• State Department Watchdog: Clinton violated email rules
    17 replies, posted
[QUOTE][B]The inspector general report is the latest headache for Clinton in the scandal over her exclusive use of private email for State business.[/B] A State Department watchdog concluded that Hillary Clinton failed to comply with the agency’s policies on records while using a personal email server that was not — and, officials say, would never have been — approved by agency officials, [URL="http://static.politico.com/f3/9b/19d29ab14abeb4a30ca2975f1e6c/oig-report.pdf"]according to a report released to lawmakers on Wednesday[/URL]. The long-awaited findings from the State Department inspector general, which also revealed Clinton expressing reluctance about using an official email account, were shared with Capitol Hill Wednesday, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO. The report detailed how some employees who questioned the wisdom of the homegrown setup were told to stop asking questions, and the audit confirmed apparent hacking attempts on the private server. It's the latest turn in the headache-inducing saga that has dogged Clinton's campaign. While the report concludes that the agency suffers from "longstanding, systemic weaknesses" with records that "go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State,” it specifically dings Clinton for her exclusive use of private email during her four years at the agency. “Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,” the report states. “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act." The report also notes that she had an "obligation to discuss using her personal email account" but did not get permission from the people who would have needed to approve the technology, who said they would not have done so, if they had been asked. "According to the current [chief information officer] and assistant secretary for diplomatic security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs," the report reads. "However, according to these officials, [the relevant people] did not — and would not — approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email."[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553[/url]
And nothing will change Really I do wonder where all of this will go, they aren't going to bring charges against her and if they would, it's not like the election season is just going to wait while they spend 6 months figuring everything out
Clinton should hurry up and drop out, she's gonna be the reason we have president trump
[QUOTE=Sableye;50430896]And nothing will change Really I do wonder where all of this will go, they aren't going to bring charges against her and if they would, it's not like the election season is just going to wait while they spend 6 months figuring everything out[/QUOTE] I'd prefer it that way. I might actually just flip a shit if Obama pardons Clinton due to them being butt-buddies. I'd rather see Trump in office, and [I]then[/I] see Clinton charged.
[QUOTE=Monkah;50430939]I'd prefer it that way. I might actually just flip a shit if Obama pardons Clinton due to them being butt-buddies. I'd rather see Trump in office, and [I]then[/I] see Clinton charged.[/QUOTE] Maybe she'll be the first women president, and the first women president impeached. She can make history not once but TWICE.
[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1520011"]Already been posted[/URL]: She violated guidlines, however apparently this is a common thing, attention was only because of the hack. State Dept is now deciding to fix the rules.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50430929]Clinton should hurry up and drop out, she's gonna be the reason we have president trump[/QUOTE] The only thing to make her drop out is an indictment. Stop posting this in every Hillary thread.
Late to the party Reshy [QUOTE=cody8295;50430929]Clinton should hurry up and drop out, she's gonna be the reason we have president trump[/QUOTE] no the retards who vote Trump are to blame.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50431960]Late to the party Reshy no the retards who vote Trump are to blame.[/QUOTE] They wouldnt have to vote trump if there was an honest politician
[QUOTE=cody8295;50432938]They wouldnt have to vote trump if there was an honest politician[/QUOTE] pppppphhhhfff and Trump is honest?!
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50432975]pppppphhhhfff and Trump is honest?![/QUOTE] I think he's saying that Trump will ride into office on people making protest votes against the establishment. If both are untrustworthy, but hate for the establishment is higher, than the non-establishment liar will win over the establishment liar.
Meanwhile in California, she's leading 51% to Sanders' 38% according to a latest poll. Voters just don't care/know.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50432938]They wouldnt have to vote trump if there was an honest politician[/QUOTE] And the guy who's entire career is built on shady deals is somehow more honest?
[QUOTE=Sableye;50433294]And the guy who's entire career is built on shady deals is somehow more honest?[/QUOTE] He's not, but it doesn't matter. At this point ANYONE who's wielding the anti-establishment brand is preferable to Clinton (at least among those who have run out of patience with the current system) This is going to be a big gamble on the part of the DNC, nominating a massively pro-establishment candidate in the midst of the biggest anti-establishment populist wave this country's ever seen
[QUOTE=mcharest;50433379]He's not, but it doesn't matter. At this point ANYONE who's wielding the anti-establishment brand is preferable to Clinton (at least among those who have run out of patience with the current system) This is going to be a big gamble on the part of the DNC, nominating a massively pro-establishment candidate in the midst of the bigges[B]t anti-establishment populist wave [/B]this country's ever seen[/QUOTE] why the hell is Bernie Losing then and why is Obama Approval rating in the 50% mark he's pro-establishment.
Its a large Republican shift towards anti-establishment. Democrats want change as well but are not as rabid about the establishment. Also because Obama, personally, seems like a decent guy.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50433461]why the hell is Bernie Losing then and why is Obama Approval rating in the 50% mark he's pro-establishment.[/QUOTE] Keep in mind that the anti-establishment crowd includes both Bernie and Trump supporters, and even though Bernie isn't winning, it's still a significant chunk of the population. And the reason why Obama's approval rating is going up is because he hasn't really done anything too controversial recently and is both less crazy and more trustworthy than the majority of the candidates that were running. Out of Cruz, Trump, Hillary, and Bernie (all controversial in their own way), of course people are going to be a little bit more grateful towards the president they have now.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50433461]why the hell is Bernie Losing then and why is Obama Approval rating in the 50% mark he's pro-establishment.[/QUOTE] It's complicated, but keep in mind that those who voted for Obama were either lifelong Democrats or millennials who were just coming of age before they even knew what a superPAC was. So although they tolerate Obama and the decent job he's done marginally improving the status quo, they're less patient with today's candidates. That's something the political establishment and corporate media can't understand; their frame of reference is so grounded in the past, they can't understand that the entire game is changing right before their eyes. People are demanding more from their candidates, and rightly so. As for Bernie losing, who the hell knows. A lot of this country still isn't familiar with his message, no thanks to the media boycott by the way, and the primary has been so shady and full of cloak-and-dagger bullshit that it's hard to know what's really happening. Keep in mind, Hillary Clinton [I]barely[/I] won the Iowa caucus at the beginning, and no presidential candidate has ever gone on to win the general election without both early-voting states. So the whole inevitability argument was in doubt from the very start.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.