quote:

Originally posted by jigray3:
Weren't there two investigations? What happened to the influence peddling Clinton Foundation investigation?

quote:

Originally posted by btanchors:

quote:

Originally posted by 95flhr:

quote:

Originally posted by btanchors:
My $0.02:

Given the number of classified emails she no doubt received during her tenure, there is *NO* way a competent person would not wonder, "Gee, that email should be/could be classified, therefore I shouldn't be receiving it on an uncleared device". I could see this happening by accident two or three times. But given the number of classified emails, *NO* way would a competent person NOT wonder about it. It doesn't matter if it was actually classified or not, she should have reported it and gotten an official ruling that the email was OK or not. The fact that she apparently did not, means she either willfully ignored the rules, or is incompetent to handle classified information. PERIOD.

I would like to see someone raise the following questions, of someone in authority during a public press conference:

1) Was Hillary's clearance suspended while she was under investigation? If not, what is the normal procedure when issues like this are under investigation?

2) Given now that the FBI has publicly stated "Extreme Carelessness" was involved, will Hillary's clearance now be suspended? Will it be renewed the next time it is up for regularly scheduled review? What is the standard procedure in situations like this when people have been proven to be "extremely careless" in handling classified information?

3) Assuming her clearance will not be revoked, what will take place to ensure this situation will not happen again with Hillary's handling of classified information?

You are assuming she had a clearance in the traditional sense of the word. Political appointees and elected officials don't go through the same process we do.

Do you know this for a fact or are you speculating?

quote:

http://thehill.com/

Federal officials may not use private email accounts to get around public records laws, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned a lower court decision in which judges dismissed claims from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative think tank that attempted to obtain correspondence from a top White House official through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) said it did not need to search for or turn over records held by the head of the OSTP on a private email account as part of the open records request.

In addition to official White House email, John Holdren, the director of the OSTP, also sent and received emails from a domain at the Woods Hole Research Center.

Throughout the case, the government argued that “[d]ocuments on a nongovernmental email server are outside the possession or control of federal agencies, and thus beyond the scope of FOIA.”

Judge David Sentelle, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, disagreed with that reasoning and ordered the lower court to reconsider the case.

“If a department head can deprive the citizens of their right to know what his department is up to by the simple expedient of maintaining his departmental emails on an account in another domain, that purpose is hardly served,” Sentelle wrote.

“It would make as much sense to say that the department head could deprive requestors of hard-copy documents by leaving them in a file at his daughter’s house and then claiming that they are under her control,” he said.

While Holdren did forward some of his work-related emails from his private email account to his government one — yielding 110 pages of responsive documents in the FOIA request — Sentelle said the agency still had to do a search to ensure no other undisclosed records remained in the account.

The case is not yet final and has been remanded for further proceedings.

CEI applauded the ruling on Tuesday.

“While today’s ruling is a major victory for government transparency, it’s stunning that it takes a court decision for federal employees to be held accountable to the law,” said Marlo Lewis, CEI senior fellow, in a statement. “The ‘most transparent administration in history’ has proven over and over that it has no intention of actually letting the American public know what it is doing. Just think, if today’s ruling had gone the other way, the implication would be that all government business could be transacted on private email and be invisible to citizens, completely gutting FOIA – absurd!"

"Director Holdren is not the first agency head to be found using private email for his government work, but as we continue our legal battle in this case, we seek for this unlawful behavior to come to an end," Lewis added.

ROSAL

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
No, what he said is he needed intent and couldn't find any.

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
No, what he said is he needed intent and couldn't find any.

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
No, what he said is he needed intent and couldn't find any.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGnified:
With corruption so blatantly evident at all levels of our government (there just went the FBI, like the DOJ under Holder, the VA, the IRS, the EPA, the FED, Homeland Security/TSA, Fannie/Freddie, State Dept. etc. etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum), ... how can you trust the .gov on any ballot count or electoral college in November?

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
Some people have the spotlight of history pointed at them and step into the light.

Others, like Comey, choose to duck into the shadows.

He may be an "honorable man," but he is also a coward.

quote:

Originally posted by 95flhr:
So, you are saying if there is no intent, there is no crime?

quote:

Originally posted by Andyb:
I don't think this is a bad thing for Trump. Had she been prosecuted we run the risk of the commies tossing in someone who might win. Plus now even more Americans are pissed the fuck off to use the technical term.