Republicans violate law by hiding public business

[someoneyouknow]

Remember just a year ago how Republicans were whining about encryption being used by terrorists to cover their tracks? Remember how Republicans whined about Hillary Clinton not using government approved equipment to conduct public business? Remember how Trump whined about Apple not providing a means to unencrypt their own phones in an investigation?

Well now that they are in charge, Republicans are doing all of the above and more. They are using a Snapchat-like app which is encrypted and which destroys messages after they are read.

Some might wonder, doesn't this violate the numerous laws which require retention of government records? The answer to that of course is, if you don't know what they're talking about, how do you know it's government business?

I guess when it comes to hypocrisy, Republicans have that market cornered.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/9/14561786/confide-messaging-republican-gop-trump-administration-leaks

 

[Rightguide]

Remember just a year ago how Republicans were whining about encryption being used by terrorists to cover their tracks? Remember how Republicans whined about Hillary Clinton not using government approved equipment to conduct public business? Remember how Trump whined about Apple not providing a means to unencrypt their own phones in an investigation?

Well now that they are in charge, Republicans are doing all of the above and more. They are using a Snapchat-like app which is encrypted and which destroys messages after they are read.

Some might wonder, doesn't this violate the numerous laws which require retention of government records? The answer to that of course is, if you don't know what they're talking about, how do you know it's government business?

I guess when it comes to hypocrisy, Republicans have that market cornered.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/9/14561786/confide-messaging-republican-gop-trump-administration-leaks

The argument against Hillary was she was storing government records and property on a private server and transmitting classified information against the law and against State Department Regulations. The House a separate branch of government makes its own rules and regulations. I haven't seen it charged that classified info or government documents were being transmitted or stored on unauthorized equipment.

 

[phrodeau]

The argument against Hillary was she was storing government records and property on a private server and transmitting classified information against the law and against State Department Regulations. The House a separate branch of government makes its own rules and regulations. I haven't seen it charged that classified info or government documents were being transmitted or stored on unauthorized equipment.

Well, now you've seen it.

https://www.carper.senate.gov/publi...askill-carper-to-wh-counsel-mcgahn-press-.pdf

 

[Rightguide]

Well, now you've seen it.

https://www.carper.senate.gov/publi...askill-carper-to-wh-counsel-mcgahn-press-.pdf

My post was referring to congressional republicans who were the source of most of the criticisms of Hillary's transgressions. The article you posted doesn't address them but the White House instead. In regard to the thread starter's post it isn't illegal to use such apps for private conversations and email. It would be illegal to use them for government business or for transmitting classified information, which to my knowledge has yet to be proven.

 

[srgreene]

Remember just a year ago how Republicans were whining about encryption being used by terrorists to cover their tracks? Remember how Republicans whined about Hillary Clinton not using government approved equipment to conduct public business? Remember how Trump whined about Apple not providing a means to unencrypt their own phones in an investigation?

Well now that they are in charge, Republicans are doing all of the above and more. They are using a Snapchat-like app which is encrypted and which destroys messages after they are read.

Some might wonder, doesn't this violate the numerous laws which require retention of government records? The answer to that of course is, if you don't know what they're talking about, how do you know it's government business?

I guess when it comes to hypocrisy, Republicans have that market cornered.

Oh, brother, what a bunch of utter garbage you spew forth. To quote from your article"

"As Axios notes, official White House business is subject to preservation rules, although we don’t know much about who’s allegedly using Confide and what they’re doing with it, so it’s not clear whether this might run afoul of those laws. It’s also difficult to say how much this is a specifically Republican phenomenon, and how much is a general move toward encryption. ... "

And you want to compare this with Hillary, as Secretary of State, discussing sensitive government matters on a private server in contravention of the law? You are simply comparing apples to oranges, and going beyond what the known facts indicate. Shame on you.

Not to say that there may not be a genuine concern here- it's fine for RNC people to use things like Confide all they wish, but not so fine for White House personnel to use it in the course of their official duties. So far, there does not appear to be any reason to think that is happening, but it does bear watching. But the way you have framed the issue is simply baseless, I'd even say, disgraceful, partisan ship.

 

[phrodeau]

Oh, brother, what a bunch of utter garbage you spew forth. To quote from your article"

"As Axios notes, official White House business is subject to preservation rules, although we don’t know much about who’s allegedly using Confide and what they’re doing with it, so it’s not clear whether this might run afoul of those laws. It’s also difficult to say how much this is a specifically Republican phenomenon, and how much is a general move toward encryption. ... "

And you want to compare this with Hillary, as Secretary of State, discussing sensitive government matters on a private server in contravention of the law? You are simply comparing apples to oranges, and going beyond what the known facts indicate. Shame on you.

Not to say that there may not be a genuine concern here- it's fine for RNC people to use things like Confide all they wish, but not so fine for White House personnel to use it in the course of their official duties. So far, there does not appear to be any reason to think that is happening, but it does bear watching. But the way you have framed the issue is simply baseless, I'd even say, disgraceful, partisan ship.

What makes you think that Hillary's sensitive government matters weren't also encrypted? Do you think classified documents are .pdf files?

 

[sr71plt]

srgreene's post was just too partisan blind (and dumb) to respond to.

 

[srgreene]

What makes you think that Hillary's sensitive government matters weren't also encrypted? Do you think classified documents are .pdf files?

Duh- yes, some classified documents are in PDF format. Others can be MS Word documents, and a plethora of other formats. The format simply does not matter.

As for whether or not Hillary's server was encrypted, again, that's totally irrelevant, sir. It was not legal for her to conduct government business over a private server. Is that too complex for you to understand? Sheesh, how inane can you be!!

 

[someoneyouknow]

As for whether or not Hillary's server was encrypted, again, that's totally irrelevant, sir. It was not legal for her to conduct government business over a private server. Is that too complex for you to understand? Sheesh, how inane can you be!!

You mean like Colin Powell did? (Ah yes, he did. He even warned Hillary about it.)

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/08/republican-colin-powell-deals-death-blow-hillary-clinton-email-scandal.html

Or staff for Condoleeza Rice:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/index.html

Though what should be more disturbing is Rice never used email during her tenure. Never? In this day and age of needing to keep in touch, she never used email? No wonder she was so clueless and ineffective.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, and like Trump and his staff are doing now without a peep from Republicans in Congress.

 

[JerichoEd]

The argument against Hillary was she was storing government records and property on a private server and transmitting classified information against the law and against State Department Regulations. The House a separate branch of government makes its own rules and regulations. I haven't seen it charged that classified info or government documents were being transmitted or stored on unauthorized equipment.

My post was referring to congressional republicans who were the source of most of the criticisms of Hillary's transgressions. The article you posted doesn't address them but the White House instead. In regard to the thread starter's post it isn't illegal to use such apps for private conversations and email. It would be illegal to use them for government business or for transmitting classified information, which to my knowledge has yet to be proven.

Let's not forget AG Loretta Lynch's involvement.

The DOJ refused to grant the FBI the power to issue subpoenas or conduct formal interviews. It also refused to convene a grand jury to weigh evidence in the case.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, that's not going to change, is it?