It may not be criminal, but it certainly doesn’t help her image. We Now Know Hillary Lied Multiple Times About Her Email Server**:
**I’ve never seen this source before, so if they are full of shit then this can be disregarded.
So, she didnt lie about the material being classified- none of it was classified at the time.
I cant see a single “lie”. I see some errors, sure.
Now, I have read, but don’t have enough info to confirm or deny, but my understanding is that the SecState has very wide latitude when it comes to the classification of material. But only within the confines of State. So, it might very well happen that a particular nugget of info might be held to be innocuous by State, but “classified” by some other agency.
Be that as it may, the usual timeline is something bad happens, and we look for who to blame. What dire consequence is Ms. Clinton being assailed for?
Here’s what the Commie Pinkos at Sourcewatch have to say about Fiscal Times.
No, I’m claiming that you are misinterpreting the clear implication that was present in the original statement.
I guess you could say I have it in for Clinton. I think she would make a far more competent president than Trump and given the choice I would vote for her over him. Shoot, I’d vote for her over Sanders, and I consider him to be a high integrity, great man. I do think she is an evil person. I essentially consider her to be Nixon with a different ideology. Doesn’t mean I don’t think she would do a decent job; I just think it further devalues us as a nation that she is the type of person that we would choose to represent us.
As any fool can plainly see.
Hell, I don’t like her either, and so what? I tend to blame her and Bill both for the scairdy-cat centrism of the 90s, and that may be unfair, because I kinda like Horndog Bill. So I gotta take that into account if I’m gonna be honest with the guy I shave.
But if you can take a step forward, you take it. If you can’t, you work on not taking one back. And so it goes.
There is a distinction between making money in the private sector, making money as an ex-politician, and making money as a current politician.
Generally, there’s nothing wrong with making big money in the private sector. Did Trump make money unethically? Probably, the guy is involved in casinos for crying out loud. He obviously should be questioned on it, and especially so since he won’t release tax returns.
I think making big money specifically due to the fact that you were a prominent former politician is a little unseemly, I am uncomfortable with it, but I recognize it as perfectly legal.
I think making big money because you are a current politician clearly violates an ethical boundary. I find it absolutely unfathomable that anyone can be against things like the Citizens United ruling but not see that there is an ethical problem with the Clinton’s being paid tens of millions while they are still actively serving in positions like senator, secretary of state, and potentially president. I think it takes an amazing amount of twisted logic to not see this as a problem.
Well, not really. These we’re internal policies of the state department put in place in order to comply with the Federal Records Act, which is of course a law. To quote directly from the inspector general of the state department.
Sure, I’m with you. To say it again, I’ll absolutely vote for her over Trump. I am unrealistically hoping that she drops out (after an indictment) and Biden or Bloomberg or someone like that jumps in. I don’t think that will happen, and I fully expect to reluctantly root for her to win the presidency. She’s better than the shitty alternative.
Really? What distinction is there between a businessman making money off of his name and a private individual doing exactly the same? What about she was not a current politician at the time do you not understand?
Are you seriously calling Trump’s name being plastered over everything he comes in contact with seemly? You might want to rethink that. Or maybe you want to work with him.
I think the consequence is not having a pile of email that was printed out and filed after she left State.
Horror!
And those policies were to print and file her emails when she left. Lock her up!
All the other “State Department Policies” that she supposedly ignored or forgot? Guess who signs those policies?
You ever work with the military? There are ALL KINDS of policies that high-ranking Generals don’t follow. They sign the friggin’ things, if they don’t want to follow them, then so be it. If someone wanted to be a stickler for POLICIES to a 4-star General (which wouldn’t happen) he could just draft a new one on the spot and then sign it.
There are multiple distinctions. For one, we hold our political representatives to a higher standard. For another, there are public dollars at stake as opposed to private dollars. For a third, there is the potential for bribery. People pay for access. People pay for influence. They aren’t paying because they’re just wowed by their speaking ability.
Further, I understand that money is fungible. I understand that people, for example, pay Chelsea Clinton $100,000+ dollars to speak not because they are interested in what she has to say but instead because it gives them access to Hillary Clinton. I understand that you can pay Bill Clinton or Chelsea money and it potentially buys you influence with Hillary Clinton. I understand that they have common assets and get joint benefit if either (or any including Chelsea) get paid. I understand that things like NBC hiring Chelsea Clinton to a fake no-work job for $600,000 a year isn’t based on her merits but instead on the access and influence it can potentially provide.
