NYT, MSNBC, CNN: Hillary broke the law

[tornado]

Dialogue, we don't need not stinkin' dialogue when a video can do the talkin.

[Snail]

Dialogue, we don't need not stinkin' dialogue when a video can do the talkin.

You get humor right? I bet liberals think that SNL video is funny too. I know I do.

[oregon 67]

So now there have been some 50 responses to this thread about Hillary.

SF Lib, it makes me wonder? You post the faults of those you don't support, and seldom if ever post in praise of those you champion.

So why not go positive for a change and see if you can convert some of the commie pink liberal progressives to your cause?

'Cause this stuff gets tedious.

There is nothing positive about to say about what s/he "champions". The only thing s/he can do is post bullsh*t and lies about those s/he doesn't support.

Ok the over he top award!!!! To say that SFL posts lies and bullshit about those he doesn't support is really telling that the party of intelligence is truly blinded by party affiliation.
My stance is that NO politician has the best interests of the people in their for thought except at election time.

ACA who won big business . Geo. Soros/ media matters good, Fox lies.

So, After the rant I can answer the $64,000 question. There are NO positive attributes of the opposition (rep) party. and you have never clawed your way over affirmative action road blocks to find a decent living then be told your rich, you should be thankful for all we have done for you. There is my distain for the Dems.

The so called leaders of our country forget that they are the stewards of what our forefathers died for. Our impoverished have a better life than most of the world. And still we are lead to believe that if we give them more they will somehow rise up and be productive.

When the dems on this sight admit that their party is at fault as much as the repubs , We as a nation will begin to heal. I won't hold my breath.

SFL can continue to spew his form of rabid intolerance as much those that think stole the election and their rabid intolerance .

[SFLiberal]

Rabid Intolerance? I plead guilty. I have no tolerance for a politician that is a pathological liar and in Obama and the Clintons we have three shining examples. How many times are these people going to lie before you progressives say enough is enough? It appears never, political ideology trumps truthfulness and the rule of law.

Obama is asked a question and it seems more times than not a lie just rolls off his tongue. His peeps then later have to clean up his lies. The latest was last Saturday when he was asked about when he first learned about Hillary and her private email account. He said he learned about it on the news like everyone else. Yesterday the WH had to scramble to clean up that lie. Why can't he just tell the truth for once in his life?

I heard about it from the news:

Obama on Clinton emails, IRS, VA, Fast and Furious: I heard about it on the news
Published March 10, 2015

The most powerful man in the world sure seems to get a lot of information about what's going on inside his administration from outside news reports.

The latest example was President Obama saying in an interview aired over the weekend that he learned of his former secretary of state's personal email use from the media.

Asked when he first found out Hillary Clinton was using a non-official system to conduct government business, Obama told CBS News: "The same time as everybody else, through news reports."

It wasn't quite that simple, as the White House soon clarified. Press Secretary Josh Earnest acknowledged Monday that Obama and Clinton did exchange emails.

"The president, as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office, trade emails with the secretary of state," he said.

Presumably, that means the president would have noticed Clinton was not using a ".gov" account. But Earnest said Obama nevertheless was unaware of Clinton's personal email server and how she was following federal records law.

This, of course, is hardly the first time Obama has claimed he was in the dark about a scandal in his administration until it surfaced in the news.

Here's a look back at other news flashes delivered to the White House on his watch.

1. VA wait-time scandal

When news reports broke that dozens of veterans died while waiting for care at a Phoenix VA facility, then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked about the claims at a May 19, 2014, briefing.

"I believe we learned about them through the reports. I will double-check if that's not the case. But that's when we learned about them, and that's when, as I understand, Secretary [Eric] Shinseki learned about them and immediately took the action that he has taken, including instigating his own review ... but also requesting that the inspector general investigate," Carney said.

Shinseki resigned several days later, and was replaced.

2. IRS targeting

Then-IRS senior official Lois Lerner admitted in May 2013 that her agency had conducted inappropriate targeting of conservative groups, by singling them out for additional -- often drawn-out -- scrutiny when applying for tax-exempt status.

Obama was asked about the revelation during a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron.

"I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this," Obama said. "I think it was on Friday. And this is pretty straightforward."

