So her excuse is Billy did the same thing. Typical.
As her husband did with Monica.
Disobeying the law, obvious law, laws on National Security for ....”convenience”.
She knowingly put the nation at risk, and the truth is had something to hide making it even worse.
Criminal pedophiles even had access to her information...
But yeah, she should be President of the Nation.... Good grief mother of all face palming...
Well...it was convenient for her get rich quick scheme for the sale of the office of the Secretary of the United States Department of State.
I didn’t feel like stopping at that stoplight..for purposes of convenience.
Just wondering.....
<><> Who transported SOS Hillary’s server from NY to NJ’s Platte River Networks?
<><>Did the Secret Service (who Hillary insists had been guarding it since it was really Bill’s Library/Foundation asset) accompany and supervise the transport of the server?
<><> Per the interview with Platte River Networks, did they just take it, lock it up, not power it up, connect it to the internet, or not have it functioning as an active email server?
<><> Was there continuity of server activity between May 2013 to August 2015, or did the server go off-line starting in June 2013?
<><> Who received actual server in NJ - the name of the Platte River Networks employee/technician? What WAS it - make/model/form factor, etc.?
<><> Did the Clinton Foundation (or issuer of the RFP on Hillary’s behalf) indicate that the company that would provide data services qualified to handle national-security-level data?
<><> In various interviews and reports, Platte River Networks repeatedly stated they were to “upgrade, manage, and secure” the server. What - specifically - does that mean?
<><> What did Hillary’s RFP/contract order the data center to do specifically?
<><> Does Platte River Networks have sufficient security clearance to handle this type of contract?
<><> What were the firewall protocols in place at the time?
<><> Who - by name - had access to the server, and the administrative authorization to wipe and cleanse the server? When was that done?
<><> Does “upgrade, manage, and secure” the server mean that they PRN was given the task to remove all data from the server when it received it in June 2013?
<><> Was malware or antivirus also on the server?
<><> Was the inherent firewall, virus protection, or operating system “upgraded, managed, and secured”?
<><> Any incidents reported such as DOS attack, hacking, etc.? What were they? How were they resolved?
<><> Other than arranging for the server to be moved from NY to NJ, what was the Denver company contracted to do in relation to maintaining the server?
<><> What tangible evidence is there that the server arrived in functioning condition, was being used as an email server, was “upgraded, managed, and secured”, then wiped just prior to seizure by the FBI?
<><> Were normal and regular backup procedures executed on the server, and where would the back ups be kept?
<><> If no backups were taken, was there a disaster recovery location?
<><> Where was that? If no backups and no disaster recovery, what was the plan if the equipment failed or found to have been wiped of any functionality?
<><> Were any foreign nationals employed at Platte River Networks, or at Datto, that had access to the Clinton server?
guilty as sin, free as a bird.
‘You’re gdamn right I ran a private email server as SOS. What are you going to do about it?’
And the 100 billion dollar Clinton Foundation ‘charity’ fraud is still up and running...
What a country, eh?
Because it’s much more convenient to break the law than to obey it.
Hillary, was it convenient to terminate Seth Rich?
The purpose of convenience is actually true, this was much more convenient for her than complying with laws and being subject to disclosure.
Sen Charles Grassley writes to express concerns about the process by which Congress was allowed to view the Wilkinson letters (Wilkerson is an atty for Hillary aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson) that inappropriately restricted the scope of the FBI’s investigation, and that the FBI inexplicably agreed to destroy the laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters.
“These limitations would necessarily have excluded, for example, any emails from Cheryl Mills to Paul Combetta in late 2014 or early 2015 directing the destruction or concealment of federal records. Similarly, these limitations would have excluded any email sent or received by Secretary Clinton if it was not sent or received by one of the four email addresses listed, or the email address was altered. “Further, the Wilkinson letters memorialized the FBI’s agreement to destroy the laptops. This is simply astonishing given the likelihood that evidence on the laptops would be of interest to congressional investigators. “The Wilkinson letters raise serious questions about why DOJ would consent to such substantial limitations on the scope of its investigation, and how Director Comey’s statements on the scope of the investigation comport with the reality of what the FBI was permitted to investigate.” Full text of the letter follows:
The Wilkinson letters raise serious questions about why DOJ would consent to such substantial limitations on the scope of its investigation, and how Director Comey’s statements on the scope of the investigation comport with the reality of what the FBI was permitted to investigate. So we can better understand the Department’s basis for agreeing to these restrictions, please respond to the following questions as soon as possible, but no later than October 19, 2016:
1. What is the basis for the FBI’s legal authority—in any circumstance—to destroy records which are subject to a congressional investigation or subpoena?
2. Why did the FBI agree to terms that allowed it to destroy both laptops?
3. Has the FBI, in fact, destroyed any evidence acquired from the laptops or the laptops themselves?
4. Is there any circumstance in which an email from Ms. Mills to Mr. Combetta (and only Mr. Combetta) in December of 2014 or March of 2015 discovered on Ms. Mills’ laptop or Ms. Samuelson’s laptop would have been turned over to the investigative team under the terms of the Wilkinson letters? If so, please explain.
5. Given that the range of emails the FBI could view
under the terms of the Wilkinson letters were only those sent or received while Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State, how did the FBI intend to investigate the laptop files for evidence of possible intentional destruction of records or obstruction of evidence given the fact many of those emails were out of the allowed date range?
