HILLARY and the e-mails?

[Karl]

1. All who held similar position(s) were the ones who made decisions on what was government business and what was not!

Logical reasoning tells matters not if one e-mail address was used or a million. It is in the hands of the holder determination on what "is" or "is not"!

2. E-mails cannot be destroyed unless all servers that 'hold' the targeted/any targeted e-mails are destroyed.

Should all former Secretaries of State turn over or have 'dug up' all...all their e-mails or this holds only for HILLARY!

[Rockman]

Strangest thing I ever heard,my advice is for her not to wait to make the inevitable concessions..
Her email is listed on a list that is rigorously scrutinized to unearth security risk,for the WH press security to say Obama's email communication with Hilary over that server occurred soley because the President did not know it wasn't a govt issued one is almost surely a bareface lie.

[Karl]

Not so...?

President Obama said he first learned "through news reports" that Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail system when she was his secretary of State. But it turns out he did know she used a private e-mail address, at least for some official business. The White House now says the two leaders traded e-mails and "the president was aware of her e-mail address."

See the difference?
Private e-mail system = system owned by the private party. However, I am sure on government systems private e-mails are 'used'. E.g. A private entity - person or corporation contacting a government entity would be using private e-mail addresses...and e-mails originating from private accounts & servers.

...he did know she used a private e-mail address, at least for some official business.

That says he new she used an e-mail address i.e. not an address generated by the government...but it is important to note he did not say such unique addresses were not approved for use.

So he recognized the type e-mail address but it is plausible to consider that there may be similar addresses approved for use by such government official.

----

Interesting to note that the entire GOP stance is predicated on 'selling' disbelief or at a lower level uncertainty on whether or not Hillary turned over all relevant e-mails. The thrust of the attack comes from a viewpoint that calls into question Hillary having final word on what is or is not relevant government business. ...the unspoken is, the Law and Regulations allows such oversight being the sole purview of the government's employed individual...or past employed individual as decision-maker; so what was the position taken by or currently being taken by the GOP attack dogs? Some of them claim they have personal e-mails on which they never conduct government business...who then makes the decision on what is or is not government business?

Example: Let us think on Mike Rogers who attacked Hillary on a cable station this afternoon? He said that he has never used any of his other e-mail accounts, save his government issued account to conduct any government or non-approved government business. Will he allow an independent third-party to make such a determination on what should be turned over to the government or no? Should we not trust Hillary but trust Mike Rogers?

Rogers is now a retired government representative. His government correspondence e-mails are to be all preserved by the government. Hey...some requests of all GOP government officials? ...right?

Clinton has come under criticism after The New York Times reported on March 2 that she exclusively used a private e-mail account (registered to clintonemail.com) to conduct government business while secretary of State from January 2009 to February 2013. At the request of the State Department, Clinton two months ago turned over 55,000 pages of e-mails that involved government business, the Times reported.

Are these all relevant e-mails? ...and are those of the others in similar shoes? ...as Mario Balotelli would say, "Why me?"..."Why Hillary?"