• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Classified Info Found on Past Secretaries' Private Email

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
67,250
Reaction score
33,916
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Other Secretaries Handled Classified Material on Private Email, State Dept. Concludes - ABC News


Classified Info Found on Past Secretaries' Private Email

The State Department’s internal investigation arm issued a final memorandum today on the email practices of past and current secretaries of state, and it said definitively that past secretaries handled classified material on unclassified email systems.

The same claims were made in an early February memo when the State Department's inspector general first announced it was conducting a records review related to the email accounts of five secretaries of state -- Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry -- and their immediate staff.


------

Hmmm. Looks like this horrible felonious behavior was pretty common. I wonder when Fox News is going to call for Condi Rice's prosecution?
 

Considering that it is past the statute of limitations, that would seem like a silly thing to do
 
Threegoofs said:
Ah. You've looked into the statue of limitations for this?

I don't recall 'treason' having a statute of limitations!
Click to expand...

If Clinton did it would that also be treason?
 
Threegoofs said:
Ah. You've looked into the statue of limitations for this?

I don't recall 'treason' having a statute of limitations!
Click to expand...

Then again, the Constitution defines treason, and nowhere does it mention "sending classified material on insecure servers".

Good point, and no surprise that what Hillary did was also done by predecessors. A big factor in this equation is how too much material is "classified". It's become a joke IMO.
 
Given the hundred threads about Clinton felonies, you'd think this story would attract more attention.

I think the Conservatives are all waiting for Fox News to tell them what they think about this.
 
NonoBadDog said:
If Clinton did it would that also be treason?
Click to expand...
Funny how you see a lot of foaming at the mouth about how evil this practice is, but when it's shown to be pretty standard, the conversation shifts to statues of limitations.

Once again, it's clear that the issue is not emails. It's hate for Clinton.
 
As I have said and repeated many times, this is far more common than some want to admit, I know this through years of personal experience and the more the investigators dig the more they will prove this to be true. The ONLY reason this has become a "big issue" is because some believe that they can use it to attack Clinton, be careful what you wish for they just might look at Your emails, then what?
 
Wow, if its such a common practice then why did Hillary lie about it ?
 
Fenton said:
Wow, if its such a common practice then why did Hillary lie about it ?
Click to expand...

Did she? If you went and asked Ms Rice would she also "lie"?
 
Casper said:
Did she? If you went and asked Ms Rice would she also "lie"?
Click to expand...

Lol...Really ?

So many lies....which one to chose. Hmmm...

How about creating the server so she wouldnt have to use multiple devices.

That was a good one.
 
What gets me the most is that Hillary lied about it, deleted emails, and wiped her server clean before handing it over.
 


Prosecute them if statute of limitations hasn't expired, if you can't prosecute them then Hilary will have to be the example for all future government officials, and strip them all of any clearance they currently hold. The reason there are a lot of threads about the Clinton abuse is 1) the scope of the abuse and 2) She wants to be president.

Also, the number of emails for Clinton that held classified information is now over 2000, and they haven't even recovered and processed the 30,000 emails Clinton deleted. How many emails did the state Department find in violation between the other office holders?

And I think it's very interesting that the State dragged its feet on Clinton emails for YEARS bemoaning how hard it is to slog thorough so much correspondence and now suddenly, as the FBI is closing in, the State Department suddenly finds the time and resources to read 25 years of State Department correspondence. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
What gets me the most is that Hillary lied about it, deleted emails, and wiped her server clean before handing it over.
Click to expand...

Did she wipe it clean, does not sound like it was? Now back to the question, what is you take on all the other peoples emails that have the same sort of information or is there only One person you want to go after, try being honest, for a change.
 

Once again, it is Not going to happen, bring her to trial and more than half of the government, including many Repubs would end up in court defending them against this BS. It has been and will remain common practice, are you that uninformed on how things work in the government?
 
Moderate Right said:
What gets me the most is that Hillary lied about it, deleted emails, and wiped her server clean before handing it over.
Click to expand...

Guess you had the same problem with the GOP when they did it right? You also demanded their heads correct?
 

If they violated the law and the SOL hasn't expired then prosecute them. If you don't prosecute them then national security protocols are unenforceable.
 
Fenton said:
Wow, if its such a common practice then why did Hillary lie about it ?
Click to expand...

Because most people in the federal government are pathological liars. I wish it weren't so, but it is. She is no exception.
 
jmotivator said:
If they violated the law and the SOL hasn't expired then prosecute them. If you don't prosecute them then national security protocols are unenforceable.
Click to expand...

They will not be prosecuted, new stiffer rules and procedures may be implemented but the reality is the practice is so common and widespread that it is highly doubtful anyone will be actually prosecuted.
 
Casper said:
They will not be prosecuted, new stiffer rules and procedures may be implemented but the reality is the practice is so common and widespread that it is highly doubtful anyone will be actually prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Those stiff rules already exist. That's exceedingly evident giving the current FBI criminal investigation.

All the stiff rules in the world don't mean **** when you have people like Hillary Clinton ignoring them outright and then feeding us a pack of lies to cover up her corruption
 
Casper said:
They will not be prosecuted, new stiffer rules and procedures may be implemented but the reality is the practice is so common and widespread that it is highly doubtful anyone will be actually prosecuted.
Click to expand...

No, the practice in question isn't "so common". Using private email for official business might have been common and against the law (prosecute them), but distributing thousands of classified emails on a private server in your home is not at all common, its an egregious breech of national security, as it the latest reported issue of Clinton giving out her access passwords to secure systems in order to get secure data sent to her on her private account. The lack of understanding of the average person in the scope and seriousness of this case is breathtaking. She should be in a cell next to Bradley Manning.

What is the point of "stiffer rules" when you don't enforce the rules you have?
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
If they violated the law and the SOL hasn't expired then prosecute them. If you don't prosecute them then national security protocols are unenforceable.
Click to expand...

I look forward to all the threads you will start on prosecuting Bush's Secretaries of State, and will especially enjoy your outrage at their actions.
 

And you did exactly what I thought you would do, not answer the question but offer the, "but they did it" argument.

Your statements:
"The same claims were made in an early February memo when the State Department's inspector general first announced it was conducting a records review related to the email accounts of five secretaries of state -- Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry -- and their immediate staff."
"Ah. You've looked into the statue of limitations for this?
I don't recall 'treason' having a statute of limitations!"

Are you stating that Clinton committed treason?
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
Guess you had the same problem with the GOP when they did it right? You also demanded their heads correct?
Click to expand...

Define "it". What is the act of "it" here?
 
Casper said:
They will not be prosecuted, new stiffer rules and procedures may be implemented but the reality is the practice is so common and widespread that it is highly doubtful anyone will be actually prosecuted.
Click to expand...
I think this comes down to degrees of her violations. Hillary clearly violated rules for record retention by using a personal email, since that skirts the government email server and would not be backed up. From what I read, she never used the .gov email at all. She's the only one that's done that. And, of course, she was putting classified information on an insufficiently secured server (a BIG no-no).

But, if they let her slide, even though there is plenty of evidence that they should, at least, continue the investigation, then I'd be okay with it, as long as I got the same treatment. I'd like to not pay taxes or do a return for ten years, maybe more. Nothing (sadly) compared to what she did. That's more than fair. Otherwise, get the orange pants suit ready.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…