6. Did the filter team identify any emails that were otherwise responsive but were not turned over to the investigative team because they were privileged? Did anyone create a privilege log for such emails?
7. How many total documents were reviewed by the filter team from both laptops? Of those, how many were deemed privileged? Of the total, how many were sent to the investigative team?
8. How many total documents were withheld from the investigative team because they fell out of the date range imposed by the June 10, 2016 agreements?
9. How many of the documents acquired by the FBI from both laptops were classified? Please list each document, the classification level, and the classifying agency.
10. The Wilkinson letters apparently provided for different treatment of email fragments from Secretary Clinton’s email addresses on the “clintonemail.com” domain versus her email addresses on the “blackberry.net” domain. Specifically, email fragments without a date sent to or received by either of the clintonemail.com addresses were included, while email fragments without a date that were sent to or received by either of the blackberry.net addresses were excluded. Please explain the difference in treatment of these email addresses.
11. The Wilkinson letters included a caveat that the FBI was not assuming custody, control, or ownership of the laptops for the purpose of any request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
a. How does that statement square with the reality that the FBI had both laptops in its possession?
b. Has DOJ ever used that statement or a similar statement to avoid compliance with FOIA?
[”Used It for the ‘Purpose of Convenience’]
Like with a cloth?
Just setting it up is the crime, Hillary.
Of course, keep spinning. It works on idiots, I mean “Democrats”.
I actually put a higher ‘value’ on criminal conviction and prison for Hillary than ‘the wall’, but I guess that’s my own sense of priorities.
Has Comey cleared her....again?
================================================
ITEM--Sid was banned from govt employment by Obama, but at the same time Blumenthal was pushing Secy of State Clinton to all-out war in Libya, suck-up Sid was privately pushing his business interests WRT contracts with the "new" Libyan government — a government that would exist only after US military intervention in Libya that deposed Qaddafi.
ITEM--Blumenthal was engaged in massive conflicts of interest since he was simultaneously (a) being paid by The Clinton Foundation, (b) paid by Hillary's 2016 PAC organizers, and, (3) paid by businesses w/ interests in Libya.
If Secy Clinton knew all that, then her actions in circulating memos composed by Blumenthal were egregious. If she did not know, her recklessness is subject to US laws.
=====================================================
ITEM---to its donors---and to the world beyond---the Clinton Foundation hired Sid Blumenthal to..... (wait for it)..... "promote Bill's presidential legacy." That's what Sid was supposed to be doing for his hefty $325,000 foundation salary.
ITEM---so if the Clinton Foundation Board of Trustees signed off on the Blumenthal hire without being appraised of the full scope of his duties....that would violate state laws and place the trustees in legal jeopardy.
==============================================
REFERENCES--- The implications of these Blumenthal revelations are huge, as the Washington Free Beacon points out:
<><> Among the newly revealed Benghazi e-mails were a pair of messages from July 2011 in which Blumenthal described efforts to secure Libyan government contracts for Osprey Global Solutions, a company in which Blumenthal has admitted to having a financial interest.
<><>Blumenthal warned Clinton that French companies were looking to scoop up security contracts from the Transitional National Council, the revolutionary government of the Libyan resistance, and plugged Osprey’s ability to be an American counterweight.
<><> “It puts Americans in a central role without being direct battle combatants,” Blumenthal wrote of Osprey’s TNC contract. He described his efforts in “putting this arrangement together through a series of connections, linking the Libyans to Osprey and keeping it moving.”
<><> Clinton forwarded that message to Jake Sullivan, her deputy chief of staff, and asked to discuss it later.
======================================
SHOCKER Clinton Foundation employee Sid Blumenthal (banned from govt employ) had inside govt info and was constantly in touch w/ Secy Hillary.
<><> For public consumption, Sid was beng touted as a Clinton Foundation hire---the factotum hired to preserve Bill's pesidential legacy (cue laugh machine).
<><> Shockingly, Sid's emails show he had classified State Dept info almost verbatim (as confirmed by the NSA).
<><> How did classified info get into Sid's possession? Did he pass it on to anyone else? Did he sell it to anyone else?
============================================
Blumenthal kept urging Hillary to bomb Libya b/c he had profit-making business interests predicated on a post-Khadaffi Libyan govt.
<><> Sid cunningly used scare tactics----telling Hillary that Obama would lose reelection if the US didn't bomb Libya.
Amazingly, the obedient Hillary passed on this information to Obama.....did O know it came from a person he banned from govt employment?
==========================================
Remember, the real Libyan scandal is how we wound up bombing the troops of another United Nation's recognized government without a ‘by your leave’ from Congress.
I appreciate the excellent comments by Liz.
From the article. “Justin Cooper, set up the system.” Yeah, right. Just throw out a name to distract from the real culprit.
The YouTube video “mahogany row” clearly explains that it was not a matter of convenience. It was a long deliberate effort at hiding her activities. And it was not one small decision, it was about a six or seven step process to steal classified documents, scrub them move them from a classified system into an unclassified area, and then be able to operate Clinton Foundation bribery scams outside of Discovery, and outside of Freedom of Information Act request.
Hillary Clinton is an absolute Criminal