What audience was he speaking to during that sound bite? What did he say on the subject the day before or the day after?
My god, how can you possibly equate these? Rice herself never used (sent or received) email. Of her staff, there were a total of 10 emails that were retroactively classified. Powell had 2 emails that he received that were retroactively classified.
You want to equate that to literally thousands of emails that were sent or received by Clinton and her staff. You’re equating actions that ranged from never to rare under Powell and Rice to exclusive and daily under Clinton. It’s just pure insanity.
The fact is that any reasonable person knows this was a new technology that was rapidly evolving and rapidly being adopted over the past 20-25 years. Some growing pains and lapses are somewhat reasonable. In the report, we can trace the adoption of the internet and emails in the State department from Albright to Powell to Rice to Clinton to Kerry. We can see that it had almost no role under Albright. We can see that when Powell started they didn’t even have a state department email system that communicated with people outside of the department. He’s the one that put in place the system that allowed for internet access and email use. That only 2 emails were questionable seems incredibly forgivable. This is something you might expect early on and that you would expect policies to get tightened up and improved upon as the technology becomes more common and understood. However what Clinton did was many many orders of magnitude in all aspects in the opposite direction.
Clinton clearly under absolutely no reasonable question put in place a system designed to circumvent FOIA requirements. No reasonable person can disagree.
I think this is one of those issues he’s flip flopped and equivocated hard on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnPQdfvBnBE&feature=youtu.be
Personally, I think he probably doesn’t really give a crap but would be fine leaving gay marriage as it is.
I had the same thoughts as the OP here. I never understood why people have such a negative view of someone who has served her entire life practically in the public eye…and not a single “gate” has ever actually resulted in any charges or punishment. It only ever seems to be Hillary “might” have done this, or been aware of that, or didn’t do this…
This woman was First Lady, Senator, and Sec. of State… my god, if she’s not a qualified candidate for potus… who the hell is??
A man. A Republiman.
My thought is that some of their (her and Bill) “scandals” are certainly overblown, but that there is usually some unsavory element underpinning them. Some are certainly more “real” than others. There’s so many scandals that it obviously has a “boy who cried wolf” thing going on that they have used to their advantage. If you dismiss all of them as vast right wing conspiracies though then I think you are fooling yourself.
It feels very similar to a Penn State fan (or now a Baylor fan for a more current example) who thinks Paterno did nothing wrong and hand-waves off everything as just rivals trying to take him down. There is no convincing them since they are rabid fans and incapable of trying to look objectively at the facts.
The Clinton’s have been accused of ethical dealings going back to the 1970s. They’ve personally enriched themselves more than any other politicians in U.S. history. Do I think they are corrupt, absolutely. That doesn’t mean I think she would be incompetent or worse than Trump, but I think she’s a pretty horrible choice for president.
I think the trouble has been convincing a large number of non-fools.
How many classified emails did Hillary receive?
I’m reasonable, I don’t think you’ve made your case. And certainly every other time the RW has come up with some scandal or other, it was trumped up horseshit. So I’ll wait to see what the details are before deciding.
All I’ve learned is that old people who run large branches of government spent 15+ years looking at their email options, going “huh?” and making bad decisions.
I wonder how many emails Albright had to have printed out for her to read? 
Because she’s running for the highest office in the most powerful country on earth. If she becomes President, she’ll be the most powerful person on earth, thus the most dangerous person on earth, thus the person who should be scrutinized the most.
Really, it is a good thing when people are suspicious of powerful politicians and candidates. It’s the whole “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” thing. (Which, for the record, Thomas Jefferson did not say, but it’s true nonetheless.) The President of the USA has the power to wreck a lot of death and destruction, both on our economy at home and with the military abroad. Thus, extra attention should be given to the question of who is or might be influencing Presidential candidates, regardless of what party they come from.
That’s a good argument for never electing another Republican, certainly.
I’m not saying they are the richest politicians. I’m saying that they have enriched themselves through their political positions more than anyone else. Disregarding any personal benefits they get (of which there are numerous) from the billions of dollars they have raised as part of their foundation, they’ve made more than $100 million off of being president / presidential candidate. Who else even comes close?
I’ve no issue with scrutinizing and vetting any presidential candidate, if done evenhandedly, and even sometimes if not, when there’s a very serious concern underlying the scrutiny. But it almost never is (evenhanded, that is; or a truly serious concern).
This hounding after HRC’s emails, with strident calls of “she’s obviously corrupt,” strikes me as witch hunting and attempted character assassination—not remotely a product of evenhanded vetting—and is not fundamentally addressing a critical underlying concern.
Incidentally, can someone show me a career politician, with decades of engaged and highly public service, who doesn’t have accusations and gossip about “scandals” clinging to their heals? If someone says, “Bernie Sanders,” I’m just going to laugh at you.
Well, it’s a good argument for never electing a President, certainly. 
More than 2,000 sent/received.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/03/02/hillary-emails-final-score-n2126822
I haven’t tried to make a case. Just from some of the links from today I think it is blindingly obvious. I’ve made the case in other threads, but not restating and updating it all right now (may come back later). See below though from today’s reports and articles regarding it.
Oh, OK. Moving goalposts and all that. To answer this newest question, Lyndon Johnson was worth $100m when he died, and all he did was politics. Grover Cleveland died worth $25m and he was a lawyer for 8 years before being a politician for 30.
Look, you got a bug about Hillary, I get it. But your arguments are weak and less supported by the data than they are by yours and ITR’s assumption that wealth=corruption.
The writer of that article is a seething moron, but other than that, how many classified emails did Clinton send herself? How many of the classified emails were retroactively classified?
The writer of that article doesn’t care, but I think reasonable folk should.
Feel free to come back.
It seems to me, that the tweeter in question, misunderstood that quote. By accessible, she obviously means she doesn’t want her personal email address to be something that any asshole can look up.
If you think that deserves a “Wow”, I’m not sure what to say. When I worked for other people, sometimes my boss told me to drop shit too.
What? There’s no moving goalposts. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being rich. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with politicians being rich, although I don’t necessarily think it’s a positive thing. I do think being successful in whatever they did prior to running for office is obviously a positive.
I think it’s a little unsavory and borders on unethical the idea that you come into politics with no money (remember Bill Clinton claimed he was the poorest president) and come out being worth a hundred plus million. I would be uncomfortable with it if they made all the money after leaving office. I think it would have been legally okay, but I would be uncomfortable with the idea of it. I think it is incredibly unethical to be raising the money while you are still in office, which is the case with the Clintons. I also definitely think it is unethical and probably illegal to be raising billions of dollars while you are still in office from the same people that you are having dealings with. It’s an unbelievable conflict of interest.
Also, not calling LBJ the most ethical guy, because I don’t think he was, but they made most of their money in radio and television that was bought well prior to him becoming president and supposedly was funded with his wife’s inheritance. I don’t claim to be an expert, but that’s at least my understanding.
Now there’s at least two posters in this thread that think raising money for charity is scandalous. Is raising any amount of money scandalous or is there a dollar limit people in the charity business should be wary of?