The president was asked again about the issue during a press conference with Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan -- specifically whether the White House knew about the IRS actions before April, when his counsel's office first learned of them.

"I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press," Obama said, referring to a highly critical IG report that helped drive the IRS' public admission. "Typically, the IG reports are not supposed to be widely distributed or shared."

3. DOJ press subpoenas

Around the same time as the IRS controversy, it was revealed that the Justice Department had issued subpoenas for Associated Press phone records.

Asked on May 14, 2013, when Obama found out, Carney said: "Yesterday. Let me just be clear. We don't have any independent knowledge of that. He found out about the news reports yesterday on the road."

4. Fast and Furious

Obama was asked in a March 22, 2011, interview with CNN Espanol about the Fast and Furious scandal, where federal law enforcement officials allowed guns to be illegally trafficked across the Mexican border and tried to monitor them. The weapons later showed up at numerous crime scenes, including when border agent Brian Terry was killed in December 2010.

Obama said at the time:

"I heard on the news about this story that Fast and Furious, where allegedly guns were being run into Mexico and ATF knew about it but didn't apprehend those who had sent it. Eric Holder has -- the attorney general has been very clear that he knew nothing about this. We had assigned an IG, inspector general, to investigate it."

Carney reiterated that point again at a press briefing in June 2012.

"Everyone knows the president did not know about this tactic until he heard about it through the media; the attorney general did not know about it," he said. "The tactic itself was employed by the previous administration in a different operation. This was a field office tactic that was flawed. And when the attorney general learned about it, he took action to ensure that it was no longer used, and he directed the inspector general at the Department of Justice to investigate."

5. Air Force One flyover

Early on in the Obama administration, in April 2009, an Air Force One flyover was staged over New York City as part of a photo op and exercise. But local officials had not been notified, and, in a city still shaken by the 9/11 attacks, the flyover caused public panic.

Asked about it on April 28, Obama said: "It was a mistake, as was -- as was stated. It was something we found out about along with all of you and it will not happen again."

Obama on Clinton emails, IRS, VA, Fast and Furious: I heard about it on the news

[Snail]

Rabid Intolerance? I plead guilty. I have no tolerance for a politician that is a pathological liar and in Obama and the Clintons we have three shining examples. How many times are these people going to lie before you progressives say enough is enough? It appears never, political ideology trumps truthfulness and the rule of law.

Obama is asked a question and it seems more times than not a lie just rolls off his tongue. His peeps then later have to clean up his lies. The latest was last Saturday when he was asked about when he first learned about Hillary and her private email account. He said he learned about it on the news like everyone else. Yesterday the WH had to scramble to clean up that lie. Why can't he just tell the truth for once in his life?

I heard about it from the news:

Obama on Clinton emails, IRS, VA, Fast and Furious: I heard about it on the news
Published March 10, 2015

The most powerful man in the world sure seems to get a lot of information about what's going on inside his administration from outside news reports.

The latest example was President Obama saying in an interview aired over the weekend that he learned of his former secretary of state's personal email use from the media.

Asked when he first found out Hillary Clinton was using a non-official system to conduct government business, Obama told CBS News: "The same time as everybody else, through news reports."

It wasn't quite that simple, as the White House soon clarified. Press Secretary Josh Earnest acknowledged Monday that Obama and Clinton did exchange emails.

"The president, as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office, trade emails with the secretary of state," he said.

Presumably, that means the president would have noticed Clinton was not using a ".gov" account. But Earnest said Obama nevertheless was unaware of Clinton's personal email server and how she was following federal records law.

This, of course, is hardly the first time Obama has claimed he was in the dark about a scandal in his administration until it surfaced in the news.

Here's a look back at other news flashes delivered to the White House on his watch.

1. VA wait-time scandal

When news reports broke that dozens of veterans died while waiting for care at a Phoenix VA facility, then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked about the claims at a May 19, 2014, briefing.

"I believe we learned about them through the reports. I will double-check if that's not the case. But that's when we learned about them, and that's when, as I understand, Secretary [Eric] Shinseki learned about them and immediately took the action that he has taken, including instigating his own review ... but also requesting that the inspector general investigate," Carney said.

Shinseki resigned several days later, and was replaced.

