And the fuck-off in place.
We do understand your frustration at finding no lawbreaking on the part of a person you’re sure *must *have done something illegal, really we do, but it’s still your own problem.
ElvisL1ves: honest question, what political consequence, if any, do you think HRC ought to suffer on account of her use of a private server for government business and subsequent discretionary deletion of emails from that server? Would your answer be the same if instead of HRC it was a senior member of the Bush administration?
Please do not ascribe motivations to me as to my reasons for posting.
Cannot the next Congress in 2017 (the 114th?) reissue the subpoenas to Attorney General Holder, Ms. Lerner, and Secretary Clinton? And if they still fail to comply, and are held in contempt of Congress, cannot a Republican U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia refer the contempt charges to a grand jury?
You’re asking a political question, and in politics context and reasons are critical. The fact that you’ve defined that out of your question says what answer you have already settled upon as correct, doesn’t it?
It isn’t a hypothetical. The e-mails about the mass firings of US Attorneys for failing to go after Dem pols for political reasons (yes, there’s that annoying context thing again) all disappeared, from government servers. Were you upset by that or not? Are you now?
Different context and reasons, different answers. Defense =/= offense.
If you’re not going to state them, they’re going to be inferred. That’s how it works.
The political consequences are a matter for the fickle public to decide.
There has been no indication yet of any valid reason for legal consequences.
And Bush (the lesser) got away with much worse, e.g., firing the Federal Attorneys who were investigating Congressional political corruption. What political consequences were there? Damn few: those of us who didn’t like him continued not to like him.
The same will be true here: nobody’s mind is being changed by this manufactured outrage.
ETA: What ElvisL1ves said.
I’m just trying to understand if you and other liberals on this board personally have a) a bit of a problem, b) a big problem, or c) no problem whatsoever with what Hillary did WRT to her email. That’s all. I had a problem with Bush administration secrecy. As a liberal, albeit not a huge HRC fan, I find what she did not objectionable. I don’t think laws were broken, but I don’t feel the compulsion to mount a particular vociferous defense of it either.
Perhaps her choice of servers was a decision related to concerns about security? Was she hiding something? I sure hope so, since she was Secretary of State. Arguably, the SecDef is a position requiring more comprehensive and intense cyber-security. SecState would still be a close second.
A little problem. It’s bad for transparency, which is a virtue in government.
On the other hand, the Snowden leaks did a lot of harm, and I don’t really blame anyone for wanting additional security against that kind of thing.
Some Republicans are trying to build it up into the next Watergate, and that’s the kind of underhanded politics I wish both sides would reject.
Explain why you’re excluding context and reasons from your question, then. It’s already been pointed out to you. Good faith requires good faith.
Hear, hear.
If Russian hackers can access the servers at the Department of State, wouldn’t Secretary Clinton’s personal server in Chappaqua be even more vulnerable? Heck, she used her name as part of the DNS. :dubious:
You mean, could private enterprise offer a better solution than a government program?
Both sides? Really now?
Secretary Clinton did not work for private enterprise during the time in question.
Well, I’m trying to be moderate. I do wish everyone would reject underhanded politics. (But I won’t deny that the conservative Republicans are doing 90% of it in this day and age.)
Whoosh. Her server was set up as a “private enterprise” vendor to the State Department. It’s called a quip, son.
Well, gosh! (Batting big brown innocent eyes…) I first heard about how private enterprise is so much better than inefficient government when I was but a wee lout. First heard it in Sunday School, I think.
You mean, maybe that isn’t so? Whoa! Gonna need a minute, absorb that…
Nope. See Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399 (1961).
No. In fact, although it’s pure speculation, it might well have been more secure: she didn’t have to support an infrastructure that allowed thousands of VPN users past external firewalls, or host vulnerable web servers on internal subnets.
Just curious. If you’re relying on “pure speculation” in the second part, how can you be so sure of your “No” in the first part of your post?