Did I say that or did I say the exact opposite? I’m pretty sure that I said that Trump probably made money unethically and should obviously be questioned on it. You also quoted me saying that. So, I guess I’ll flip it around on you and ask what in the world do you think I said that is positive toward Trump. I’m pretty sure I’ve also said that as bad as Clinton is, Trump is far worse and that I would vote and root for her over him.
Yes, as opposed to hiding them from the scrutiny of the press and the public. Yes, I think things like the freedom of information act are incredibly important and help separate the U.S. from Venezuelas and North Koreas of the world. Transparency and accountability, the freedom of the press, the ability to question our leaders openly, these are pretty important things, and the FOIA and similar are essential to those working in an optimal way.
Think about the current Baylor scandal. If Baylor was instead a public college instead of a private college and thus subject to FOIA requests they wouldn’t have been able to hide their issues from the press as long as they did. Maybe it wouldn’t have gone nearly as far as it did if they couldn’t hide the allegations from the public.
Isn’t there a reason that Obama made transparency one of the underlying tenants of his presidency and campaign?
Why should we just take Clinton’s word?
Holy schnoikies.
Material does not need to be marked classified as to actually be classified. For example, Talent-Keyhole information, which was in Clinton’s email according to reports, is classified. Period. No additional markings are required.
And Clinton as SecState damned well should have known that.
The whole ‘marked classified’ shtick is a rather lame excuse when, as SecState, Clinton should have known the material was classified.
Slee
Can you link to an article that states the emails were ACTUALLY MARKED with the caveat TK? All I can find is that they SHOULD HAVE been marked.
And no, something wouldn’t just be marked TK. There HAS to be other markings, because TK is NOT a classification.
Emphasis mine. Words yours.
I wasn’t saying anything about his other (probably nefarious and possibly illegal but perfectly acceptable businesswise) activities. I wrote specifically about his branding. So, once again, it’s alright for him to make money that way but not alright for Hillary, who held no office at the time, to make money off of speeches because of who she was? Do you have a similar issue with ex-Presidents doing the same? (Literally every President since Nixon.)
Well, you are talking about two totally different things. Do I think that people that sell their personal brand like a Trump, Kardashian, or whomever are doing something somewhat unseemly, yes. I don’t think it is illegal or anything, but I don’t find it particularly tasteful. That’s of course not what Hillary or Bill were doing. They were giving paid speeches to corporations or fundraisers for the most part. I don’t particularly look down on that as an activity if done by a business leader or even an ex-politician. If Trump gave some paid speeches at a real estate convention or something I wouldn’t think it to be a negative.
As I already said, I do think it can border on the unseemly side for former politicians if they are essentially getting rich off their status as former politicians. I’m not saying I think it should be illegal or that it is a major negative, but I am a little uncomfortable with it. I do not like what is seemingly becoming a trend where people raise their status by running for president (or possibly other offices) and then use it as a first step into a career as a celebrity. I don’t like the idea of selling your status as former politician. Nixon selling interviews to the highest bidder is not something I like. I’m not saying ban it, but I don’t like it.
Where I do have a major problem is current politicians doing it. The Clintons are a special and unusual case that presents particular problems. Between them they have held a major governmental position (governor then president then senator then secretary of state) from 1983 through 2013 and then she was essentially running for president from 2014 through current with most assuming she would run again well before that back to her time as secretary of state. They also have the added unusual situation where they are raising literally billions of dollars in donations from corporations and foreign governments. Between them they personally made $153 million in just paid speeches from 2001 through 2013. She was either senator, running for president, or secretary of state that entire time. I wouldn’t have a major problem if it were just Bill (or even Hillary) doing it after having left office. Like I said, I would find it a little unseemly the idea that he’s become worth $100+ million on his celebrity status as an ex-president, but I wouldn’t look at it as a major ethical breech or anything. The ethical breech comes because she is holding a major position where people pay for access/influence to or with her (whether paid to her directly or to Bill or to Chelsea it does not matter). It provides for the potential for bribery where that doesn’t exist in the case of just a former politician. Again, I do not find it plausible that people were paying Chelsea Clinton $100,000+ per speech because of her ability to speak. They were paying in order to gain access or influence with her politician mother.
Or, people pay so that other people might *think *they have access. Or simply because that’s what big shots do, they hang pictures of themselves with bigger shots on their office wall.