2. IRS targeting

Then-IRS senior official Lois Lerner admitted in May 2013 that her agency had conducted inappropriate targeting of conservative groups, by singling them out for additional -- often drawn-out -- scrutiny when applying for tax-exempt status.

Obama was asked about the revelation during a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron.

"I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this," Obama said. "I think it was on Friday. And this is pretty straightforward."

The president was asked again about the issue during a press conference with Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan -- specifically whether the White House knew about the IRS actions before April, when his counsel's office first learned of them.

"I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press," Obama said, referring to a highly critical IG report that helped drive the IRS' public admission. "Typically, the IG reports are not supposed to be widely distributed or shared."

3. DOJ press subpoenas

Around the same time as the IRS controversy, it was revealed that the Justice Department had issued subpoenas for Associated Press phone records.

Asked on May 14, 2013, when Obama found out, Carney said: "Yesterday. Let me just be clear. We don't have any independent knowledge of that. He found out about the news reports yesterday on the road."

4. Fast and Furious

Obama was asked in a March 22, 2011, interview with CNN Espanol about the Fast and Furious scandal, where federal law enforcement officials allowed guns to be illegally trafficked across the Mexican border and tried to monitor them. The weapons later showed up at numerous crime scenes, including when border agent Brian Terry was killed in December 2010.

Obama said at the time:

"I heard on the news about this story that Fast and Furious, where allegedly guns were being run into Mexico and ATF knew about it but didn't apprehend those who had sent it. Eric Holder has -- the attorney general has been very clear that he knew nothing about this. We had assigned an IG, inspector general, to investigate it."

Carney reiterated that point again at a press briefing in June 2012.

"Everyone knows the president did not know about this tactic until he heard about it through the media; the attorney general did not know about it," he said. "The tactic itself was employed by the previous administration in a different operation. This was a field office tactic that was flawed. And when the attorney general learned about it, he took action to ensure that it was no longer used, and he directed the inspector general at the Department of Justice to investigate."

5. Air Force One flyover

Early on in the Obama administration, in April 2009, an Air Force One flyover was staged over New York City as part of a photo op and exercise. But local officials had not been notified, and, in a city still shaken by the 9/11 attacks, the flyover caused public panic.

Asked about it on April 28, Obama said: "It was a mistake, as was -- as was stated. It was something we found out about along with all of you and it will not happen again."

Obama on Clinton emails, IRS, VA, Fast and Furious: I heard about it on the news

Your psychiatrist must have her hands full with you and your Obama obsession.

It is obvious to me, that you, as far right minion of the talking dead, see scandals everywhere. If you need proof that it is your political extremism that taints your perspective, consider how you reacted to all of George Bush's blunders.

The difference between you folks on the far fight and progressives is that you seldom if ever criticize unethical behavior by your own party. Progressives will criticize democrats as you know, which then allows you to post those critiques here in your never ending war on everything you see as liberal. BTW, I can't recall you ever criticizing a Republican; why is that?

SFLiberal, do you think heaven has both liberal and conservative neighborhoods? I think I am going to heaven, but I might turn down the offer if I have to live anywhere near you.

[tornado]

[Snail]

Profound!

[Big Rock]

Lying is just a tactic for both sides. It may have gotten worse recently. That's hard to say. It seems to work, and there don't seem to be any significant consequences for any of it. So, of course, it increases. Also the power, scope, and cost of government keeps increasing, as does the corruption, incompetence, and arrogance of elected officials and the unelected bureaucrats they empower. And individual voters don't seem to have any ability to influence any of this. So the idiots (and non-idiots) on both sides waste their cycles by attacking each other in lieu of taking any action that might accomplish anything, politically. The primary motivation of everyone who succeeds in politics seems to be directing the ever-increasing flow of public funding in a direction that benefits themselves and their allies and sponsors. The primary motivation of everyone else seems to be finding an outlet for their frustration and anger. Also, being part of a virtual mob seems to fulfill some ugly fundamental irrational human need. There is money to be made in this racket.

