Something else that wasn’t known until questions were asked, and answers were given.
… is Bricker the bull or the Christian?
. The froth is that she bent over backwards to control her emails. It wasn’t an accident. It was a deliberate act to circumvent the FOIA.
She’s the same lawyer who dealt with Nixon’s tapes. If there was one politician who understood the gravity of hiding information it would be her. It appears she just tore a page out of Nixon’s book and thought nobody would ever notice.
I’m not sure why this bothers you so much. She brought this on herself.
It may have sounded otherwise, but I was agreeing with you.
Bricker,
It is a fair approach and I will tell you why.
The problem has multiple issues involved. First, the initial reports were that Clintons actions broke the law. That is a straightforward (though convoluted, which law was in place when, etc) issue. So the first problem was the legality of her solution. We now know the answer though it isn’t a pretty one. And, even though it was legal, it was against the policy of the department she RAN and she signed a cable herself saying that.
The second issue is the wisdom of her actions. On this I have absolutely no doubt that it was an extremely dumb thing to do. It was dumb because it opened her up for exactly what is going on. It opened her up to accusations of cover up and avoiding oversight. It opened her up to questions about her judgement. It made a simple issue very cloudy and, according to Clinton, she did this for the lamest fucking reason ever (But carrying two phones is just so hard). It also opens her up to serious (at least to us I.T. folks) questions about the security that was implemented.
The third problem is Clinton and her history of evading disclosure and questionable deals. For some reason she seems to think that saying “We turned over everything! Really, honest abe, we did!” is accountability. It isn’t. And when she is caught in what looks like a lie it is problematic. Bill Clinton claims to have sent two emails in his life, both during his presidency. Hillary claims that email server contains ‘personal communications from my husband and me’. Well, somebody is lying. Trivial, yeah, but a lie calculated to make it seem as though people were going after her and Bills email when Bill doesn’t use it. Also, it made the legal status of what should be a very straightforward issue confusing. By mingling her personal and work emails it makes ownership a mess. Throw in that it appears that her aides were also using private email, and things get murky. Add in that her using private email made Hillary Clinton specific FOIA requests useless before this came to light. Well, things aren’t pretty.
“Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts. It’s a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent.”
That is a quote from Clinton herself in 2007. Now, knowing you Bricker, I expect an argument about how Clinton wasn’t technically using a secret email and its legal. This appears, to me and quite a few other folks I’ve talked with, to be a “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” defense. Clinton knew it was shady. She knew it wasn’t the right way to do things. She stated it. Yet she did it anyway because she could weasel out of it. If you know what the right thing to do is, as I am sure Clinton knew, and you do something else, well it may be legal but it sure as hell isn’t honest.
And the country has had enough dishonest people in office. The only way to get honest people in office is to (metaphorically) draw and quarter any politician who even THINKS about doing something dishonest. I don’t give a shit who does this kind of stuff, whether they are D or R. If they do anything shady they ought to be kicked out on their ass.
Slee
I agree with you up to here. Because all of the previous still just makes me say, “Bad judgment, but no big deal.” That’s what I said from the first time I heard it, and it’s what I say now.
I think the majority of people claiming it’s a big deal are Rebublicans. The majority of people claiming there was nothing wrong with it are Democrats. Those of us who think it was bad judgment but ultimately no big deal are probably about 50/50, I’m guessing.
And I was agreeing with you.
It seems that we never know what politicians are up to until someone accuses them of doing something wrong. Asking questions is always a good thing.
Maybe it should now be a requirement that future Sec of States be required to sign a OF-109 form.
That’s exactly the kind of thinking that happens right after any major scandal. It’s not usually terribly productive. What it got you was Gerald Ford (appointed after the Spiro Agnew disgrace on the “well, at least he’s honest” principle) and Jimmy Carter, elected on the same principle with Watergate still fresh on the voters’ minds.
Both were good men but not very effective Presidents. Slick Willy did far more for the country than both of them put together. So did JFK. For that matter, so did Richard Nixon, although he was such a slimeball that he should never, ever have been entrusted with the Presidency. It’s a question of where you draw the line, and of balancing trustworthiness with competence. I certainly wouldn’t draw it at getting a blow job from an intern or running a private email server.
It’s a good point, but there are good, honest politicians, and if you want to get the unusually dishonest out of power, you have to punish them when they get out of line, even if they are effective.
Hillary Clinton has three potential well qualified opponents without a hint of scandal on them. One of them has a reputation for being so honest it’s almost a fault. There’s just no reason to support Clinton while holding your nose. Maybe after she gets the nomination and her opponent is a Republican, but during the primary there is absolutely no harm done in voting for one of her opponents. She doesn’t need a coronation, and she doesn’t even really need to be defended. 99% of voters know who she is by now. And who she is is someone that most voters will accept as President(even me), but would sure love someone better to get the job.
Except that I don’t think many would feel obliged to “hold their nose” while voting for Hillary. Why, because she ran her own email server? Because she’s married to Slick Willy? Because she’s a lawyer?
And then there’s the fact that all the poll numbers show her with strong leads over any conceivable Republican opponent.
And the fact that, quite frankly, other than maybe Elizabeth Warren I’m not sure I could even name those three supposedly strong alternatives.
Hillary Clinton’s name is why she’s ahead in Mar. 2015. Whoever wins the nomination will have enough of a name to do just as well as Clinton come Oct. 2016. Probably better, because that person will be fresh and honest, as opposed to tired and dishonest.
It’s not her email server, if this was the first scandal THAT WEEK it would have been nothing. It’s not the significance of the scandals, it’s the quantity. Even if you take out the ones made up in the right wing fever swamp, she’s had as many scandals as Joe Biden’s had gaffes.
I’m trying to think of a legitimate Hillary Clinton scandal that isn’t just RW fluff. If we ignore the fact she killed Vince Foster, hid billing records, and fiddled while Benghazi burned, what’s left?
As I’ve stated many times, I’m not a big fan of Mrs. Clinton, and would prefer she not even enter the race, but I don’t see any history of scandal that would constitute a pattern or even a concern over her ethics.
As opposed to her GOP opponent?
Oh, fuck Hillary! I gotta *know *about this major Republican candidate who “…has a reputation for being so honest it’s almost a fault…”.
Actually, I was referring to a Democrat.
As for Clinton’s scandals, they never cross the line into true illegal behavior. But there is a pattern of secrecy that borders on obsessive, and her reaction to scandals is never to come clean, but always to obstruct. And I’m not talking about Republican investigators. When it comes to partisan warfare, I figure she can use any tactics she wants to win. But the media is not a Republican bastion trying to do her in. She goes too far when she obstructs the media.
Apologies. Since you and I seem to disagree politically (even if I don’t post a lot in debate/political threads, since I don’t consider myself a strong enough debater or researcher to get involved normally, I still read them), I assumed that this was another issue that we’d be at crossed swords on, Seems I misjudged you and Bricker both on this issue.
Mea Culpa
No apology required. You didn’t resort to name-calling or attempt to derail the thread. We’re just two adults having a conversation. You clarified your position and I clarified mine.
I don’t know why so many other people have such a hard time understanding such a simple concept?
So adult! 
Because humans.
Lying about coming under sniper fire? I think it was mostly her Dem opponents in the primary who were pushing that one.