Mull was the Executive Secretary of the State Department at the time he sent that email (two years after the NSA had denied Clinton's request). He was in no position to overrule the NSA and make that offer. At no point during Clinton's tenure were Blackberry devices authorized to access state.gov email servers. He was very likely referring to http://www.zdnet.com/article/nsa-wanted-hillary-clinton-to-u..., which was the only authorized device up to 2015 and was the device that the NSA offered (but not supported by State department infrastructure) http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-re....
> That doesn't mean there was no evidence.
Then where is it?
Aside: citing the Moonie Times and the Daily Caller projects know-nothingism. Here are the three top articles on the Daily Caller right now:
1. Charlie Sheen Offers America The Most Insane Ticket To Take Down Trump
2. TPM’s Josh Marshall Reduced To Tweeting Porno Link Of ‘Teasing, Licking’ ‘Angela & Strawberry’TPM’s Josh Marshall Reduced To Tweeting Porno Link Of ‘Teasing, Licking’ ‘Angela & Strawberry’
3. ‘FK YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter‘FK YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter
None of this is news.
It was given. Apparently you don't like the source. Here's another. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v...
Also, there were a lot of questions being asked about FOIA considering there was no evidence. http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judic...
Again, your original assertion is not defensible that there was no evidence. Again evidence does not equal proven. Simply there was information that suggests a rationale.
Aside: you are aware of what Judicial Watch is, right? They're the conservative group that led the prosecution against Clinton on this issue and repeatedly failed. Of course they are going to ask questions about FOIA, the Espionage Act, and anything else they can try to stick on her. You're being misled by listening to only the prosecution and not the judge or the defense that totally dismantled their case.
So there was evidence?
>Mull simply did not have the ability to give Clinton a Blackberry.
That is irrelevant to establishing a motive. The emails don't suggest that Clinton was aware of that fact and they do suggest that Mull for some reason thought this information that would be important to Clinton's decision.
>you are aware of what Judicial Watch is, right
Yes, but this is to be expected. When the right is in power, I expect left leaning groups to lead the charge to accountability and vice versa. It is rare that a group ever holds itself accountable.
>judge or the defense that totally dismantled their case.
They thought it was good enough to proceed with questioning. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-orders-clinton-answer-w...
I'm not sure what you mean by dismantled. They requested a deposition and was granted. Clinton did not answer all questions and they have requested through federal court that she answer all questions. I have not seen an update on that request.
Don't be facetious. That's like saying that there is evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth because we see it pass overhead every day. That evidence doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny either.
> That is irrelevant to establishing a motive. The emails don't suggest that Clinton was aware of that fact and they do suggest that Mull for some reason thought this information that would be important to Clinton's decision.
The emails don't even suggest that Clinton saw Mull's offer, and they don't suggest that either Abedin or Clinton thought Mull's offer was viable after their experience with the NSA. Why should they waste their time with it if it wasn't going to go anywhere?
> Yes, but this is to be expected.
Exactly. Then why do you use them as your sole source? The Daily Caller article lifts its entire story from Judicial Watch's arguments. If you wanted to learn why those arguments didn't work the first n times, the other side's arguments are out there for you to see.
> They thought it was good enough to proceed with questioning.
He threw them a bone. He denied their motion to depose Clinton and instead sent her a written questionnaire. She returned her answers on October 13, containing exactly the same reasons she gave before for using the Blackberry.
You are making assumptions for which we don't know the answers. Which is exactly why such questions are asked to begin with.
>Then why do you use them as your sole source? The Daily Caller article lifts its entire story from Judicial Watch's arguments. If you wanted to learn why those arguments didn't work the first n times, the other side's arguments are out there for you to see.
Likewise then why do you suggest I simply dismiss claims by taking the other side's argument?
We can also assume it would be a defensive position. Evidence doesn't become no evidence based only on the other side's account. It might be determined to be weak, irrelevant to claims etc based on investigation.
Stating there was no evidence suggests there was 0 basis to make the claim prior to investigation. We don't in hindsight do the investigation and then look back and say the evidence isn't evidence. We can say the evidence wasn't conclusive or didn't support said claims strong enough to investigate further etc.
You are making the claim that Clinton used her private server to skirt FOIA, and your evidence is that the Executive Secretary once sent an email about using a device approved by the State Department. Nowhere in the response does Clinton or anybody on Clinton's team say that they won't use this non-existent device because they want to skirt FOIA, yet somehow this constitutes (the sole) evidence to support your claim. Meanwhile, we have her entire email chain with the NSA and mountains of testimony under oath supporting the other conclusion that she used her personal server simply because she wanted to use her Blackberry.
> Likewise then why do you suggest I simply dismiss claims by taking the other side's argument?
I don't. I'm simply suggesting that you discard arguments that have already been discarded. The side that has been attacking Clinton for 20 years isn't going to tell you which of their arguments didn't hold water.
Edit: This chain has reached maximum depth, and I can't reply any further. Can we agree that there is no reasonable evidence that Clinton used her personal email server in order to skirt FOIA?
I am not making that claim. I am asserting that evidence existed to suggest that is a possibility. I am not trying to prove the claim.
>mountains of testimony under oath
Yes, and this testimony occurred due to evidence that was being investigated.
It seems you are trying to prove to me the outcome or conclusions instead of whether or not any evidence existed.
>No such evidence exists, which is why all inquiries and investigations came to the conclusion I stated above.
That doesn't mean there was no evidence. It only suggests that evidence wasn't proven. You can not draw the conclusion there was none.
The FBI also came to the conclusion that Clinton wasn't intelligent enough to understand confidential markings. Then the stunt the FBI pulled just before the election I would say the FBI has shown itself to be incompetent.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/7/fbis-comey-hi...