[Snail]

Lying is just a tactic for both sides. It may have gotten worse recently. That's hard to say. It seems to work, and there don't seem to be any significant consequences for any of it. So, of course, it increases. Also the power, scope, and cost of government keeps increasing, as does the corruption, incompetence, and arrogance of elected officials and the unelected bureaucrats they empower. And individual voters don't seem to have any ability to influence any of this. So the idiots (and non-idiots) on both sides waste their cycles by attacking each other in lieu of taking any action that might accomplish anything, politically. The primary motivation of everyone who succeeds in politics seems to be directing the ever-increasing flow of public funding in a direction that benefits themselves and their allies and sponsors. The primary motivation of everyone else seems to be finding an outlet for their frustration and anger. Also, being part of a virtual mob seems to fulfill some ugly fundamental irrational human need. There is money to be made in this racket.

I think you are mostly right.

[Wonky3]

Lying is just a tactic for both sides. It may have gotten worse recently. That's hard to say. It seems to work, and there don't seem to be any significant consequences for any of it. So, of course, it increases. Also the power, scope, and cost of government keeps increasing, as does the corruption, incompetence, and arrogance of elected officials and the unelected bureaucrats they empower. And individual voters don't seem to have any ability to influence any of this. So the idiots (and non-idiots) on both sides waste their cycles by attacking each other in lieu of taking any action that might accomplish anything, politically. The primary motivation of everyone who succeeds in politics seems to be directing the ever-increasing flow of public funding in a direction that benefits themselves and their allies and sponsors. The primary motivation of everyone else seems to be finding an outlet for their frustration and anger. Also, being part of a virtual mob seems to fulfill some ugly fundamental irrational human need. There is money to be made in this racket.

I think you are mostly right.

And I'd 2nd that.
Having said it, my guess we correct this stuff by "taking back our system". As you well know, as individuals we have little power. When joined with other folks we can move mountains.
Choose your outfit. I have. I won't presume to direct you toward any specific group but they are there. (I'm NOT suggesting political parties).
And example of the power of joining groups is the Tea Party. Personally not my bag of tea (sorry ) but they have generated lots of power to further an agenda.

We need to do something to make a difference. If not the lying cheating bastards (on both sides) will drag us down into a hell we won't recognize.

[chuck white]

Maybe she'll get a pardon.

[oregon 67]

Lying is just a tactic for both sides. It may have gotten worse recently. That's hard to say. It seems to work, and there don't seem to be any significant consequences for any of it. So, of course, it increases. Also the power, scope, and cost of government keeps increasing, as does the corruption, incompetence, and arrogance of elected officials and the unelected bureaucrats they empower. And individual voters don't seem to have any ability to influence any of this. So the idiots (and non-idiots) on both sides waste their cycles by attacking each other in lieu of taking any action that might accomplish anything, politically. The primary motivation of everyone who succeeds in politics seems to be directing the ever-increasing flow of public funding in a direction that benefits themselves and their allies and sponsors. The primary motivation of everyone else seems to be finding an outlet for their frustration and anger. Also, being part of a virtual mob seems to fulfill some ugly fundamental irrational human need. There is money to be made in this racket.

I think you are mostly right.

And I'd 2nd that.
Having said it, my guess we correct this stuff by "taking back our system". As you well know, as individuals we have little power. When joined with other folks we can move mountains.
Choose your outfit. I have. I won't presume to direct you toward any specific group but they are there. (I'm NOT suggesting political parties).
And example of the power of joining groups is the Tea Party. Personally not my bag of tea (sorry ) but they have generated lots of power to further an agenda.

We need to do something to make a difference. If not the lying cheating bastards (on both sides) will drag us down into a hell we won't recognize.

To add to that, The money isn't for the people it is for those in power. If you were not a multi-millionaire prior to election . How the hell do you become one while in a public service office?
As started the tea party was a noble idea, I'd like them a bit more centrist. Although comparing them the progressives, both D and R no wonder they appear Neanderthal.

[SFLiberal]

Hillary's explanation yesterday:

CLINTON: Good afternoon.

I want to thank the United Nations for hosting today’s events and putting the challenge of gender equality front and center on the international agenda. I’m especially pleased to have so many leaders here from the private sector standing shoulder to shoulder with advocates who have worked tirelessly for equality for decades.

Twenty years ago, this was a lonelier struggle. Today, we mark the progress that has been made in the two decades since the international community gathered in Beijing and declared with one voice that human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.

