# Hilary Clinton and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mail Account **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 3, 2015, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092 "2015-03-03T14:10:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 50
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/981 "2015-04-23T16:25:05Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Your _arguments_ can be stupid here. Like using a childish LSM buzzword coined by one of the most vapid RW idiots thrust upon the scene in years. And that’s saying something. This is a party whose currently ruling faction _is based on not knowing what’s actually happening in reality_. > > So, you’re asserting that you have no idea that RW Media was selling a bill of goods for years about Benghazi that has shown to be not true? Do you think there was a “Stand Down” order? Do you think there was a live feed? Do you think there was an active attempt to mislead by the WH or intelligence agencies? If you watch FOX you might. What exactly do you think the GOP is investigating here? What issues do you think there are? > > If you want to go into if Mainstream Media or RW Media is more true in general, that’s fine, but it probably belongs in another thread, and you’ll lose the argument there too. > [@doorhinge](#): > > …Meanwhile, back at the Benghazi report - > I noticed that the only media outlet mentioned by name, in the report, is Reuters. Is that the RW media outlet you were referring to? > > It appears the Committee found that the Obama Administration’s, and Susan Rice’s initial public narratives were not accurate. Imagine my surprise that the main stream media couldn’t get the facts straight. :rolleyes: > > \*Page 25 - > IV. After the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration’s initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks WERE NOT FULLY ACCURATE. HPSCI asked for the talking points, Ambassador Rice ended up using for her talk show appearances on September 16, solely to aid the Members’ ability to communicate publicly using the best available intelligence at the time. THE PROCESS AND EDITS MADE TO THESE TALKING POINTS WAS FLAWED. > > Finding #11: Ambassador Rice’s September 16 public statements about the existence of a protest, as well as some of the underlying intelligence reports, PROVED TO BE INACCURATE. > > After reviewing hundreds of pages of raw intelligence, as well as open source information, it was clear that between the time when the attacks occurred and when the Administration, through Ambassador Rice, appeared on the Sunday talk shows, intelligence analysts and policymakers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding the identities/affiliations and motivations of the attackers, as well as the level of planning and/or coordination. Much of the early intelligence was conflicting, and two years later, INTELLIGENCE GAPS REMAIN. > > Various witnesses and senior military officials serving in the Obama Administration testified to this Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee that they knew from the moment the attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist acts against U.S. interests. No witness has reported believing at any point that the attacks were anything but terrorist acts.\* > > [http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf](http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf) (post shortened) The _Investigative Report on the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012_ does not include the government documents stored on Ol’ Hillary’s private server. Plus, the report states, “Much of the early intelligence was conflicting, and two years later, INTELLIGENCE GAPS REMAIN”. Those seem like two good reason for Congress to decide (and it is Congress who decides whether to have a Congressional investigation) to continue its investigation. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/982 "2015-04-23T19:11:45Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > The _Investigative Report on the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012_ does not include the government documents stored on Ol’ Hillary’s private server. Plus, the report states, “Much of the early intelligence was conflicting, and two years later, INTELLIGENCE GAPS REMAIN”. > > Those seem like two good reason for Congress to decide (and it is Congress who decides whether to have a Congressional investigation) to continue its investigation. I initially asked if you didn’t know that the RW media was pushing a bunch of lies about this issue. Now you’re focusing on one line of the report. Intelligence gaps remain, is something for intelligence agencies to work on. The flappy-armed dimwits on the latest partisan Benghazi-hunt aren’t going to turn up new intelligence. Also, the documents on her server weren’t required to be saved. So she didn’t. She didn’t do anything at all wrong, and the GOP has decided that since they didn’t find anything to scream about, they now want to go through her personal emails so they can find her calling the Grand Vizer of Blankestan stinky. Trey Gowdy either is too lazy to read, or is cynically going through the same motions as last time, in hopes of shaking something loose. Just like the Whitewater investigation kept rumbling until they found out Clinton had released a bit of white-water of his own. Can you admit that there is no evidence of anything at all wrong? And that the GOP are simply looking for ammunition to attack her? Gaps in intelligence isn’t a crime. It’s the natural result of investigating something where people are trying not to be found. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/983 "2015-04-23T19:34:38Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > CNN selected many interviewees who claimed Brown had his hands up. (Whatever happened to that “Hands up don’t shoot” rallying cry? I don’t hear it anymore. Did protestors lose interest when it couldn’t be proven that Brown had his hands up?) > > Meanwhile, there is a sufficient number of examples proving that the main stream media outlets have acted in a lame manner. The term Lame Stream Media (LSM) suits them to a T. > > [To a T](http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-toa2.htm) You may not hear it but it’s being used all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/984 "2015-04-23T21:07:11Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Also, the documents on her server weren’t required to be saved. So she didn’t. She didn’t do anything at all wrong, and the GOP has decided that since they didn’t find anything to scream about, they now want to go through her personal emails so they can find her calling the Grand Vizer of Blankestan stinky. Trey Gowdy either is too lazy to read, or is cynically going through the same motions as last time, in hopes of shaking something loose. Just like the Whitewater investigation kept rumbling until they found out Clinton had released a bit of white-water of his own. > > Can you admit that there is no evidence of anything at all wrong? And that the GOP are simply looking for ammunition to attack her? Gaps in intelligence isn’t a crime. It’s the natural result of investigating something where people are trying not to be found. Without endorsing the metaphorical excess, this is exactly what’s happening. There is absolutely no evidence of anything illegal. The campaign was carefully orchestrated, beginning with outright claims of illegality and then quickly retreating into the contemptible “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” reasoning after it became clear that there was no law violated. