Emails Show Hillary Clinton's Email Server Was A Massive Security Headache, Set Up To Route Around FOIA Requests
from the breaking-badly dept
More bad news for Hillary Clinton and her ill-advised personal email server. Another set of emails released by the State Department shows the government agency had to disable several security processes just to get its server to accept email from Clinton's private email address.
The emails, reviewed by The Associated Press, show that State Department technical staff disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses. They were trying urgently to resolve delivery problems with emails sent from Clinton's private server.
"This should trump all other activities," a senior technical official, Ken LaVolpe, told IT employees in a Dec. 17, 2010, email. Another senior State Department official, Thomas W. Lawrence, wrote days later in an email that deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin personally was asking for an update about the repairs. Abedin and Clinton, who both used Clinton's private server, had complained that emails each sent to State Department employees were not being reliably received.
After technical staffers turned off some security features, Lawrence cautioned in an email, "We view this as a Band-Aid and fear it's not 100 percent fully effective."
While trial-and-error is generally useful when solving connection problems, the implication is undeniable: to make Clinton's private, insecure email server connect with the State Department's, it had to -- at least temporarily -- lower itself to Clinton's security level. The other workaround -- USE A DAMN STATE DEPARTMENT EMAIL ADDRESS -- was seriously discussed.
This latest stack of emails also exposed other interesting things... like the fact that Clinton's private email server was attacked multiple times in one day, resulting in staffers taking it offline in an attempt to prevent a breach. (h/t Pwn All The Things)
In addition to the security issues, there's also some discussion about why Clinton was choosing to use her own server.
In one email, the State Department's IT person explains the agency already has an email address set up for Clinton, but offers to delete anything contained in it -- and points out that using the State Dept. address would make future emails subject to FOIA requests.
[W]e actually have an account previously set up: SSHRC@state.gov. There are some old emails but none since Jan '11 -- we could get rid of them.
You should be aware that any email would go through the Department's infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches.
So, there's one reason Clinton would have opted to use a personal email address and server. More confirmation of the rationale behind this decision appears in an earlier email (2010) from Clinton to her aide, Huma Abedin.
Abedin: We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email to the department so you are not going to spam.
Clinton: Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible.
There appears to be some intent to dodge FOIA requests -- either by ensuring "no documents found" when Clinton's State Department email address was searched, or by being able to control any release by being the chokepoint for responsive documents.
To accomplish this, Clinton's team set up a private email server that was insecure and did not follow State Department guidelines. In fact, her team brushed off the agency more than once before finally informing it that they simply would not comply with State Department regulations.
In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department's inspector general concluded that Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers. Her aides twice brushed aside concerns, in one case telling technical staff "the matter was not to be discussed further," the report said.
The FBI investigation that Clinton refuses to call an investigation continues. There may be no criminal charges forthcoming, but there's already plenty of evidence that Clinton's use of a private email server was not only dangerously insecure, but put into place in hopes of limiting her accountability.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: email, foia, hillary clinton, security, state department, vulnerabilities
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Can't blame her for that at least
In her position I wouldn't care either, between her position(current and future potential) and personal connections she and everyone else knows that she's essentially untouchable, and the FBI is just doing the investigation in order to look like they're doing something and to further the charade that the rules apply equally to everyone.
No charges will be filed, no meaningful punishment will be handed out and everyone involved knows it, so it's no surprise that she might be more than a little dismissive towards the whole thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't blame her for that at least
The Bush II White House, against the rules, used a private mail server at the Republican Party headquarters. Jeb Bush used his own mail server. It was common to hear Congressmen declare that they "didn't use email" - instead having their aides do their emailing through private accounts. The real question here is "why didn't anyone in either party want to use the official servers?"
One hint is the claim that phishing and anti-virus features had to be turned off for *everyone* on the government server to receive emails from Clinton, rather than just adding an exception for email from her server. For all the signs of mismanagement on Clinton's server, the State Department technical staff isn't looking any better.
