And I keep saying that if I were a staff member, I wouldn’t be alarmed, because:
I could verify through other means that it really was Hillary; and
The last SoS did the same thing, so I’d think that’s just how pool was played at these high levels.
I would no more bother the president with this than I’d bother the president with reports about how Hillary was only using one device instead of two, or Hillary was planning her daughter’s wedding using that device, or any other thing that struck me as trivial.
I’ve heard that Hillary uses dijon mustard on hot dogs. The nerve!
While I still think that it is inappropriate for a Secretary of State to use their own server for government business, the attempt to extend the level of the misjudgment so that Obama or Obama’s aides, or everyone in the federal government is somehow tainted with it is hilariously transparent. And it also dilutes what little power there is in the story. Talking about exactly how Obama uses his email program’s contact list is a loser of an argument.
I agree–as I said at the outset, I think this was poor judgment on Clinton’s part.
One thing just occurred to me, however: a major problem with misuse of government email is when it’s used for personal purposes, or even (gasp) political purposes. If Clinton sent out an email about the 2012 election from a .gov address, what a stinking mess that’d be, and rightly so.
When she has a personal server, that changes the issue. Of course she’s allowed to send out a political email on her own personal server. She’s not using government resources to do it. Problem averted. HOWEVER, there’s a case that some legitimate confusion is created between what she’s doing in her official capacity and what she’s doing in her unofficial capacity. If she sends a senator an email about the foreign policy implications of a particular item in a bill, is she doing so as SoS or as a Democratic politician? Does it change if that senator is up for election? Does it change if she sends it to a member of the House running for a seat in the senate? Does it change if she sends it to someone who doesn’t hold office but who is active in political circles? Does it change if that person is a major donor to Democrats?
I’m not a fan of that sort of fuzziness, and I think that’s a good reason to have two different accounts.
The point of an investigation is to gather information. Depending on what is uncovered, the investigation can lead to criminal, or civil, charges or the subject is cleared and the investigation is closed.
The State Dept has not been very cooperative with the investigations. Hillary has not been very cooperative with the investigations. Demands that people stop asking questions hasn’t stopped people from asking questions. You can repeat the word “Benghazi” as often as you wish. That isn’t going to convince the investigators, or many of the voters, that the investigation should be stopped. And it isn’t going to answer any of the still unanswered questions, either.
Tru dat. And the day I was given a jaywalking ticket, I should have known better as well.
To me, the fact that anyone’s still talking about this just shows how little the Hillary haters have to throw at her. She should have known better, but it’s still pretty small potatoes.
So no, you do not know what the purpose of this constant stream of investigations really is.
And no, you do not know who’s actually doing that.
Not the voters who wouldn’t consider voting for Clinton, no, nothing will convince you people of anything. Since you don’t know what the real purpose of the investigations is, as already established, then you don’t know they can’t be convinced
And you also don’t know why they keep getting asked, do you?
True, and also irrelevant. Clinton’s had enough scandals, real and fake, for anyone to figure out the difference. The fake ones are made up in the right-wing fever swamp. The real ones start out in the mainstream media. This one started out with the mainstream media. It’s real. How significant it is is up to the voters, and it doesn’t seem that significant to voters, although it does create some problems for Clinton’s marketing. She can’t credibly claim to be change, or particularly honest. Candidates who are well known and have lost before often try to repackage themselves. Clinton won’t be able to. All of her positives and negatives are well known and it’s unlikely that she can improve on them. Her approval numbers seem pretty good now, but chances are she’s going to revert to her normal numbers once the campaign gets rolling, which tend to be about 48-48 positive/negative. Democrats just need to figure out if that’s good enough and if new blood might not be better.
Yesterday, Jen Psaki answered the question about whether Hillary had signed a OF-109 form. One question asked, one question answered. The investigation continues. state department: no record of sec hillary clinton signing separation agreement
Yesterday, Jen Psaki answered the question about whether Hillary had signed a OF-109 form. One question asked, one question answered. The investigation continues. state department: no record of sec hillary clinton signing separation agreement
[/QUOTE]
So all the froth about Secretary Clinton’s multiple felonies for signing this form?
Why is it such a standard approach to begin with, “I don’t like X,” and then follow to, “…and therefore pretty much every criticism of X is justified?”
If this were a discussion of almost any Hillary preferred public policy, I’d be arguing against her.
But in this case, she was accused of breaking the law, and that accusation was used to whip up indignation, and the indignation has continued even after the accusations about lawbreaking have slowly morphed into supposed concerns about her general wisdom. How does anyone think that’s a fair approach?
Why is it acceptable to levy these tactics against her and then complain when similar half-truths are used against a favorite son from your ideological town?
You’re surprised that there’s a double standard on the SDMB? You must be new here.
If people on the SDMB and elsewhere were as fair-minded as you are, this would be a better messageboard and a better country. But they’re not. And they are not gonna be. You know as well as I that exactly the same sort of thing is going to be done to whoever gets the Republican nomination, and the fact that you stuck up for Hilary is going to mean doodly-squat.
A Christian is going to be martyred in ancient Rome. His fate is to be buried up to his neck in the sand, and gored to death by a wild bull.
He is buried, the bull is loosed, and the bull charges. By a superhuman effort, the Christian avoids the horns, and lunges up and bites the bull in the nuts.
The Emperor jumps from his seat and shakes his finger at the Christian. “None of that!” he shouts.
Aw, nuts to that. It might not mean doodly-squat to you, but it means more than doodly-squat to Bricker. That’s kind of what integrity is: doing the right thing even when it doesn’t lead to short- or long-term personal gain.
For what it’s worth, it also means something to me. I pay attention to folks who show integrity and those who don’t, to those who value principles and those who don’t, and treat them accordingly.
Hillary isn’t a special snowflake. The same tactics have been used against Christie, Clinton, Obama, Bush, Palin, Darren Wilson, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.
The best defense against half-truths is to ask questions and to demand answers. Non-answers lead to more speculation.
Who’s been holding all those investigations for all these years? And which “news” source leads with it almost every night?