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/985 "2015-04-23T21:32:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Without endorsing the metaphorical excess, this is exactly what’s happening. There is absolutely no evidence of anything illegal. The campaign was carefully orchestrated, beginning with outright claims of illegality and then quickly retreating into the contemptible “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” reasoning after it became clear that there was no law violated. To be completely honest, I’d be predisposed to think the worst if this were reversed and this were say, the Bush administration. However, I do like to think I’d grudgingly admit it were wrong once the facts were in place. That’s my hope anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/986 "2015-04-23T21:36:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Without endorsing the metaphorical excess, this is exactly what’s happening. There is absolutely no evidence of anything illegal. The campaign was carefully orchestrated, beginning with outright claims of illegality and then quickly retreating into the contemptible “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” reasoning after it became clear that there was no law violated. And that’s going to be her campaign slogan. Never convicted. Vote for me and I’ll walk up the the ragged edge of ethics but promise never to get caught. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/987 "2015-04-23T22:15:21Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Oh, good. You’re using a Palinism, which immediately lets me know that your opinion is uninformed and probably stupid. Nonetheless, this is exactly as far as you can go that’s perilously close to claiming Palin is a moron and the poster shares the trait. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/988 "2015-04-23T22:36:17Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Nonetheless, this is exactly as far as you can go that’s perilously close to claiming Palin is a moron and the poster shares the trait. But it’s still on the light side of the force, however shadowed, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/989 "2015-04-23T23:45:25Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > To be completely honest, I’d be predisposed to think the worst if this were reversed and this were say, the Bush administration. However, I do like to think I’d grudgingly admit it were wrong once the facts were in place. > > That’s my hope anyway. I believe you. But might I suggest that it’s possible to tell yourself to be even more skeptical when the facts are leaning in your preferred way? After all, that’s what Bush did in the lead up to the Iraq War (at least in my opinion) – not lie, but be slow to believe reports that didn’t go his way and quick to believe reports that did? I appreciate your honesty on this point. I just think that since it’s so easy to fool oneself, a good method of attack is to be at least as suspicious about news that fits your preconceptions, if not more so. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/990 "2015-04-24T00:14:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I believe you. > > But might I suggest that it’s possible to tell yourself to be even more skeptical when the facts are leaning in your preferred way? After all, that’s what Bush did in the lead up to the Iraq War (at least in my opinion) – not lie, but be slow to believe reports that didn’t go his way and quick to believe reports that did? > > I appreciate your honesty on this point. I just think that since it’s so easy to fool oneself, a good method of attack is to be at least as suspicious about news that fits your preconceptions, if not more so. On that I think we’re agreed. The easiest lie to fall for is the one you want to believe. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/991 "2015-04-24T02:34:14Z")
The last two polls have shown further degradation in her standing. She’s now averaging about 45-46% against GOP opponents who most voters don’t even know. So the question I have is, if she actually starts trailing at some point this year, do Democrats get serious about casting about for an alternative? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/992 "2015-04-24T02:42:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The last two polls have shown further degradation in her standing. She’s now averaging about 45-46% against GOP opponents who most voters don’t even know. > > So the question I have is, if she actually starts trailing at some point this year, do Democrats get serious about casting about for an alternative? Do you normally predict the winner of a marathon based on the first 100 meters? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/993 "2015-04-24T02:52:03Z")
