Hilary Clinton and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mail Account

Great Debates
501

Actually, the committee wants work product which the committee has every right to obtain. The problem is that Clinton, on purpose I am sure, blurred the lines by using her private server instead of a government server. Had she used the government server the exchange would have gone like this:

Government “Hey, Mr I.T. guy, we need all Clintons email”
I.T. Guy “Ok, give me an hour and I’ll export it to a file.”*

Instead we have this cluster fuck which IS ALL CLINTON. Had she made a wise decision and not used a private email and server for work, all this would have been over and done.

However, since Clinton decided to use her personal server she has a choice of her own making. A) turn over everything or B) appear to be hiding information. Well, I think an option C) would work for Clinton on the political side which would be to have a third party review all the emails and turn over what the third party thinks is relevant.

I have a question for you. Lets pretend for a moment that this isn’t about Clinton, ok?

Do you think that it is a good idea, in general, to have the target of an investigation decide what material the investigators can look through**? If a legal government investigator with a subpoena says “We need all your work emails” is it ok for the person being investigated to say ‘I get to decide what is work related, so therefore I get to decide what you can see’?

I don’t.

That is why everyone ought to keep things separate. That is why work email and private email addresses exist. That is why the government has its own email servers. To keep the line between private email and work email bright and clear.

Clinton purposefully blurred that line. And, imho, if someone purposefully blurs a line like Clinton did then they have no right to bitch when people are upset and want information that may be on the other side of the line. She chose to blur the line and now she should have to pay the price and release the emails.

On a personal note, I believe that anyone stupid enough to use private email for government business ought to be tarred and feathered and ineligible for office regardless of the R or D behind the persons name.

Slee

  • I work for a private company and that is how it works if the request comes from the proper person. However, for a government request, the wait time might be much longer.

**This is assuming, of course, that all the appropriate subpoenas and legal requirements are fulfilled.

502

We’re never going to know the truth about Benghazi, are we?

Don’t pretend this isn’t a partisan fishing expedition, please.

503

In a “Separation of Powers” case, yes, the subject must retain the right to tell the investigators from a difference branch, “Go away, and don’t come back without a search warrant.”

If the AG were investigating a Congressman for corruption, does the FBI get total access to all of the Congressman’s records? His donor records, emails from special interest groups, everything? Without a warrant, just because he’s the subject of an investigation?

Congress would never stand for it. Why do they think they can do it to the Executive branch without demur?

504

Because “blowjob” “Bengazi” “Foster” ad nauseum.

505

Yeah, well… I remember the Supreme Court decision that said the Secret Service could spy on the President. Now just imagine if the Capitol Police could be made to spy on Congressmen… Ugly stuff.

I believe that separation of powers is the best thing in the U.S. Constitution, and I despise attempts to attack or weaken it. Right now, Republican obstructionism is extremely harmful to this balance.

Still…one remembers Boris Yeltsin, and tanks actually firing rounds into the Russian Parliament building. Let’s hope it never gets quite that bad here!

506

What are the Republicans obstructing?

They control Congress, and Congress passes the laws and controls the purse-strings, by intent. Under separation of powers, Congress is a co-equal branch.

Whose will are they obstructing?

507

Is it really necessary to reiterate? The greatest number of filibusters, the fewest number of judges confirmed, the longest-running pointless investigations (Benghazi,) the longest-running pointless legislation (repealing the ACA how many times?) and so on.

More recently, the amending of important, bipartisan legislation with poison pills that one side cannot accept. Gridlock. Shutting down the government and reneging on the public debt.

This goes far beyond ordinary separation of powers. It’s a war, and has been since the Clinton impeachment. The Republicans are not willing to govern, only to destroy.

If you really needed to be told this… 'Nuff said.

508

You mean like the human trafficking bill, which the Democrat party is obstructing, over the Hyde Amendment language, which has been the law of the land for the last thirty-nine years? The same language that was in the defense spending bill that passed, on a bipartisan basis, overwhelmingly just a few months ago.

That bill, which had 12 Democrat co-sponsors, and passed unanimously out of committee? With the Hyde Language already in the bill.

How about the budget resolution that passed last night? First budget in 6 years. Which party was in control of the Senate during the last six years when no budget was passed?

Then we get to amendments. Back in January, during the Senate debate over Keystone, the Republicans allowed more votes on amendments in one day, than Reid allowed votes during all of the previous year.

Gosh darn Republican obstructionism. :smack:

509

One thing about Democrats, they’ve developed a talent in recent years of portraying current law as radical and extreme, and their proposed changes to law as the only reasonable, moral option. Bravo.

510

Learn the name of the parties. Until then, you aren’t debating in good faith.

511

The opposition has made this easy.

Adding poisonous terms to legislation, and then claiming that we’re obstructing it when we won’t go along, is only one example.

Here’s some orange juice. By the way, I pissed in it. What, why won’t you drink it? You’re so obstructionist!

512

I’m not sure that reaffirming existing law, in this case the Hyde Amendment, is a poison pill.

Why can’t Democrats just come out and admit they are in favor of taxpayer funding of abortion? Stop playing games and just campaign on it.

513

Karl Rove’s wet dream.

514

True, but we can be honest on a discussion board. Whether anyone carries water or not for Democrats here isn’t going to impact any actual elections.

515

Shit, I’ll say it. There are a ton of things my tax dollars go to that I think are deeply and profoundly immoral, from subsidies to polluting corporations to the Iraq War to abusive police departments. Either let’s remove taxpayer funding for these enterprises, or let’s get conservatives to stop whining about how sometimes their tax dollars might go toward things they find immoral. Either one is okay with me. Because I’m not running for office.

516

What emails?

517

Since he doesn’t have the server, how does he know it’s been wiped clean?

518

According to Gowdy, this was Clinton’s lawyers’ response to his subpeona. <shrug>

Whether or not it’s true, it seems like a great way to tell Gowdy to go piss up a rope.

519

The abortion funding language in the bill is not the same as the language of the Hyde Amendment. Some Senate Republicans had (very reasonably) offered to modify it to conform to the existing language but it’s not clear that they had the backing of the party.

The budget has to come out of the House, you know. Not exactly the Senate’s fault if that doesn’t happen.

520

This is rich:

I love to see the from the liberals on this board if someone on the right had tried this. So it’d becoming even more crystal clear that most of the leftists on this board are devoid of principles. And as far as the Obama, so much for his “most transparent administration.”

Seriously, anyone who seeks to excuse Clinton here needn’t be taken seriously about anything political.