US Judge: Clinton may be ordered to testify in records case - Polidicks

[QUOTE]A federal judge said Wednesday he may order Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton to testify under oath about whether she used a private email server as secretary of state to evade public records disclosures. U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan signed an order granting a request from the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch to question six current and former State Department staffers about the creation and purpose of the private email system. Those on the list were some of Clinton's closest aides during her tenure as the nation's top diplomat, including former chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills, deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin and undersecretary Patrick F. Kennedy.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-judge-clinton-may-ordered-testify-records-case-182351893--election.html?nhp=1[/url] Looks like Clinton, the serial rape-apologist for Bill Clinton, may finally be getting her just desserts. I for one, could not be happier! It looks pretty bad for a presidential candidate when you are ordered to testify for such a damning crime.

Lmao serial rape apologist k btw Clinton people look at this and the bengazi hearings as nothing more than political posturing by republicans and a huge waste of time.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258399]Lmao serial rape apologist k[/QUOTE] that might be a bit much but I do have to admit that the party's whitewashing of bill clinton's potential sexual misconduct is pretty deeply concerning. coming from someone who has been taught to love the guy since I was a kid.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258399]Lmao serial rape apologist k btw Clinton people look at this and the bengazi hearings as nothing more than political posturing by republicans and a huge waste of time.[/QUOTE] So you think it's fine to ignore possible criminal charges on a candidate of the US Presidency?

man this election gets better and better. What's next Ted really is the Zodiac Killer? orange man is really a Martian?

[QUOTE=Radio Yes;50258428]So you think it's fine to ignore possible criminal charges on a candidate of the US Presidency?[/QUOTE] Depends on the crime imo. If the crime is selling secrets to the Russians, then I think they probably shouldn't be president.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258477]Depends on the crime imo. If the crime is selling secrets to the Russians, then I think they probably shouldn't be president.[/QUOTE] And if that crime is just neglecting security for ones own purposes whatever they may be?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258493]And if that crime is just neglecting security for ones own purposes whatever they may be?[/QUOTE] I really just assume she's just not a very technical person honestly. If the emails come out and say that Clinton hid her server because she was selling secrets to the Russians, I'd be more outraged/

it doesn't take a technical person to know you shouldn't be keeping classified info on servers that are not government owned and run :~)

I have not read it in full, but the Cox report may contain allegations concerning the Clintons and selling information to China. Maybe that why Hillary had the private server? So she could trade information to "sponsors" in secret.

especially when you're in her position

[QUOTE=bdd458;50258519]it doesn't take a technical person to know you shouldn't be keeping classified info on servers that are not government owned and run :~)[/QUOTE] Most people think computers are magical boxes

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258510]I really just assume she's just not a very technical person honestly.[/QUOTE] 'whoops I don't know how to computer lol' is not a valid excuse for mishandling classified misinformation. Especially not Top Secret information, for fuck's sake.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50258528]'whoops I don't know how to computer lol' is not a valid excuse for mishandling classified misinformation.[/QUOTE] I don't think it's an excuse but I don't think it's worth sending someone to jail over.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258522]Most people think computers are magical boxes[/QUOTE] Yes, clearly someone who has no clue: [quote]"If they can't," Clinton replies, "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/[/url]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258531]I don't think it's an excuse but I don't think it's worth sending someone to jail over.[/QUOTE] So you'd defend a regular soldier from doing this?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258510]I really just assume she's just not a very technical person honestly. If the emails come out and say that Clinton hid her server because she was selling secrets to the Russians, I'd be more outraged/[/QUOTE] As the secretary of state she should have known that sensitive american secrets don't belong on hackable unencrypted personal servers

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258522]Most people think computers are magical boxes[/QUOTE] true, but this is the [i]President of the United States[/i] we're talking about. Is that REALLY the kind of person you want running it?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258572]So you'd defend a regular soldier from doing this?[/QUOTE] Yeah, totally. If it was a mistake he should be fired, not sent to jail. If he maliciously did this in order to make it less secure so the russians could steal it, then he should go to jail. [editline]4th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ThatSprite;50258592]true, but this is the [i]President of the United States[/i] we're talking about. Is that REALLY the kind of person you want running it?[/QUOTE] I'm 99% sure we've never had and probably never will have a president who understands computers.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258510]I really just assume she's just not a very technical person honestly. If the emails come out and say that Clinton hid her server because she was selling secrets to the Russians, I'd be more outraged/[/QUOTE] Yeah, she accidentally went out of her way to have a separate email server set up other than the one that was automatically provided to her by the state department. Just a big oopsie because grandma doesn't understand computers!

