Which might be legally fine(I don’t really know), but still screams, “I’m hiding something embarrassing”.
A standard, I keep noting, you don’t seem to hold politicians you support to.
And the whole “only guilty people need privacy” thing is desperately sad.
I don’t believe Clinton should have to turn over her private emails. I just don’t think HER staff gets to determine what’s private and what’s official. If the emails are not so private enough that she can have a staffer go through them, then she can have a neutral party go through them. At least if she hadn’t deleted them.
Okay, that I agree with. Although there’s a question about who’s a “neutral party” in this situation.
Since it was the State Department, a State Department official. For me, anyone John Kerry, the incoming boss, trusted, would have been fine. Kerry’s never put politics above duty.
And thank YOU for proceeding, too!
First of all, let me reiterate that I have said more than once that this was not the smartest thing that Hillary could have done (emails on private server, and the whole shebang afterwards).
That said, as early as it is in the election cycle, I don’t think it has the legs to sustain until election day. If this had happened closer to the 2016 elections, I could see it being damaging. But voters often have short memories, and if this is the worst that comes out, then the controversy around it may have very well peaked too soon.
Here’s my problem with all this: the initial storm against Secretary Clinton was that she broke the law. The very first pieces of commentary implied that she broke the law, and they did so by quoting current law instead of law as it existed at the time, or by conflating law and NARA policy. That created a public narrative.
As defenders swam against the stream and pointed out the actual legal issues in play, the narrative began to shift: no longer did we see allegations of illegality, but neither did we see apologies for or correction of those first accusations; instead we saw more vague comments about risks and wisdom, and now this has transformed into an opportunity for a hostile congressional committee to use their position to ask a series of “stopped beating your husband” questions.
I wish anyone who’s defending Secretary Clinton because she’s a Democrat and likely presidential candidate would shut up, and I wish anyone who’s attacking her because she’s a Democrat and LPC to shut up. I wish this conversation could focus on the absolutely improper use of perception and false allegation.
But it won’t, apparently. So far as I can discern, the use of false allegations and carefully constructed accusations to create a false perception is just dandy, as long as it’s aimed against your political rival. It’s only dishonest and reprehensible if used against a cause you support.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your take on the subject overall. But I don’t agree that “why did you have a private server” or “why did you conduct official business on a private account” or “why did you delete e-mails after they were subpoena’d” or “why should we take your word for anything given your several contradictory statements about your e-mail” are equivalent to “have you stopped beating your husband”.
I think, almost for the first time, I am making the same objection to your approach that has been made by more worthy posters in the past. Once it has been determined “no, this wasn’t strictly against the law”, that does not need to end the debate. OK, so HRC did not break the law so far as has been determined to date. And certainly much of the questioning of her actions has been prosecutorial in nature, from the Congressional committee and elsewhere. That does not settle the issue, IMO.
In an ideal world, or an ideal messageboard, this thread (started by a conservative, and very much to your credit) would be paralleled by others roundly condemning Harry Reid for his outright lie in accusing a different Presidential candidate of breaking the law in not paying his taxes. But apparently this is not an ideal message board.
No, it’s not OK. And you and most other conservatives on the SDMB don’t do it. But the Usual Suspects will always say that we do.
Regards,
Shodan
You really have no sense of irony, do you…
Oh, you poor dear! Need a hug?
Any *individual *who does that properly gets called out individually, for instance as you see in this thread. Your claim that “conservatives” as a monolith get called for it is not derived from evidence.
You haven’t accepted the last seven. Why should the eighth be any different?
Who says I didn’t accept the findings of the previous investigations? As more evidence became available, the Congressional investigation continued. :eek: And it will continue in spite of the demands that Ol’ Hillary, Ol’ Hillary’s actions as Sec of State, and Ol’ Hillary’s withholding of government documents from the government, should not continue.
Of course, the All-Things-Benghazi debacle includes much more than Ol’ Hillary but the lame stream media seems to prefer to discuss Ol’ Hillary. Such is life.
The obvious difference between the latest investigation and the previous investigations would be the inclusion of the previously unknown, and unavailable, Ol’ Hillary’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mails. Hillary has confirmed that she has been storing government documents on her personal server. That’s not in question. Now she is being given the chance to discuss those documents, and her handling of those documents, with Congressional investigators.
That implies a level of continuity from previous investigations and a causal link to new evidence that doesn’t exist.
The discovery of Ol’ Hillary’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mail Account is new evidence. And Ol’ Hillary has proven that they do, in fact, exist.
Continuity? The first Congressional investigation was about all-things-Benghazi. The current investigation is about all-things-Benghazi.
Let me try this again, since you seem to have missed the point.
Your statement implies that each investigation was a continuation of the previous one rather than a new investigation being conducted by a different committee, agency or department. This is not the case. It also implies that the emails are the reason an eighth investigation is happening because they constitute new evidence. This is also not the case.
Gyrate, you’re just not getting it! By the working of The Butterfly Effect, “all-things-Benghazi” is equivalent to “all-things”. It doesn’t matter what the nature of the direct inquiry, one way or another, by a route either direct or insanely (and I use that word deliberately) convoluted, everything is somehow connected to Benghazi. Give it up! They’ve got us now.
There is a level of continuity between the previous investigations. They are all based on the same subject.
Ol’ Hillary’s storing of government documents on her personal server, and the fact that those government documents were not part of earlier Congressional investigations makes them new evidence.
Those emails are not the only reason for another Congressional investigation.
That’s commonality, not continuity. These are fundamentally different things.
They’re not the reason at all for another Congressional investigation. They could be, but they aren’t. And this desperate post hoc justification you’re clinging to is getting increasingly threadbare.
The reason for the Congressional investigation is that the Republicans in Congress want to continue to give the impression to their credulous followers that Clinton and Obama either screwed up or actively caused the deaths of the Americans in Benghazi. That the previous seven investigations, including GOP-led ones, have failed to turn up anything incriminating will not deter them because they’re not interested in the truth; they’re interested in slinging as much mud as quickly as possible and they don’t mind wasting millions of taxpayers’ dollars in doing so.