MJHolland 12,725 Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 POLITICO BREAKING – POLITICO Breaking News: State IG: Clinton did not comply with federal records policies: The State Department inspector general concluded that Hillary Clinton did not comply with the agency’s policies on records, according to a report released to lawmakers on Wednesday that also revealed that Clinton and her top aides chose not to cooperate with the review. The agency on Wednesday released the long-awaited report to Capitol Hill, copy of which was obtained by POLITICO, providing just the latest turn in the headache-inducing saga that has dogged Clinton's campaign. While the report concludes that the agency suffers from "longstanding, systemic weaknesses" with records that "go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State,” it specifically dings Clinton for her exclusive use of private email and failure to promptly turn over the records. “Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,” the report states. “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act." Read more: http://politi.co/27SmOVs (via POLITICO app for iOS) -- Looks like she's gonna be indicted folks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 This is obvious. Everyone knows she was in some sort of violation How is this something we don't know? Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJHolland 12,725 Posted May 25, 2016 Author Share Posted May 25, 2016 1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said: This is obvious. Everyone knows she was in some sort of violation How is this proof for anything? They're saying they basically recommend her for indictment? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 13 minutes ago, MJHolland said: They're saying they basically recommend her for indictment? No they didn't. They just said she wasn't fully cooperative (disappointing). The rest is common knowledge. Even if they did, it's still not their decision. Your statement that "she is going to be indicted" is nothing short of sensationalist bs. "The audit found that such problems went beyond Clinton, and that Colin Powell also failed to preserve government-related emails when he was secretary of state. The State Department said it has already taken steps to improve email and records systems. "It is clear that the Department could have done a better job preserving emails and records of Secretaries of State and their senior staff going back several administrations," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. "We also acknowledge the report's finding that compliance with email and records management guidance has been inconsistent across several administrations." Singling out Clinton would be pretty egregious. Considering nothing was leaked and there was no classified information (at the time), there is nothing to say she will be indicted given there is no similar precedent. ---- I'm honestly astonished at how eager some people are to see her get indicted. If she's ruled guilty, then she's guilty. Til then, keep the sensationalism to a low. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendablethyn 536 Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Not good Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJHolland 12,725 Posted May 25, 2016 Author Share Posted May 25, 2016 17 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said: No they didn't. They just said she wasn't fully cooperative (disappointing). The rest is common knowledge. Even if they did, it's still not their decision. Your statement that "she is going to be indicted" is nothing short of sensationalist bs. "The audit found that such problems went beyond Clinton, and that Colin Powell also failed to preserve government-related emails when he was secretary of state. The State Department said it has already taken steps to improve email and records systems. "It is clear that the Department could have done a better job preserving emails and records of Secretaries of State and their senior staff going back several administrations," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. "We also acknowledge the report's finding that compliance with email and records management guidance has been inconsistent across several administrations." Singling out Clinton would be pretty egregious. Considering nothing was leaked and there was no classified information (at the time), there is nothing to say she will be indicted given there is no similar precedent. ---- I'm honestly astonished at how eager some people are to see her get indicted. If she's ruled guilty, then she's guilty. Til then, keep the sensationalism to a low. The Politico article clearly states that they especially called out Clinton's negligence. I just want to see justice served. After this, there are going to be riots of she's not indicted. Her own former coworkers are saying there was wrong doing particularly on her part. How you could support jeopardizing national security idk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,973 Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 1 minute ago, MJHolland said: The Politico article clearly states that they especially called out Clinton's negligence. I just want to see justice served. After this, there are going to be riots of she's not indicted. Her own former coworkers are saying there was wrong doing particularly on her part. How you could support jeopardizing national security idk. Riots? If she doesn't get indicted, it'll be scooped under the rug. I did find it odd that in the report, the State Dep. said that Clinton didn't cooperate. Fishy. This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 11 minutes ago, MJHolland said: The Politico article clearly states that they especially called out Clinton's negligence. I just want to see justice served. After this, there are going to be riots of she's not indicted. Her own former coworkers are saying there was wrong doing particularly on her part. How you could support jeopardizing national security idk. Clearly there was negligence. This was never in doubt. Politico itself wrote an article stating that past cases show that she will likely not get indicted. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744 You don't want to see justice served. You want to see her burn for some reason. You have this weird hatred towards her. Why would there be riots? Anyone with a brain knows that the server being outside was wrong. The illegality of nuances is debatable but the truth is it was still not the right thing to do. I'm not defending that. I'm not supporting anything other than holding off on calling people guilty prematurely. Guilty til proven innocent is not the way to do things. If you're concerned about national security, then the State Department needs to shore up its own defenses first, because those are more susceptible than any private server ever could be. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJHolland 12,725 Posted May 25, 2016 Author Share Posted May 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said: Clearly there was negligence. This was never in doubt. Politico itself wrote an article stating that past cases show that she will likely not get indicted. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744 You don't want to see justice served. You want to see her burn for some reason. You have this weird hatred towards her. Why would there be riots? Anyone with a brain knows that the server being outside was wrong. The illegality of nuances is debatable but the truth is it was still not the right thing to do. I'm not defending that. I'm not supporting anything other than holding off on calling people guilty prematurely. Guilty til proven innocent is not the way to do things. If you're concerned about national security, then the State Department needs to shore up its own defenses first, because those are more susceptible than any private server ever could be. Because she broke the law. That's the reason I want to see justice served. Bill already got away with more than enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Just now, MJHolland said: Bill already got away with more than enough. ....? Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJHolland 12,725 Posted May 25, 2016 Author Share Posted May 25, 2016 Just now, LebaneseDude said: ....? Aren't we supposed to believe all victims? That's what Gaga and Crooked Hillary said herself... Oh wait but not if it applies to her... Just like the law... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Just now, MJHolland said: Aren't we supposed to believe all victims? That's what Gaga and Crooked Hillary said herself... Oh wait but not if it applies to her... Just like the law... What are you talking about? Victims of what? Even still. why are you conflating Hillary with Bill? Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squidward T 2,472 Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 I can't believe the wonderful choices we have for president, ones a bigot and an idiot and the other is a common criminal lmao. Bernie is the only halfway decent choice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJHolland 12,725 Posted May 25, 2016 Author Share Posted May 25, 2016 29 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said: What are you talking about? Victims of what? Even still. why are you conflating Hillary with Bill? It's off topic, never mind. Anyways, I'll see you at her indicting party? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Just now, MJHolland said: It's off topic, never mind. Anyways, I'll see you at her indicting party? Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.