BTW, that fact that "Clinton's private email server was attacked multiple times in one day" means exactly nothing. I run two company and one personal email servers and all three are under attack 24/7.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least
NO! Bush is done and gone. He's behind us. Leave him there. After 8 years out you don't get to drag him back in and say "but he did it too". The whole "they did it too" is childish, and is part of what got this country into this "Criminal vrs Circus Clown Presidential Election". She broke the law. Maybe Bush did too! If he did, they should have gone after him/them. But they didn't. That doesn't mean Hillary gets to break the law. If they find she broke the law, then she should be punished to the full extent of the law. PERIOD. No if's/and's/ or buts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least
If I rob a bank and they do not immediately come after me .. I'm home free ---- wooohooooo!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least
I wasn't, but now that you mention it, it's a good point. I believe there is a federal statue of limitation on some of the charges that could be brought. It's either 5 or 7 years no?
https://www.wklaw.com/statute-of-limitations-for-federal-crimes/
That aside; I was referring to the fact that they had 8 years to go after him, and did not. Doing so now would look very bad for them, and would appear as a deflection tactic that could backfire horribly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least
Nor does that cover Jeb!'s use of his own server, nor the folks in Congress who use their aides' private accounts instead. Jeb was in the same political race as Hillary only a few months ago. Some of those folks in Congress are still in office.
Yes, the whole "they did it too" is childish. But "it's only illegal when they do it" is even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least
As I said right from the beginning, the real question here is "why didn't anyone in either party want to use the official servers?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least
I run two company and one personal email servers and all three are under attack 24/7. Dictionary attacks hitting your mail server is like sunlight hitting your car. It doesn't indicate a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least
The Clinton staffers using blank logs as proof that nothing happened is like claiming your store wasn't robbed, even though the doors were wide open for 4 years, because the security cameras were turned off. We didn't see anyone come in a take all the files... we didn't see them NOT get taken either...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't blame her for that at least
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-judge-investigation-224314#ixzz4 BZRF3U4r
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't blame her for that at least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't blame her for that at least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 x's f'ed
-
The true nature of this lady is exposed here. I am glad to see Trump tear her apart but the sad sad reality for Americans still is, it is either going to be President Clinton or President Trump. Can we just Keep Barry? Did I really just say that? I feel dirty. I am going to go throw up now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 x's f'ed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 x's f'ed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 x's f'ed
It is amazing anyone in an IT position would be stupid enough to go for the "We will just shut down and hope they go away" method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 x's f'ed
http://archive.is/mfOH8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 x's f'ed
They learnt from the politicians, who practice do what we want and hope we are elected again, which all too often works out for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 x's f'ed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 x's f'ed
Public facing servers are almost always under attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 x's f'ed
Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 x's f'ed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 x's f'ed
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/08/foreign-money/
The only rule that I'm aware of is "they can’t legally accept donations from individuals who are neither U.S. citizens nor permanent U.S. residents." There are numerous other ways for the money to get there.
Example;
"foreign nationals may underwrite issue-oriented ads as long as they do not mention "candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election."
"http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/overseas-fundraising-legal/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad.
I'll take the combined package gladly, but I suspect that the way the U.S. is wired, I'll end up with empty hands anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't the presidents main job to protect the constitution, that is the rules?
March 30, 2007, fundraiser, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't the presidents main job to protect the constitution, that is the rules?
Like a farmer respects pigs. You wouldn't want vegetarians responsible for filling the troughs, would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: President's job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calling Gunga Din
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would you expect her to be good at her job.
I'll give 5 to 1 that not one but multiple foreign governments have ALL her email correspondence including what she deleted. I wouldn't be surprised if a few teenage computer geeks have it too. Russian SVRs biggest worry was probably that one of the many other people breaking into it would leave tracks and compromise everything. Hell, they probably cleaned up after the other intruders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clinton(s)
Conniving, manipulative, untrustworthy power-broker.
About the only thing going for her, imo, is the fact that she's a woman, so .. yay, history. Whoopdefuckinggoddamndoo.