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258596]Yeah, totally. If it was a mistake he should be fired, not sent to jail. If he maliciously did this in order to make it less secure so the russians could steal it, then he should go to jail. [editline]4th May 2016[/editline] I'm 99% sure we've never had and probably never will have a president who understands computers.[/QUOTE] But the fact is he would go to jail instantly. He would have none of what Clinton's had. Seems highly hypocritical to support a candidate who would go to jail if they were a normal person but because of their political ties is fine. That seems wrong.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258596]Yeah, totally. If it was a mistake he should be fired, not sent to jail. If he maliciously did this in order to make it less secure so the russians could steal it, then he should go to jail.[/QUOTE] Some emails were hacked by a romanian hacker and leaked. It sure as fuck warrants prison time

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258531]I don't think it's an excuse but I don't think it's worth sending someone to jail over.[/QUOTE] There are laws you must follow in accordance to handling (or rather mishandling classified data), as well as being subject to FOIA requests. She failed on both of those fronts, and as someone who was both a First Lady, Senator, AND Secratary of State she knew fully well what those laws and regulations are. If what has been said about the classified material on there is true, she fully fucking well deserves to go to prison for it.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258596]Yeah, totally. If it was a mistake he should be fired, not sent to jail. If he maliciously did this in order to make it less secure so the russians could steal it, then he should go to jail. [editline]4th May 2016[/editline] I'm 99% sure we've never had and probably never will have a president who understands computers.[/QUOTE] Al gore came pretty close

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258522]Most people think computers are magical boxes[/QUOTE] Either Hillary is one of them, or she is a blatant liar. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2OJwsit0WY[/media]

So I'm doing some research here, and apparently the federal government lets employees use personal email accounts for government work. It's not illegal for them to do so, but highly discouraged. In fact, according to the state department, John Kerry is the first Sec. of state NOT to use a primarily private email address, and Clinton is the only one to have a private server, while other secretaries of state relied on outside companies to handle their emails. The issue, it seems, is that the government requires all government business emails to be preserved and cataloged in a specific way, and Clinton deleted several thousand emails which she had said were private emails. The issue is not that Clinton used a private address, which apparently every secretary of state had already used, it's that she deleted thousands of emails which she claims are private

No, it's the fact she was exclusively using a private email. Many members of the government used provate email, but not EXCLUSIVELY. [quote=PolitiFact]seems she didn’t break a rule simply by using a personal email to conduct business. Rather, by using personal emails exclusively, she skirted the rules governing federal records management, Cox said. A federal record is any documentary material, regardless of physical form, made or received by a government agency, according to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which oversees federal recordkeeping. Records are preserved as evidence of the agencies’ activities, decisions and procedures. Each agency is responsible for maintaining its records in accordance with regulations. It would have been a violation of the NARA's rules in the Code of Federal Regulations for Clinton to use personal email exclusively, Metcalfe said. The code requires federal agencies to make and preserve records that duly document agency activity, so that they are readily available when needed -- such as for FOIA requests or congressional inquiries. Using personal email exclusively is contrary to proper record preservation. "Anyone at NARA would have said you can’t use a personal email account for all of your official business," said Metcalfe, who held his position in part during former President Bill Clinton’s administration.[/quote] [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/[/url] The fact she deleted half of those emails on the server is just icing on the cake. [editline]4th May 2016[/editline] Also this quote: [Quote=PolitiFact]Clinton’s office sent a memo in 2011 to State Department staff that said they should not use personal email accounts for department business. The memo went to diplomatic and consular staff worldwide in response to a warning from Google that hackers had targeted the Gmail addresses of government workers. While the memo encouraged staffers to avoid using personal email accounts, it fell short of prohibiting their use.[/quote]

Right so it sounds like a federal records case, not a private server thing.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258660]So I'm doing some research here, and apparently the federal government lets employees use personal email accounts for government work. [/QUOTE] For unclassified material not labeled with a handling/dissemination control, yes. For anything classified, hell no. You are legally not allowed to carry classified information outside a secure environment without proper handling protocols (ie a physically secure lock bag and documented destination). That is literally the entire point of classification, to keep sensitive information in secure places that only cleared people have access to.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50258789]For unclassified material not labeled with a handling/dissemination control, yes. For anything classified, hell no. You are legally not allowed to carry classified information outside a secure environment without proper handling protocols (ie a physically secure lock bag and documented destination). That is literally the entire point of classification, to keep sensitive information in secure places that only cleared people have access to.[/QUOTE] Do you have a source?