Hillary Clinton used personal email for work while at State

[Team Sergeant]

I did not realize that "law" or "obeying" said laws applies to democrats?

And who's going to bring down the hammer on them?

No one.


In stark contrast the DOJ and the FBI found this: (I hate using the NYT's for stories, but that's how the left-wing socialists work.)


Ferguson Police Routinely Violate Rights of Blacks, Justice Dept. Finds

By MATT APUZZOMARCH 3, 2015

WASHINGTON — Ferguson, Mo., is a third white, but the crime statistics compiled in the city over the past two years seemed to suggest that only black people were breaking the law. They accounted for 85 percent of traffic stops, 90 percent of tickets and 93 percent of arrests. In cases like jaywalking, which often hinge on police discretion, blacks accounted for 95 percent of all arrests.

The racial disparity in those statistics was so stark that the Justice Department has concluded in a report scheduled for release on Wednesday that there was only one explanation: The Ferguson Police Department was routinely violating the constitutional rights of its black residents.





http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us...uson.html?_r=0

[Box]

Just wait until 47% of America votes for her to become president...
...then you will see how terrifying transparency really is.

The liberals in the republican party have a very steep uphill battle to fight in the coming election cycle. The conservative wing of the republican party are all out riding their unicorns and don't seem at all interested in participating.

[Team Sergeant]

The only folks that are put off about Hillary breaking the law is folks that can read and give a shit about this nation.

The rest of this country will vote for her if she ate dead babies.

No one in the United States government will bother to investigate her actions, in fact the story is only being brought to light by private citizens.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the FBI to investigate Hitlery, remember, there's ISIS in all 50 States.

http://abc7chicago.com/news/isis-pre...r-says/534732/

Nothing to see here, move along and please leave your personal freedoms in the jar by the door.

[Streck-Fu]

TS,

I have seen several articles that make the assertion that Ferguson Police are profiling and preying on the poor black population but most seem to lack substance and facts. As you wrote, when caught, they claim oppression.

Below is one that I found which using the case of one woman to highlight the police and administrative tactics claimed to take advantage of the people. If this is the best case this author could find to use an example of police and administrative fee abuse, I have no real sympathy. One cannot get a valid ticket, refuse to pay, skip court dates, enter a payment plan, not pay, and then claim oppression when you finally do get arrested....

LINK

“He was really nice and polite at first,” Bolden says. “But once he ran my name, he got real mean with me. He told me I was going to jail. I had my 3-year-old and my one-and-a-half-year-old with me. I asked him about my kids. He said I had better find someone to come and get them, because he was taking me in.” The Florissant officer arrested and cuffed Bolden in front of her children. Her kids remained with another officer until Bolden’s mother and sister could come pick them up.

The officer found that Bolden had four arrest warrants in three separate jurisdictions: the towns of Florissant and Hazelwood in St. Louis County and the town of Foristell in St. Charles County. All of the warrants were for failure to appear in court for traffic violations. Bolden hadn’t appeared in court because she didn’t have the money. A couple of those fines were for speeding, one was for failure to wear her seatbelt and most of the rest were for what defense attorneys in the St. Louis area have come to call “poverty violations” — driving with a suspended license, expired plates, expired registration and a failure to provide proof of insurance.
......................
The Foristell warrant stemmed from a speeding ticket in 2011. As mentioned before, Bolden didn’t show up in court because she didn’t have the money to pay it and feared they’d put her jail. It’s a common and unfortunate misconception among St. Louis County residents, especially those who don’t have an attorney to tell them otherwise. A town can’t put you in jail for lacking the money to pay a fine. But you can be jailed for not appearing in court to tell the judge you can’t pay — and fined again for not showing up. After twice failing to appear for the Foristell ticket, Bolden showed up, was able to get the warrant removed and set up a payment plan with the court. But she says that a few months later, she was a couple days late with her payment. She says she called to notify the clerk, who told her not to worry. Instead, the town hit her with another warrant — the same warrant for which she was jailed in March.

[JJ_BPK]

Seems hilabitch was warned not to use private email, so I guessing we can add aiding and abetting??

Revealed: Clinton’s office was warned over private email use State Department cybersecurity source says Clinton aides ignored concerns, March 3, 2015 6:00PM ET, by Steve Friess @stevefriess

State Department technology experts expressed security concerns that then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was using a private email service rather than the government’s fortified and monitored system, but those fears fell on deaf ears, a current employee on the department’s cybersecurity team told Al Jazeera America on Tuesday.


The employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said it was well known that Clinton’s emails were at greater risk of being hacked, intercepted or monitored, but the warnings were ignored.