No confidence, no vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clinton(s)
And now for yay history: her almost-ex-broadcaster decided they wanted to go down in history as the first broadcaster to have a woman report a premiere league soccer game, so her last broadcast for the old network was a premiere league soccer game.
That was basically the clincher to an already breathtakingly stupid story.
I'd like the first female president not to be an incompetent power-greedy crook and weasel. But then I'd have wished this for quite a few male presidents as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clinton(s)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clinton(s)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$hilda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the Vitriol?
So this suggestion that she wanted to hide state department correspondence too is simply the same sort of innuendo that drove her to think about a private email setup in the first place.
But yes, going the private server route was just asking for trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the Vitriol?
She's claimed that previous SoS's handled secrets in a similar manner. If so, then no matter what the party, throw the entire book at all of them. We're now finding out that some of the mishandled information had to do with intelligence assets, so peoples' lives were at risk.
Those that think that her party makes her more guilty or more innocent should have no place in the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?
Burn them all down, every last one who has broken these rules and violated FEDERAL FUCKING LAW regarding the handling of classified material (which, again, all of these people signed a document acknowledging that content, and not a stamp, determines level of classification). Colin Powell, Jeb Bush, whoever, doesn't matter. Break the law? go to trial. Get convicted? go to jail, do not pass the Oval Office, do not collect a lifetime pension.
Your party affiliation doesn't automatically make you a criminal. Being convicted does, and evidence continues to mount in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?
Stop resisting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?
ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY!!!!!!! AMEN!!!!!!!!!
You break the law!!?? Throw them all in jail, regardless of party or money. We need true equality to survive. Rich, poor, black, white, democrat, republican, None of them have any business being considered in the eyes of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?
Minimum sentencing, three strikes, private prisons - sounds like utopian get tough on crime paradise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the Vitriol?
It's one thing to want privacy when corresponding with family and friends. Understandable. But that is not what she used it for.
She's been in the game long enough to know exactly what the private server implies. She's a sneaky underhanded liar just like her husband.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ40OtaXEDA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=970hj7bKTbE
https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7H4fxOruxo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuZhwV24PmM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the Vitriol?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?
Her Dept signed sworn docs that they turned over all pertinent records, including all work related emails, even though NONE of her emails were archived. Woops! 21 months later they submitted 30,000 emails (as a result of Guccifer 1.0 and the Bengazi hearings) and swore (again!) that was it, the other 33,000 weren't work related. But FOIA emails in her staffers and other government officals' inboxes have repeatedly proved that to be false. The FBI (and the Russians and Chinese probably) are reviewing those last ones that were never willingly released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the Vitriol?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the Vitriol?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?
1. She obviously corresponded with people other than people at the state department.
2. The idea that government officials get to pawn off their FOIA and federal, record law compliance onto third parties is completely ridiculous. She as SOS was responsible for her own compliance which meant insuring that all her work related emails were available to State on an ongoing and timely basis. This is pretty simple and a SOS who doesn't immediately grasp the concept is far too stupid to be trusted with such an important position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the Vitriol?
Other people seem to manage it. What's so "special" about her that she can't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the Vitriol?
But it's far worse than some jaw dropping poor judgement in reaction to criticism. Clinton actively attempted to foil FOIA and appropriate scrutiny of email sent in her capacity as, or recognition of her position of SOS. Prior Clinton behavior strongly suggests that she was trading her position for private gain and that she wished to conceal this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?
a. Corruption and criminality.
b. Incompetence
c. Both a and b.
With FBI director Comey actually going so far as to state before congress that he's not sure Clinton could figure out that "(C)" was nomenclature denoting classified information it looks like the FBI has bought answer b. These are literally the kind of excuses you would expect for some Jr intern not a senior cabinet official in the US government and for such a person they are laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the Vitriol?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the Vitriol?
I guess the country can live with the uncertainty of a Clinton indictment at the moment... but I hope whether she is or is not to be indicted gets resolved one way or the other before the Democratic Party Convention. Objectively, I can't think why Americans would hope for a nominated Presidential candidate to be indicted for any crime during the fall campaign except any other reasons other than partisan ones.