And because of advances in health, education, and legal protections, we can say that there has never been a better time in history to be born female. Yet as the comprehensive new report, published by the Clinton Foundation and the Gates Foundation this week makes clear, despite all this progress, when it comes to the full participation of women and girls, we’re just not there yet.

As I said today, this remains the great unfinished business of the 21st century. And my passion for this fight burns as brightly today as it did 20 years ago.

I want to comment on a matter in the news today regarding Iran. The president and his team are in the midst of intense negotiations. Their goal is a diplomatic solution that would close off Iran’s pathways to a nuclear bomb and give us unprecedented access and insight into Iran’s nuclear program.

Now, reasonable people can disagree about what exactly it will take to accomplish this objective, and we all must judge any final agreement on its merits.

But the recent letter from Republican senators was out of step with the best traditions of American leadership. And one has to ask, what was the purpose of this letter?

There appear to be two logical answers. Either these senators were trying to be helpful to the Iranians or harmful to the commander- in-chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy. Either answer does discredit to the letters’ signatories.

Now, I would be pleased to talk more about this important matter, but I know there have been questions about my email, so I want to address that directly, and then I will take a few questions from you.

There are four things I want the public to know.

First, when I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.

Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn’t seem like an issue.

Second, the vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.

Third, after I left office, the State Department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work- related emails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totalled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew that the State Department already had the vast majority of them. We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work- related emails and deliver them to the State Department. At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.

No one wants their personal emails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.

Fourth, I took the unprecedented step of asking that the State Department make all my work-related emails public for everyone to see.

I am very proud of the work that I and my colleagues and our public servants at the department did during my four years as secretary of state, and I look forward to people being able to see that for themselves.

Again, looking back, it would’ve been better for me to use two separate phones and two email accounts. I thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn’t worked out that way.

Now I’m happy to take a few questions.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, can you…

CLINTON: Just a minute. Nick (ph) is calling on people.

QUESTION: Sorry.

Madam Secretary, Kahraman Haliscelik with Turkish Television. On behalf of the U.N. Correspondence Association, thank you very much for your remarks, and it’s wonderful to see you here again.

Madam Secretary, why did you opt out not using two devices at the time? Obviously, if this didn’t come out, you wouldn’t — probably wouldn’t become an issue.

QUESTION: And my — my second follow-up question is, if you were a man today, would all this fuss being made be made?

Thank you.

CLINTON: Well, I will — I will leave that to others to answer.

But as I — as I said, I saw it as a matter of convenience, and it was allowed. Others had done it. According to the State Department, which recently said Secretary Kerry was the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov e-mail account.

And when I got there, I wanted to just use one device for both personal and work e-mails, instead of two. It was allowed. And as I said, it was for convenience. And it was my practice to communicate with State Department and other government officials on their .gov accounts so those e-mails would be automatically saved in the State Department system to meet recordkeeping requirements, and that, indeed, is what happened.

And I heard just a little while ago the State Department announced they would begin to post some of my e-mails, which I’m very glad to hear, because I want it all out there.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, can you…

CLINTON: Andrea? Andrea, thank you, Andrea.

QUESTION: Can you explain how you decided which of the personal e-mails to get rid of, how you got rid of them and when? And how you’ll respond to questions about you being the arbiter of what you release?

And, secondly, could you answer the questions that have been raised about foreign contributions from Middle Eastern countries, like Saudi Arabia, that abuse women or permit violence against women to the family foundation and whether that disturbs you as you are rightly celebrating 20 years of leadership on this issue?

CLINTON: Well, those are two very different questions. Let me see if I can take them in order. And I’ll give you some of the background.

In going through the e-mails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half were work-related and went to the State Department and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work. I had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because the federal guidelines are clear and the State Department request was clear.

For any government employee, it is that government employee’s responsibility to determine what’s personal and what’s work-related. I am very confident of the process that we conducted and the e-mails that were produced.

And I feel like once the American public begins to see the e- mails, they will have an unprecedented insight into a high government official’s daily communications, which I think will be quite interesting.

With respect to the foundation, I am very proud of the work the foundation does. I’m very proud of the hundreds of thousands of people who support the work of the foundation and the results that have been achieved for people here at home and around the world.