“We tried,” the employee said. “We told people in her office that it wasn’t a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed.”

http://america.aljazeera.com/article...email-use.html

Glad berry's team is on top of the problem...

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

I am not trolling. I would like a simple, non-academic, answer to the question, "Do you think there will be meaningful consequences for Lerner and Clinton within a reasonable time frame such that those consequences will serve as a deterrent to other executives in policy management positions in this administration?"

Historians being able to write books in future may not be able to reverse this acceleration of executive branch power grabbing.

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

Let us not mix current avoidance of published law and after the fact historical access.

@Streck-Fu, the answer to your question is yes. Please keep in mind that historians also teach in the Ivory Tower and engage general audiences through public lectures, symposia, and readings of works in progress. While historians agonize over the relevance of the craft and bemoan their diminished status in the public eye, they can and do frame the debate over contemporaneous issues in real time.

Here's the thing. Many of today's preeminent historians are of the generation that protested the Johnson administration's stonewalling of the American people and other examples of the imperial presidency up to the present day. Many of today's historians believe it is their obligation to "tell truth to power." Many of today's historians have experiences in which they have paid tremendous personal, economic, and professional costs because they were denied access to materials controlled by the American government. (One of the few times I've seen the Gavel edition of The Pentagon Papers was in the office of an urban historian. In hindsight, I don't think it was by accident that he had placed the volumes where both he and visitors would see them when seated.)

IRT governmental transparency, the American Historical Association most recently expressed its view in 2007 and restated that view last year. The kindling is there and Mrs. Clinton has provided a spark.

IMO, if this issue is allowed to generate momentum organically (that is, outside of the Fox/CNBC duel of echo chambers), the consequences might be profound: WTF editorials by prominent historians in newspapers, pointed comments in lecture halls filled with undergraduates, revised prefaces and acknowledgements in manuscripts headed to press, and letters of concern by professional associations to American lawmakers.

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

I think it is criminal...

@JJ_BPK,

In my view, Mrs. Clinton's disregard for the law is already being addressed by the House of Representatives. The Fourth Estate appears to be engaged as well. To me, beating the drums excessively is going to make the select committee's job more difficult because it maximizes opportunities for Americans to cry "partisanship."

To me, this is an opportunity for voters to let professional parliamentarians and journalists to do their jobs.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

Seems hilabitch was warned not to use private email, so I guessing we can add aiding and abetting??



Glad berry's team is on top of the problem...

So, who's going to take action? Red Cross? NAMBLA? SETI?

No one is going to take action. The FBI is currently busy with ISIS in all 57 states.

[69harley]

Anyone know what the statue of limitation is for this law?

My idea of hope and change is a republican winning the white house and prosecuting Hillary, and others.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

So, who's going to take action? Red Cross? NAMBLA? SETI?

No one is going to take action. The FBI is currently busy with ISIS in all 57 states.

And investigating racism for arresting more minorities than allowed.

TR

[Sigaba]

An editorial in today's on line edition of the New York Times <<SOURCE>>.

By MATTHEW CONNELLY and RICHARD H. IMMERMAN
MARCH 4, 2015

HISTORY will be the judge: That’s the line leaders often use when making difficult decisions. Historians, after all, have the benefit of hindsight and archives full of once-secret files. But how will history judge a generation of leaders who don’t preserve the historical record?

The revelation on Monday that Hillary Rodham Clinton used only a personal email account when she was secretary of state and did not preserve her emails on departmental servers seems to reflect a troubling indifference to saving the history she was living. Mrs. Clinton’s aides eventually turned over 55,000 pages of correspondence. But the State Department’s Office of the Historian estimates that the department produces two billion emails a year.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED IN OPINION

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in 2011.Editorial: Hillary Clinton’s Use of Personal EmailMARCH 4, 2015
Even if she had dutifully archived all her correspondence, future Americans still might not have learned much about the Arab Spring or Iran’s nuclear program. The bigger problem is that the government produces an astounding volume of email, much of it classified, and the public doesn’t get to see it unless archivists can preserve and process it.

This is a problem for the entire federal government, as we should have realized when the Internal Revenue Service could not produce even very recent emails to answer a congressional inquiry in 2014. While archiving email presents a technical challenge to the federal government, the Obama administration, to its credit, has ordered that all electronic records be managed digitally by 2019, including records that, in the past, departments would have printed out before sending to the National Archives and Records Administration. That organization itself is already overwhelmed with unprocessed paper records dating from the Cold War.

According to the nonpartisan Public Interest Declassification Board, a single intelligence agency is producing a petabyte of classified data every 18 months, or the equivalent of 20 million four-drawer file cabinets. The National Archives estimates that, without new technology to accelerate the process, that information would take two million employees a year to review for declassification. Instead, there are just 41 archivists working in College Park, Md., to review records from across the entire federal government — one page at a time.