So I take it you’ll prefer Clinton even if she’s behind. Which is fine. You obviously have more faith in her comeback abilities than I do. IMO, given the way she runs, she’s just not a come from behind candidate. She’s a classic frontrunner. When she’s in front, she’s strong, but when weakness starts to show things can go to pot pretty quickly. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/994 "2015-04-24T15:20:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Without endorsing the metaphorical excess, this is exactly what’s happening. There is absolutely no evidence of anything illegal. The campaign was carefully orchestrated, beginning with outright claims of illegality and then quickly retreating into the contemptible “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” reasoning after it became clear that there was no law violated. Maybe the campaign can evolve into finding she participated in a sexual act with someone not her husband, and can then manufacture an incident related to it that they can suggest was illegal but without actually filing any charges over it … You know, something you consider worse than starting a war based on lies. At no time have the Republicans ever realized this shit only backfires on them. At no time. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/995 "2015-04-24T16:28:49Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I initially asked if you didn’t know that the RW media was pushing a bunch of lies about this issue. Now you’re focusing on one line of the report. > > Intelligence gaps remain, is something for intelligence agencies to work on. The flappy-armed dimwits on the latest partisan Benghazi-hunt aren’t going to turn up new intelligence. (post shortened) One line of the report? The report made it clear that the Obama Administration, Ol’ Hillary’s Ol’ State Dept", and others, had provided information that - “were not fully accurate”, “the process and edits made to these talking points was flawed”, “proved to be inaccurate”, “intelligence gaps remain”. Those seem like pretty good reasons the Congress would want to have another investigation. Those, plus the fact that the government documents stored on Ol’ Hillary’s private server had not been included in any of the previous investigations, of course. \*Page 25 - IV. After the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration’s initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks WERE NOT FULLY ACCURATE. HPSCI asked for the talking points, Ambassador Rice ended up using for her talk show appearances on September 16, solely to aid the Members’ ability to communicate publicly using the best available intelligence at the time. THE PROCESS AND EDITS MADE TO THESE TALKING POINTS WAS FLAWED. Finding #11: Ambassador Rice’s September 16 public statements about the existence of a protest, as well as some of the underlying intelligence reports, PROVED TO BE INACCURATE. After reviewing hundreds of pages of raw intelligence, as well as open source information, it was clear that between the time when the attacks occurred and when the Administration, through Ambassador Rice, appeared on the Sunday talk shows, intelligence analysts and policymakers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding the identities/affiliations and motivations of the attackers, as well as the level of planning and/or coordination. Much of the early intelligence was conflicting, and two years later, INTELLIGENCE GAPS REMAIN. Various witnesses and senior military officials serving in the Obama Administration testified to this Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee that they knew from the moment the attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist acts against U.S. interests. No witness has reported believing at any point that the attacks were anything but terrorist acts.\* You wish to blame the RW media when all media outlets reported the inaccurate and flawed information supplied by this administration. All of the media outlets also supplied information from their own “experts”. The latest bi-partisan Benghazi-hunt discovered that Ol’ Hillary was storing previously unknown, at least to the Congressional Committees and the voting public, government documents. Therefore, the Congressional investigation continues. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/996 "2015-04-25T00:18:13Z")
I think that even its devout enemies, were they to be honest, would have to admit one positive thing about the Obama Administration. By historic standards, it’s been quite clean and scandal-free. Of course there’ve been Republican efforts to inflate stuff like Fast and Furious and Benghazi, but these have been small potatoes as scandals go. This will not be the case with a new Clinton Administration. Hillary and Bill (you know Bill will have some significant role) think the rules do not apply to them, and they will set the tone for their appointees and underlings. It will be one sleazy mess after another. I can’t believe there aren’t substantial numbers of Democrats with revulsion and dread at the prospect, who wouldn’t support a decent alternative. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/997 "2015-04-25T02:47:21Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I think that even its devout enemies, were they to be honest, would have to admit one positive thing about the Obama Administration. By historic standards, it’s been quite clean and scandal-free. > > Of course there’ve been Republican efforts to inflate stuff like Fast and Furious and Benghazi, but these have been small potatoes as scandals go. > > This will not be the case with a new Clinton Administration. Hillary and Bill (you know Bill will have some significant role) think the rules do not apply to them, and they will set the tone for their appointees and underlings. It will be one sleazy mess after another. > > I can’t believe there aren’t substantial numbers of Democrats with revulsion and dread at the prospect, who wouldn’t support a decent alternative. What is this decent alternative of which you speak? ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/998 "2015-04-25T08:37:16Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > …Ol’ Hillary…Ol’ Hillary… I’m not sure if you’re aware of this (or that you even care, should you be aware), but your constant use of “Ol’ Hillary” causes me to hold your views with about as much credibility as **Shodan** ’s “Regards.” I’m politely, respectfully asking you to please stop it. It doesn’t help your argument. It hurts it. To me, anyway. But I’m sure others would say something similar, should they be asked. (editing of your post done by me. Not to change what you said, but to illustrate that it becomes monotonous reading “Ol’ Hillary” over and over) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/999 "2015-04-25T13:14:09Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Hillary and Bill (you know Bill will have some significant role) think the rules do not apply to them, and they will set the tone for their appointees and underlings. It will be one sleazy mess after another. Perhaps you could enlighten us with the factual basis for your belief. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/1000 "2015-04-25T13:15:21Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > your constant use of “Ol’ Hillary” causes me to hold your views with about as much credibility as **Shodan** ’s “Regards.” Yeah, in **doorhinge** speak, the term should be “State Department Clinton”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092.md?page=49) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092.md?page=51)