And I think that we are very clear about where we stand, certainly where I stand, on all of these issues. There can’t be any mistake about my passion concerning women’s rights here at home and around the world.

So I think that people who want to support the foundation know full well what it is we stand for and what we’re working on.

CLINTON: Hi, right here.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: She’s sort of squashed, so we’ve got to…

QUESTION: Hi, Secretary.

CLINTON: Hi.

QUESTION: I was wondering if you think that you made a mistake either in exclusively using your private e-mail or in response to the controversy around it. And, if so, what have you learned from that?

CLINTON: Well, I have to tell you that, as I said in my remarks, looking back, it would have been probably, you know, smarter to have used two devices. But I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department.

And I have to add, even if I had had two devices, which is obviously permitted — many people do that — you would still have to put the responsibility where it belongs, which is on the official. So I did it for convenience and I now, looking back, think that it might have been smarter to have those two devices from the very beginning.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: Yes? QUESTION: Did you or any of your aides delete any government- related e-mails from your personal account? And what lengths are you willing to go to to prove that you didn’t?

Some people, including supporters of yours, have suggested having an independent arbiter look at your server, for instance.

CLINTON: We did not. In fact, my direction to conduct the thorough investigation was to err on the side of providing anything that could be possibly viewed as work related.

That doesn’t mean they will be by the State Department once the State Department goes through them, but out of an abundance of caution and care, you know, we wanted to send that message unequivocally.

That is the responsibility of the individual and I have fulfilled that responsibility, and I have no doubt that we have done exactly what we should have done. When the search was conducted, we were asking that any email be identified and preserved that could potentially be federal records, and that’s exactly what we did.

And we went, as I said, beyond that. And the process produced over 30,000 you know, work emails, and I think that we have more than met the requests from the State Department. The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private and I think that the State Department will be able, over time, to release all of the records that were provided.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, can you…

CLINTON: Right there.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, two quick follow ups. You mentioned the server. That’s one of the distinctions here.

This wasn’t Gmail or Yahoo or something. This was a server that you owned. Is that appropriate? Is it — was there any precedent for it? Did you clear it with any State Department security officials? And do they have — did they have full access to it when you were secretary?

And then separately, will any of this have any bearing or effect on your timing or decision about whether or not you run for president? Thank you.

CLINTON: Well, the system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.

So, I think that the — the use of that server, which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure. Now, with respect to any sort of future — future issues, look, I trust the American people to make their decisions about political and public matters. And I feel that I’ve taken unprecedented steps to provide these work-related emails. They’re going to be in the public domain. And I think that Americans will find that you know, interesting, and I look forward to having a discussion about that.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary?

CLINTON: Hi.

QUESTION: How could the public be assured that when you deleted emails that were personal in nature, that you didn’t also delete emails that were professional, but possibly unflattering?

And what do you think about this Republican idea of having an independent third party come in an examine your emails?

CLINTON: Well first of all, you have to ask that question to every single federal employee, because the way the system works, the federal employee, the individual, whether they have one device, two devices, three devices, how many addresses, they make the decision.

So, even if you have a work-related device with a work-related .gov account, you choose what goes on that. That is the way our system works. And so we trust and count on the judgment of thousands, maybe millions of people to make those decisions.

And I feel that I did that and even more, that I went above and beyond what I was requested to do. And again, those will be out in the public domain, and people will be able to judge for themselves.

QUESTION: Okay, Madam.

Madam Secretary?

Madam Secretary, excuse me.

Madam Secretary, State Department rules at the time you were secretary were perfectly clear that if a State Department employee was going to be using private email, that employee needed to turn those emails over to the State Department to be preserved on government computers.

Why did you not do that? Why did you not go along with State Department rules until nearly two years after you left office?

QUESTION: And also, the president of the United States said that he was unaware that you had this unusual email arrangement. The White House counsel’s office says that you never approved this arrangement through them.

Why did you not do that? Why did you — why have you apparently caught the White House by surprise?

And then just one last political question, if I — I might. Does all of this make — affect your decision in any way on whether or not to run for president?

CLINTON: Well, let me try to unpack your multiple questions.

First, the laws and regulations in effect when I was secretary of state allowed me to use my email for work. That is undisputed.