“Big Data” is a big management challenge. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have chosen to devote more resources to protecting state secrets than to preserving the historical record. The Information Security Oversight Office, the government’s tiny watchdog agency, notes that of the estimated $11.6 billion spent in 2013 to keep information secure, only $99 million was spent on declassification, less than a third as much as 15 years ago. In the late 1990s more than 200 million pages of documents were being declassified each year. Today, that figure has stagnated at around 30 million, despite a huge increase in classified data.

William A. Mayer, executive for research services at the National Archives, said at a recent conference that the current volume of classified information “boggles the mind.” He described the last scene from the Steven Spielberg film “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” where a crate stamped “top secret” was lost among thousands of other crates in a cavernous warehouse. “Spielberg got it right!” Mr. Mayer told the crowd. Our secrets are getting lost, and lost forever.

Consider the example of the State Department’s core Central Foreign Policy Files, the National Archives’ first large collection of electronic records. We have no diplomatic cables for whole weeks from the 1970s. They were lost long ago — nobody knows when, or why. Recently, archivists started to delete millions more cables and documents sight unseen because they did not have the staff to review them.

This is the legacy of excessive secrecy and underinvestment in government’s most basic function: preserving a record of what it does in our name.

Clearly, archivists, and Mrs. Clinton, need new technology to process electronic records, as lawyers realized when they began relying on e-discovery methods. But we need more radical measures, too. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once observed, officials hoard secrets because they are the currency of power, but too many secrets debase that currency. Officials should not be able to “mint” new secrets until they declassify an equivalent number of old secrets. Wrongly withholding information from the public should be treated with the same severity as an unauthorized disclosure. And if the executive branch cannot reform itself, Congress should create an independent authority to control official secrecy and safeguard the public record.

The government is producing more classified documents than it knows what to do with. The National Archives is buckling under the strain, and could collapse under an avalanche of electronic records. If it does, America’s commitment to transparent governance will become a thing of the past, because the past itself will be impossible to recover.

Matthew Connelly is a professor of history at Columbia University. Richard H. Immerman, a professor of history at Temple University, is chairman of the State Department’s Historical Advisory Committee.

I'm not familiar with Connelly's work, but reading between the lines, the man is a rising star (i.e. a full professorship at an Ivy League school in less than twenty years after earning a doctorate is no easy feat). Professor Immerman is a very big name in the history of American foreign relations. Among his accomplishments is the expansion of "Eisenhower revisionism" to take a second long look at Eisenhower's first secretary of state, John Foster Dulles. Immerman's politics are left of center.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

I am not trolling.

Really?

Sigaba more than stated his position of the matter from a historian's perspective inre a LARGE sub-issue (which may, in fact, turn out to be a larger issue once all the chips have fallen) with far-reaching implications for researchers (policy advisors, archivists, etc and not just book writers) both inside and outside government - he is not opining as to whether or not anyone is guilty or what will/should happen to them as that is a legal matter TBA.

You may offer your opinions on the matter of assigned guilt or punishment for whatever they may be worth, but I applaud Sigaba for not placing his head in the 'snare' you are seemingly concerned with setting for him in this thread. To that end, you might want to reread the postings (his and yours) and rethink your efforts.

Richard

[The Reaper]

I think history is only one of the concerns here, when criminal activity is also a potential motive.

TR

[SouthernDZ]

These facts concerning Hillary's exclusive use of personal e-mails, her own private servers and the fact that many of her e-mails that were not archived by recipients (foreign nationals, NGOs, etc.), raise a lot of other issues. Just what did the Accountability Review Board's (ARB) look at? I may be naïve, but was a fine man like ADM Mullens actually a party to such a shoddy report or was he really bought and paid for?

On an unrelated topic, does Costa Rica have an extradition treaty with the US?

[Streck-Fu]

The historians may reference the evidence presented at the trials. Let the evidenciary records be public. Ideally, there will be trials. My confidence of that is low.

So, my assertion stands; what benefit is there to the citizens without consequences to politicians and executives committing these crimes?

[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

Seems hilabitch was warned not to use private email, so I guessing we can add aiding and abetting??



Glad berry's team is on top of the problem...

Between this, Benghazi and her willingness to keep married to an admitted adulterer for personal gain it looks like there will be plenty of fuel for the mudslinging campaign once she's put on the presidential ballot. I also sincerely hope there is an ad that shows striking similarity between her lies of being under sniper fire and the lies of Brian Williams, followed by a statement that if he couldn't even be trusted to deliver the news, how the hell can she be trusted to run the country?!