Trump is going to find out the negative aspect of having a cloud of suspicion hanging over his head as we approach the November election. His own cloud of culpability over the Trump University legal proceedings will continue through election day. (The judge in the case won't rule until after the election). I don't think that is helpful to the democratic process either.
Clinton has admitted that setting up a private server was not a good idea and says she regrets it. Trump continues to defend his innocence in the improper financial procedures attributed to Trump University. Personally I wish all this be cleared up before the fall campaign for the sake of the nation. But I fear that is too much to ask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?
As far as I've heard though, she's stopped short of saying that she did something wrong and she's sorry for it. I'm sure she regrets it, but I think only because of the trouble it's caused her, not because she realizes it was the wrong thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?
"
HELLO: This is the problem. There are two justice systems in America, one for the politcal elites like Petraeus and Clinton and one for everybody else. Petraeus commits multiple felonies and gets a misdemeanor and Clinton commits multiple felonies and gets no punishment at all. Both abused the public trust and endangered classified information they were entrusted to protect. Meanwhile we jail people for selling a little marijuana, unless of course they are political elites and then I'm sure they could sell pounds of the stuff while giving away our secrets to Russian foreign intelligence and nothing would be done. Christ Clinton without a doubt gave away everything classified on her server to Russian SVR. She might as well have dropped the thing off at the Russian embassy with a sign that said: TOP SECRET US INFO, HACK THIS for all the security she had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your argument is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where have you been, under a rock. This was discussed very early on when the private server issue was brought up..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ummm
Maybe you should shut up until after the election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ummm
Maybe you should shut up until after the election."
No. If Hillary broke the law she should go to jail. AND...If... no .. WHEN.. Trump says something stupid, it needs to be put on display for all to see. We are either going to have a Career-power brokering criminal, or a flip flopping circus clown for president, lets at least make it an honest election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ummm
That sounds optimistic. Even though our current crop of candidates for the presidency would have a hard time even beating Richard Nixon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ummm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ummm
This is one of the most unamerican things I've heard this week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ummm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ummm
What are you, 5?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ummm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ummm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ummm
Because an organization that disseminates topical information SHOULD engage in censorship and prior restraint?
Would you feelz the same way if it HURT Trump?
I disagree with your thesis and hope that news and analysis experts continue to do news and analysis.
Ehud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ummm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one law for the rulers and another for the ruled.
No matter how much I wish she would be arrested and found guilty, I don't think anything will happen to her by the current DoJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: one law for the rulers and another for the ruled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: one law for the rulers and another for the ruled.
NO ONE should be exempt from the requirements of protecting classified information, especially SIGINT and HUMINT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
justin@presidentclinton.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: justin@presidentclinton.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Full Background
It is a ton of information with links to the sources; details like how she wasn't allowed to bring her Blackberry into her office (a SCIF) so she had to leave the secured area to read her email instead of using a secured computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since her Answers' SHITE, they Must INDICT !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This implies these are .... wait for it ....
.... Trumped up charges lolololololo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is something that 99 44/100% of the general public do daily if they have a lick of sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Every time I've worked for a company that was large or had government contracts, I've been required to use the company email system for all company-related communications because they are required to retain copies of all of that.
I have never used company systems for anything but the most trivial of personal emails because... why in the world would anyone do that? Privacy issues aside (you have no expectation of privacy when using your employer's IT systems), what happens when you move to a different company? You'd have to tell everyone you know to start using a different email address. Wouldn't it be better to just have a personal one that doesn't change?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what has yet to be released?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what has yet to be released?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just FYI:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just FYI:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just FYI:
That way both major parties are split and someone from the libertarian party wins the presidency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WAIT
Wait till either she or Trump takes office and it's either impeachment or jail time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Asking the wrong questsions
Why are the Clintons reported to being paying thousands of dollars in legal fees for Cooper during this FBI investigation?
Justin Cooper had no security clearance, yet he appears to have had a hidden sysadmin role. As an admin, Cooper would have had complete access to all email and documents on Hillary's server.