Secondly, under the Federal Records Act, records are defined as reported information, regardless of its form or characteristics, and in meeting the record keeping obligations, it was my practice to email government officials on their state or other .gov accounts so that the emails were immediately captured and preserved.

Now, there are different rules governing the White House than there are governing the rest of the executive branch, and in order to address the requirements I was under, I did exactly what I have said. I emailed two people, and I not only knew, I expected that then to be captured in the State Department or any other government agency that I was emailing to at a .gov account.

What happened in — sorry, I guess late summer, early — early fall, is that the State Department sent a letter to former secretaries of state, not just to me, asking for some assistance in providing any work-related emails that might be on the personal email.

And what I did was to direct, you know, my counsel to conduct a thorough investigation and to err on the side of providing anything that could be connected to work. They did that, and that was my obligation. I fully fulfilled it, and then I took the unprecedented step of saying, “Go ahead and release them, and let people see them.”

QUESTION: Why did you wait two months? Why — why did you wait two months to turn those emails over? The rules say you have to turn them over…

(CROSSTALK) CLINTON: I don’t think — I’d be happy to have somebody talk to you about the rules. I fully complied with every rule that I was governed by.

QUESTION: Were you ever — were you ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using — using your own email server and using your personal address to email with the president?

CLINTON: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.

So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

CLINTON: Because they were personal and private about matters that I believed were within the scope of my personal privacy and that particularly of other people. They have nothing to do with work, but I didn’t see any reason to keep them.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: At the end of the process.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: … who was forced to resign two years ago because of his personal use of emails?

By the way, David Shuster from Al Jazeera America.

CLINTON: Yeah. Right…

QUESTION: What about Ambassador Scott (inaudible) being forced to resign?

CLINTON: David, I think you should go online and read the entire I.G. report. That is not an accurate representation of what happened.

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all.

[SFLiberal]

So who does Hillary think she fooled?

1. She used a private email account for "Convenience." Seriously?

I thought it would be easier to carry one device for my work. Looking back, it would have probably been smarter to use two devices, but I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the hands of the State Department.

I have an iPhone and have three email accounts on it. She used the excuse that she didn't want to carry two phones. Is Hillary and her staff that incompetent that they couldn't figure out how to put two email accounts on one device?

And she keeps forgetting people record everything she says. Just two weeks ago at an event she was asked if she preferred an iPhone or an android:

At an event on February 24, Hillary Clinton said that she owns both an iPhone and a Blackberry.

When asked if she prefers iPhone or Android, Clinton responded “iPhone, OK, in full disclosure — and a Blackberry.”

Video: FLASHBACK: Two Weeks Ago Hillary Clinton Said She Used Multiple Phones

2. She turned over 30,490 emails to the State Dept two years after she left office. That's about 38 a day. Her lawyers decided what was official business and what was private. She also said that she never emailed any classified materiel. (And I have a bridge in Arizona for sale)

That is against the law. She was required to turn over every email and as soon as she was no longer in office. That is the price of using a private email account where both personable and official business were intermingled. She is not the one who gets to decide what is relevant and what is not. That goes to a judge or other official in case Congress or other entity is doing an investigation. It also allows those filing a Freedom of Information Request to get the information they are requesting. Hillary doe not get to decide, and yet she did and then she went on to say that she deleted 31, 830 'personal' emails. Rep. Trey Gowdy has looked at the emails and says there a gaps that are months long. Let me remind you that:

8 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 101 - RECORDS AND REPORTS
Sec. 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, http://www.gpo.gov

§2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

She went on to say that some of the deleted emails were between Hillary and Bill (scheming no doubt). Are we to believe her? Just before her press conference the WSJ asked Matt McKenna, Bill Clinton's spokesman about Bill's emails. He told the WSJ that Bill has only sent TWO emails in his entire life and both after he left office. One of Bill's emails was to astronaut and former Sen. John Glenn, the other was to U.S. troops. So who are we to believe?

Add the fact that on June 28, 2011 Hillary sent a memo to State Dept staff telling them to not use persoanl email accounts for dept. business. State Department cable, June 28, 2011. Can you say hypocrite?

