I’m really not understanding my fellow liberals’ defense of Clinton on this issue. adaher’s point seems eminently reasonable to me. If the shoe was on the other foot, there’s no question this behavior would be viewed as highly inappropriate: senior administration member declines to use government email account, instead sets up own private server; said member subsequently decides to permanently delete a large number of those emails, with no disclosure into what was kept and what was deleted and why. You would seriously be ok with learning that Alberto Gonzales or Condi Rice or Dick Cheney had done this sort of thing?
Forget about whether this has to do with all the Benghazi nonsense and whether Republicans are exploiting the whole thing for partisan advantage. All of that aside, why is anyone trying to defend this behavior in general?
For three years, Congressional committees have been trying to find out what happened during the Ben Ghazi debacle. (Poor Ben Ghazi. It’s as if no one cares about what happened to him. )
The State Dept. and WH have been incredibly slow in providing documentation. The trail of evidence has led to Ol’ Hillary’s private server. Ol’ Hillary has PROVIDED PROOF that she had, and has, government documents on her private server. The investigators still want to know what government documents Ol’ Hillary still has. Some people consider this investigation to be a political fishing expedition. That’s fine. As long as the investigation continues. Which it is.
I think it’s perfectly acceptable for her to lose support of any voters who care. I agree it has a bad appearance and I’m not defending her. I don’t see the need for any “investigations,” or any other silliness.
In my mind, there’s still a 40% chance she doesn’t even enter the race, but I’ll admit the longer she doesn’t commit one way or another, the harder it will be for the eventual Democratic nominee.
I’m not “okay” with Clinton doing it. On the other hand, politicians do stuff all day, every day that I’m not okay. This just doesn’t rise beyond that.
I don’t think you’d find me making a huge deal of a Republican doing it, either. After all, didn’t they? My memory is bad, but I don’t think I threw a fit then, either.
You know, this wasn’t supposed to happen until Republicans got name recognition. Now a lot of voters are just picking Republicans they haven’t even heard of over Clinton.
What’s that you say? Real Clear Politics? Goodness, I had no idea you were drawing your information from such a thoroughly respected and non-partisan source! No wonder your prognostications set the standard for astute and accurate prediction!
Oh boy. Dude stop digging. Note who the pollster is. And it’s not the only poll showing a serious degradation in her position. She’s now running pretty close to basically unknown candidates more than 18 months before the election. That’s not good.
No, just poking fun at your hopes of finding something damning. The subject. btw, is Benghazi, which even you go on to poke fun at, not “non-transparency” in itself.
We don’t need anything damning. All we needed was a reminder that she carries a ton of drama with her, caused mostly by her own choices. Obama successfully made that case to beat her, no reason Republicans can’t do the same.
Legal, and even understandable given the implacability of your party’s hyenas. You need some sort of reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, and all you’ve got is that her name is Clinton.
You know why. Show us you know why. Show us you also know that nothing would have “cleared this up” to your satisfaction, or that you wouldn’t try to find something else you could call “shady”. Go on, show us you know what everyone in the Reality-Based Community knows.
It’s not about my satisfaction. She can win without pleasing people like me. But she can’t win if the NY Times thinks she’s shady. The relationship between her and the press is toxic. But I gotta admit, it’ll be nice to see Democrats be the aggrieved party when it comes to media bias.
Besides, maybe it’ll cause Democrats to finally just do away with their supposed support of the 1st amendment. Soon we’ll be hearing about how the media has too much power and should be regulated.
No. Just pointing out to the Liberal Bubble here that the right isn’t your problem. It’s the mainstream media. It might comfort you to think this is all a plot by the right, but it won’t actually help you get her into the White House. For that, you need to satisfy the real kingmakers, the media. And it’s call they can do to keep from just calling her a crook.
I can concede that, but it’s irrelevant. You can ignore scandals that are only reported in Newsmax. You can’t ignore mainstream media scandals. They do damage. They’ve done damage, in this case.
And just look at the effect all of these imaginary “scandals” has had on her. Presumptive nominee, leading every Republican by double digits in the polls … Who again do you say is in a “bubble”?
)
Presumptive nominee, leading every Republican by double digits in the polls … Who again do you say is in a “bubble”?