Justin Cooper was a personal aide to Bill Clinton, and an employee of Teneo Holdings. Teneo Holdings is a consulting firm with ties to the Clintons founded by Douglas Band. In the Clinton shutdown email, Hillary Clinton's personal aide Huma Abedin (also a Teneo employee) and Cooper emailed Doug Band about the status of Clinton's server.
--
How a Clinton insider used his ties to build a consulting giant
Politico
April 13, 2016
"Eight former employees and other sources with knowledge of the start-up or close to the Clintons told POLITICO that many Teneo clients received exposure to Bill Clinton, invitations to salon dinners filled with D.C. power players, or meetings at CGI with foreign leaders in the years immediately after the company's founding. They also said a key element of Kelly and Band’s pitch to new clients was donating to the foundation or joining CGI to “raise your leadership profile."
--
Are Bill Clinton and his team the key to the FBI’s Hillary investigation?
The Washington Times
April 27, 2016
"A source familiar with Mr. Cooper’s arrangement with the Clintons tells me that they have paid his legal fees associated with the FBI investigation, amounting to “hundreds of thousands of dollars.” They aren’t paying those costs out of a sense of decency. They’re paying them because he knows the “why” of the server, which may very well have been to make it easier for the foundation to hustle big donations."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Foreshadowing?
Trump may trump her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Foreshadowing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Foreshadowing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is it going to take???
ENOUGH!!! JAIL HER NOW!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm all but completely convinced our "choice" of president has become a joke on us.
National Security
means
You get the government we say you'll get and it matters fuck-all who happens to be president.
Those executive departments that are armed and informed rule. That threshold has been crossed. Accountability? Accounted for. Status: none.
The Constitution is effectively trumped - why not the rest of us?
100 mile borders. Secret law. Unjust mass incarceration. Bullshit wars. Secret lists. Corporate financed law. Order by intimidation, threat and ignorance. Our "moral high ground" is an inverted hole filled with a mix of mud, salt, blood and shit.
Election.. pfft. whatthefuckever.
Oh, I know, lets marginalize everyone holding up two, big, fuck you fingers, one each for blue and red.
Like our presidential candidates represent a choice, or something.
Tossers, both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judicial Watch Compels Record Production By Court Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judicial Watch Compels Record Production By Court Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judicial Watch Compels Record Production By Court Process
How is it misleading?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is an obvious case of her violating FOIA.
Why isn't she punished for this?
I would think her private server kept at her house and her private email address, and the fact she evaded FOIA requirements would make her ineligible to be President. She shouldn't have a security clearance now either.
I've seen a few video clips of her being asked questions (like the recent one in a Star Bucks) where she looks and acts as if she is high as a kite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They probably wanted to keep their jobs. She was the head of their department after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get the TRUTH
That is PUBLIC PROPERTY they are refusing to relate and DESTROYING. That is OUR PROPERTY. Those emails are OUR PROPERTY and it was a crime simply for them to destroy ONE of them.
ANY intellectual materials created on OUR time belongs to WE the PEOPLE. When that SKANK Hillary destroyed (tried to) e-mails she was destroying PUBLIC PROPERTY more valuable then if she smashed windows or spray painted walls and she should be in shackles
Government EMPLOYEES should not be allowed to plead the FIFTH or refuse to testify about Government matters. They are not PRIVATE Citizens.
Since waterboarding is not torture ..... enhanced interrogation is in order for Government Employees who try to STEAL KNOWLEDGE of Government(OUR) business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clinton's email server
As an attorney: stop the nonsense! There was no crime involved, and she was following long established procedure, which with the 25 years of badgering, sounds pretty smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clinton's email server
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clinton's email server
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so if foreign agents wanted said information, instead of going through FIOA requests, they could just lift the unredacted documents straight from the server?
Does anyone else think that a) this totally defeats the purpose, and b) monumentally stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please consider registering with the Green Party US, and send a message that the DNC will understand. If Jill Stein can get enough support she can further Sanders goals in the general election debates. You can still vote for Sanders id he gets
lucky and wins the nomination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holy Hell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]