Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (315949)	10/31/2016 3:53:56 AM
From: Gib Bogle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540708

Don't forget that the issue of the emails arose from the fake Benghazi investigation. They drew a blank with Benghazi, but this was an enormous stroke of luck for her enemies.

To: bentway who wrote (315949)	10/31/2016 4:23:34 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 540708

As far as I know, no other cabinet official has ever had all their emails examined. My understanding is that Freedom of Information requests can allow cabinet officials emails to be examined. The FOIA request is filed and approved, and then the emails are retrieved from the government storage system and examined. It's basically an "automated" process, and doesn't involved the person who wrote the email. Hillary's decision to keep all her emails on a private server made the automated part of retrieving her emails impossible. Problem 1 - Hillary's decision to use a personal email server rather than the government system prevents the FOIA system from functioning normally (ie, without her input). So when all her work emails were requested, her lawyers went through her private email system and decided half of them were work related, the other half were "personal" in nature, and not subject to the Freedom of Information Request. So they PRINTED OUT ON HARD COPY the work related emails, thus satisfying the FOIA request. Problem 2 - Hillary's own team (not an objective 3rd party) decided which of her comingled work and personal emails were relevant, and which were not. Then Hillary's team deleted the held back 30,000 "personal emails" with high tech deletion software, so that they could not be recovered, at all. Problem 3 - Why delete personal emails about yoga and wedding plans with high tech deletion software? Usually you delete stuff that incriminates you because you don't want others to find it and be able to prove that you are guilty. No one needs to delete emails about yoga plans. It looks like she's hiding something. Then Hillary claimed that there was no classified info ever on her personal server. Upon inspection of the emails that were handed over (in paper form), this is found to be false. Problem 4 - Either accidentally or on purpose, Hillary lied about whether classified info was on her server. So....how can the public trust her about what was deleted? I tend to agree with Comey's initial assessment that (probably) there was no crime here, but the optics are awful. It shows Clinton to be (perhaps legally) circumventing the process that allows accountability in the federal government (FOIA requests), for what purpose we can only speculate, but my hunch is it's not for the common good, it's for her own benefit. It seems wrong that Comey has thrown out this bombshell days before the election, and it seems it might give us a Trump Presidency (Oh My God!). But Hillary didn't need to set up a personal email server, she could have just used the government system that EVERYONE ELSE uses, she could have given ALL 65,000 emails (personal and work related) when they were requested, she could have stored the 30,000 personal emails in case they were requested in a future date (why permanently delete them????), and most of all she could have just retired in 2012 at the ripe old age of 64. But she couldn't manage any of those options. In conclusion, there's nothing wrong with the public wanting to see our elected officials work product. There is something wrong with the elected official trying to prevent that. She brought it on herself.