3. Her private server will remain private. Another thumb into the eye of the American public. Emails, even those that are deleted, and never deleted. A forensic computer expert and recover those deleted emails. A subpoena needs to be issued and US Marshalls need to go to Hillary house and seize her server before she has the hard drive destroyed. And if she screws with the hard drive she needs to be prosecuted.

I find it kind of ironic that Hillary, before she was fired for lying, worked on the impeachment of Nixon. One of Nixon's charges was because 18 minutes from a WH tape that recorded his private conversations was missing. And now we have come full circle with Hillary and thousands of missing emails from a server that she had complete control over while she was Sec of State.

[Wonky3]

So don't vote for her!

Ask your family not to vote for her.

Ask your neighbors to not vote for her.

But in the name of all that's holy, we now know full well your opinion of Mrs. Clinton. Enough already.

Time now, to start praising who you admire and might vote for in the GOP primary season.

[SFLiberal]

So don't vote for her!

Ask your family not to vote for her.

Ask your neighbors to not vote for her.

But in the name of all that's holy, we now know full well your opinion of Mrs. Clinton. Enough already.

Time now, to start praising who you admire and might vote for in the GOP primary season.

And you stop defending her. When I say you I mean you progressive democrats. You should be demanding that she turn over ALL her emails and her server. You should be demanding that Hillary be required to live under the same rules and laws as everyone else and not defend her. She has a history. Why are you giving this corrupt woman a pass? Would you be doing the same if this was Condi Rice?

All animals are created equal, but some animals are created more equal than others.......

[tornado]

Sharpton: Bill Clinton's 'coffee' remark about Obama may have been racist.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...een-racist

Which might just have bearing on this story.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/03/11/bl...ontroversy

The author of Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas said on "Fox and Friends" that he believes the White House is throwing Hillary Clinton under the bus.

Ed Klein said even Bill Clinton himself suspects that the White House is the driving force behind the private email controversy that has dominated the headlines for the past week.

"[Bill Clinton] has said, according to my sources, that the White House is leaking to their friends in the mainstream media stories about the Clintons. Not only about Hillary, but about him, and about what she did while she was in the State Department," said Klein.

"This is from sources within the White House, that the Clintons know that Hillary is under not one, but six different investigations prompted by the White House," he added.

Klein then cited State Department sources, who say that "tons of documents" have been taken from Clinton's old offices.

"They're going through these, looking for problems on her expense account, on her dealings with foreign leaders. All of this, I'm told, is prompted by Valerie Jarrett and the president, who do not want to see Hillary Clinton become President of the United States," said Klein.

Klein believes it all comes down to Obama and Jarrett feeling that Clinton is "too centrist" and will not "carry out the legacy" of Obama if she becomes president.

"There is going to be no serious support for Hillary Clinton coming out of the White House."

Klein also said Obama was "not telling the truth" when he told CBS that he did not know Clinton was using a private email server.

"He got a lot of emails from Hillary Clinton, all of which obviously came from her personal account," said Klein, pointing out that the White House later dialed back the president's claim.

[chuck white]

I've have erased at least that many e-mails myself. Mostly Russian brides, viagra, ED, stock tips, BBB notices,some woman in south Africa wh wants my help transferring 20 million dollars out of the country, etc.

[Snail]

I've have erased at least that many e-mails myself. Mostly Russian brides, viagra, ED, stock tips, BBB notices,some woman in south Africa wh wants my help transferring 20 million dollars out of the country, etc.

Me too. I delete hundreds of emails every week. I try not to give out my email address anymore because I am sick of them.

Some of my friends send me photos of naked animals. I don't mind those emails. I look at them before I delete them which is more than I can say about the majority of emails I receive.

[tvguy]

I've have erased at least that many e-mails myself. Mostly Russian brides, viagra, ED, stock tips, BBB notices,some woman in south Africa wh wants my help transferring 20 million dollars out of the country, etc.

Me too. I delete hundreds of emails every week. I try not to give out my email address anymore because I am sick of them.

Some of my friends send me photos of naked animals. I don't mind those emails. I look at them before I delete them which is more than I can say about the majority of emails I receive.

Wow If you delete hundreds of emails every week you then don't have your spam or trash filters properly set.
And yes you must have given your email address out too often to too many people.
Get another account. I have several. Inform all of your friends on your contact list of your new email address.