- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| BlockBuster DC Judge Says Hillary's Server / Email is her Private Business | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 7 2015, 05:35 PM (225 Views) | |
| Mason | Oct 7 2015, 05:35 PM Post #1 |
Parts unknown
|
. DC Judge says Hillary's Email and Server is her private business. WOW! Can you imagine a ruling like this for anyone else harboring Classified Data and bypassing every rule to have a Private Network off-Net from Gov't oversight? Just unbelievable! |
 |
 
|
| Mason | Oct 7 2015, 05:38 PM Post #2 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. How about the Kentucky Marriage license clerk - do you think if she used, in contravention of the rules, her own private server and email, that it would be said that's her private business - or do think the rulings would be that she forfeited her privacy when she hid her official Gov't business on a private network system? . Edited by Mason, Oct 7 2015, 05:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Mason | Oct 7 2015, 05:40 PM Post #3 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. How about Dick Cheney and his Chief of Staff? How about if they hid their Gov't communications on an Off-net Private Computer system, server and email? Do you think it would ruled off-limits and out of the jurisdiction of Gov't, Judges, and plaintiffs? . |
|
|
|
| Mason | Oct 7 2015, 06:04 PM Post #4 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Obama Admin argued that since she used Private system - there is no authority. It's her business and she is the only arbiter of what is Private - and what is not. You will never see this argument again, folks! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/7/judge-says-hillary-clintons-server-private/print/ . |
|
|
|
| kbp | Oct 7 2015, 07:44 PM Post #5 |
|
It's about an FOIA case. It seems like IF she can avoid turning over her server data, we can only assume she is illegally holding government records. The short-term outcome is she looks like she's fighting to hide something. |
|
|
| Baldo | Oct 7 2015, 08:46 PM Post #6 |
|
But on the same Day FBI Seizes Four State Department Servers in Clinton Email Probe Probe focusing on how classified information was sent to secretary of state The FBI has seized four State Department computer servers as part of its probe into how classified information was compromised on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email system, according to people familiar with the investigation. The four servers, which were located at the State Department’s headquarters building, were seized by the FBI several weeks ago. They are being checked by technical forensic analysts charged with determining how Top Secret material was sent to Clinton’s private email by State Department aides during her tenure as secretary from 2009 to 2013, said two people familiar with the probe. The people spoke on condition of anonymity because it is an ongoing investigation. State Department spokesman John Kirby referred questions about the computer servers to the FBI. An FBI spokeswoman, Carol Cratty, declined to comment...snipped http://freebeacon.com/politics/fbi-seizes-four-state-department-servers-in-clinton-email-probe/ I really don't know the significance of the Judge ruling it was her private server. However with today's revelation of a possible back-up with another compan & the company employees worrying about what the Clinton Team was ordering I think she is in BIG TROUBLE Too many bricks are falling. |
|
|
|
| Mason | Oct 7 2015, 08:47 PM Post #7 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Now let me ask you this. Can you imagine this DOJ prosecuting Hillary, in any way whatsoever, with the this DOJ going before a Judge (already) and saying that the emails and files are her's alone - and she's the only authority on them? They've either decided she's has a total immunity card - or they've purposely hampered any other efforts to have her produce records - and hold anyone responsible. If I recall correctly, the Clinton Peeps were the ones with FBI files. Maybe they found one on this Judge laying next to her Whitewater records. . |
|
|
|
| kbp | Oct 7 2015, 09:13 PM Post #8 |
|
If she did not send or receive an email from someone on dot gov they find and she withheld. There are like 9+/- judges involved, so she's not doing well sp far. Edited by kbp, Oct 7 2015, 09:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Mason | Oct 7 2015, 10:03 PM Post #9 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. "Judge Reggie B. Walton said since Mrs. Clinton used her own BlackBerry and computer devices, and kept her email server at her home, he doesn't have authority over the records she created on those." He is saying effectively they are Not Government Records. That is landmark. That is rewarding the behavior. He's giving a green light for the IRS, FBI, DOJ and everyone else to simply opt out using the Government systems and bypassing oversight as Hillary did. Make up a name and pay $200 for your own blackberry and you're on your way. Tell everyone to use your Joeschmoe@privateanonymous.com - and your above the law. . |
|
|
|
| wingedwheel | Oct 7 2015, 10:26 PM Post #10 |
Not Pictured Above
|
If they are not government records why has the government confiscated them? Furthermore The 2009 Federal Records Act states "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system." Seems to me they are either government records. There is also the issue of her mishandling classified information in those emails witch would make two crimes this judge seems to have no problem with. |
|
|
|
| wingedwheel | Oct 7 2015, 10:32 PM Post #11 |
|
Not Pictured Above
|
|
|
|
|
| Mason | Oct 7 2015, 10:49 PM Post #12 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. This smells to high heaven. Maybe the Government record he's concerned with is his F B I file. . |
|
|
|
| kbp | Oct 8 2015, 06:45 AM Post #13 |
|
My take on this is the judge is going by only what the FOIA allows in the way of what records must be made public. I'm sure Judicial Watch asked for government records besides just emails (memo's, letters...). Whether they did not not, I'm under the impression the same limitations would apply. Lets say a government employee has 10 file cabinets full of records that came about in their life while serving in that position and they said 5 cabinets were private or personal information, while the other 5 were government records they turned over. Does a judge have the authority to search all the alleged "private or personal information" to verify it is NOT information subject to the FOIA? Clinton's argument is that the FOIA is not an open-ended warrant for the government to search any and all of her "private or personal information" just to prove there may be something in it that the FOIA provides authority for the public to see. That's how I take what the judge has said. . |
|
|
|
| Mason | Oct 8 2015, 11:58 AM Post #14 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Somewhere in there - not recognizing her steps to hide Gov't files and shield them from oversight - is a ruling saying that it's her business, her files, and her data. Some of this translates to other courts. . |
|
|
|
| kbp | Oct 8 2015, 08:35 PM Post #15 |
|
Judicial Watch has so many lawsuits in this and related matters that it is hard to know what the exact details are unless you read all the legal documents. JW is bragging on the outcomes, so I can't make much of what Judge Walton said without knowing the exact details involved. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
11:54 AM Jul 13