“I think they’re the same”. Platte River Networks, which managed Clinton’s server and personal email network after she left the State Department, has indicated it convey – or “transferred” – emails from the unique server in 2013, in accordance to The Washington Examiner.
Advertisement
With Hillary Clinton running for president, it is hard to keep separate legitimate questions about whether her unorthodox email practices while secretary of state compromised national security from the partisan mud-slinging that comes with a political campaign. And if you’re the secretary of State, that’s inevitably going to include some sensitive information.
The situation is so bad, Clinton has resorted to her traditional “it’s a right-wing conspiracy” alibis, but even this those are now only assumed by the most gullible of her admirers and steadfast of the hangers-on.
When the State Department first requested emails for its archives from all living former secretaries of state, Clinton was the only one to provide any files at all; both Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell said they no longer possessed the emails they had sent on private servers.
MUKASEY: First of all, I seriously doubt that.
The most egregious way would be to knowingly strip classification markings from documents or other data, a move that would clearly be a criminal act. The consensus among forensics experts seems to be that much of the information can be recovered. Some are realizing that Clinton lied to federal authorities on violating her signed non-disclosure agreements for extremely sensitive national security classified information and materials.
Bill Richardson said he will support Hillary Clinton in her bid for the presidency.
Sellers was referring to Clinton’s comments about wiping her server with a cloth. Do you find that plausible?
“I see everything she’s doing now as simply responding to polls”, said progressive activist Brenda Brink of Huxley, who considers herself “solidly in the Bernie camp”.
The explanation that she didn’t want people prying into private matters such as “planning for (daughter) Chelsea’s wedding…as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes” is unconvincing. I think most people – I know very few people who don’t like him. She can tell that foreign leader, here’s my direct dial telephone in the office.
The wrongdoing, if any, on Hillary Clinton’s part will be decided in time. But someone with a profile like that of the Starbucks chief executive – very rich, liberal, never before involved in politics – could be appealing for voters looking for something totally different.
The news division of the peacock network is the latest to turn its back on Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton over her increasingly indefensible claims that she was not at fault over her email debacle. Hillary’s actions, the newspaper continued, “are swiftly draining away public trust in (her) integrity”. And I started to take notes, my personal notes.
“Tonight I am including my voice to yours”, Clinton advised the gang. Plus, I don’t get the sense that the Democratic Party is clamoring for another Kerry candidacy.
Advertisement
To make certain, she makes use of native speaking factors to weigh in on broader points.
