's why voting will not solve anything in the future if those who actually can think rationally continue to consent to serfdom by accepting candidates like Rice. Instead all the party selected candidates must be exposed as charlatans without honor and rejected from the field in disgrace.
In every revolution, there is at least one man with a vision. Make no mistake, this is a revolution.
I would love to continue this debate as we are 99% in agreement as to the problem with perhaps a slightly different outlook on the solution. However due to a complaint about y placing my real name, email address and website address in all my comments as I don't believe that one should hide behind a "username" when stating ones opinion I felt libeled and frankly insulted to be accused of some ulterior motive like spamming.
Apparently Mr.Scott DeSapio Associate Producer, Atlas Shrugged doesn't understand that spamming is usually done for the purpose of selling something.
Who in fact this gentleman is in the hierarchy of this website is still unknown to me as the title of "producer" is often used for financial supporters of the Atlas shrugged movies and may not at all have any authoritative association with this website.
If he does, he hasn't bothered to respond to my request to identify himself further.
In any event, if you wish to continue this debate, please feel free to contact me via either of the following.
P.s. to Mr. DeSapio, if indeed you have the authority and are not a self appointed censor of this site, please remove me from any further affiliation with your site and plese cancel any further emails sent to me.
I wish all the membership well as I have enjoyed the give and take I was able to engage in with most of my correspondence.
Fred Speckmann
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/25...
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/25...
Continuing to give servants of the GOP benefit of the doubt (as the lesser of 2 evils) is a certain Road to Serfdom.
You are of course correct in stating that all presidents are guilty of wanting to hide some of their records for any number of reasons.
The Hillary Clinton email situation however is different for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that a number of people died because she din't bother to provide the necessary protection in Libya.
Furthermore he famous statement to Congress, "What difference does it make now<' cries out for access to those emails..
We must also add that there is seldom moral equivalency between what someone else did while holding similar office, each individula office holder must be held responsible for their actions. That is true whether they are republicans or democrats. Thanks to the liberal media however, this something that is seldom observed.
Fred Speckmann
MS Hillary was breaking the law. For reference here are some of the CLEAR LAWS and Regulations on Government Emails.
http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bul...
8. Under what circumstances may employees remove records and documentary materials from Government custody?
1.Employees must not remove Federal records from Government custody without proper authorization. Under 36 CFR 1222.24, agencies must develop procedures to ensure that departing employees do not remove Federal records.
9. What does an agency do if there is an unauthorized removal of records?
If an agency knows of any actual or potential threat to records (e.g., removal, alteration, or destruction), it must contact NARA as required by 44 U.S.C. 2905 & 3106 and 36 CFR 1230.14. NARA will assist the agency in the recovery of any unlawfully removed records, including contacting the Attorney General, if necessary. It is also important to follow all agency internal reporting requirements, which may include reporting the threat to the agency's legal counsel and to its Inspector General.
This is just a few, there are hundreds more she broke, but hey, how many federal laws must you clearly and arrogantly violate before your prosecuted?
Let us see, Democrat, can violate as many as they see fit. Not Democrat can violate NOTHING and will be held to the letter of the law, "Ignorance is no excuse."
I believe that has evolved into "Follow the Power, Money and Desire to Control Others."
I think that covers most of the motivations for a vast majority of 'public servants' and 'elected officials.'
Aided and abetted by some wonderful 1995 Port, I had a wonderful and heated discussion with some friends this past evening about the '16 elections and the likely candidates.
One, a Hillary-lover, could not seem to respond to any allegations of nefarious actions on H's part, nor could she list any Real Accomplishments of H when she was First Lady OR any other subsequent posts...
But she still seemed to like Hillary.
Then she ran through the longer list of potential contenders from the R side, and for Every One of Them, my response was something like 'no chance' or 'can't stand that one, either.'
If you look at a variety of polls over the past few years, the US electorate has moved seriously in the direction of anti-capital punishment, pro-gay-rights (including marriage), pro-marijuana legalization and several other traditionally Liberal positions.
Yet the allegedly mainstream Republicans resolutely and devotedly oppose any of those positions or beliefs.
Handwriting? Can't see it.
On What Wall? Can't see that, either.
Hillary scares the crap out of me (I'm pro-free-market and anti-socialist), but the candidates on the other side don't seem to register above zero on any Competence Metric that impresses me.
Is a choice of "lesser of two evils" easier or harder than a choice between a Big Negative versus a bunch of Zeroes?
I'm trying to encourage people to adopt a Socratic Method or what I have called my version of Critical Thinking to try to find those root causes, but most folks fall into the trap of identifying a Problem and immediately suggesting The Obvious Solution and trying to get it implemented.
Easy, simple, obvious and Wrong Solution.
Good luck to us all. Yes, I expect Hillary to win, and for months, now, I've been repeating, "An electorate stupid enough to put Obama in the WH Twice is probably dumb enough to put Hillary there, too."
Good luck to us all...
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Some things are just too important to accept compromise.
The 'good men to do nothing' homily is cute, but What To Do that Might Be Effective in turning the tide is what I don't see... (see my reply to Nick, just above...)
I stopped voting years ago because I concluded it would not solve anything. As for peaceful solutions that could be acted upon, I think it's either a consumer strike (painful to everyone economically, but mostly peaceful) or a voting strike where a large percentage vote against the DemRep candidates and actually elect liberty-minded outsiders .Without a large percentage participating the latter will be unsuccessful, and counter-productive because it continues to support the DemRep party's 'wasted vote' argument for those who still think voting is their only choice. A consumer strike doesn't require a large percentage participation to upset the economy enough, but opens up the leader participants to blame by the bankster/looter controlled media. There are no painless solutions to correct the mal-investment that has taken place for the past 100 years in the empire, financial banking cartel, and "military industrial complex" while siphoning off liberty from every corner of the republic.
I use the 'good men' quote because I think we musr recognize that we 'good men' are the last hope of the republic and just talking among ourselves is as effective as doing nothing, but absorbs a lot of time that might be better spent.