This and her unfortunate habit of throwing people under the bus, as with her staff and the oblique way she blamed them for sending her classified material to her personal server email address. And more recently for dragging Colin Powell into it. WTF, Hillary?!.. Just shut yer yap and take your lumps like a big girl. Christ. You’d think she’d learn by now.
I rise to quibble. Isn’t the recent prominence of Colin Powell’s advice about something that actually occurred some time ago, during FBI interviews with Ms Clinton? Hence, she had no actual hand in bringing it, once again, to public attention. That would be whomsoever insisted on making those interviews public.
Don’t immediately know who that would be, but suspect it starts with an “R”. “R”, me hearties, “R”! “R”!
The emails don’t mean shit. How many polls have to come out with her running near 50% head to head to convince someone of that?
How about siccing Trey Gowdy on the emails, that might help.
I stand corrected. She did say it to the FBI during her recent interview with them and it’s coming up because the notes of the meeting were released to congress.
Still, I’m wondering why she felt it necessary to mention the specifics. Why involve Powell so directly - “He told me to do it!” Sure, it’s true that he did so. But he was SoS at a time when the state department email system wasn’t as sophisticated as when Clinto was SoS. Furthermore, I don’t believe for a second she didn’t know better.
She did it and admitted to as much. Own it now. Stop @ mentioning others by name. It’s petty and does not in any way help her case.
Perhaps she was asked? Dunno, haven’t looked, don’t much care. Do we have a source we can check, see what prompted that revelation?
Read the linked article, not quite sure that it says that. Not even sure that it would qualify as a defense anyway. If what she did was wrong, it hardly matters whether anyone else did it as well.
I’d be much more interested in knowing what those three e-mails were actually about. Which were, we are advised, not properly marked as “confidential”. Some subsection was marked with a “c”, but the whole document was not given such status.
The subject matter would be relevant because the e-mail may not have been important, she may have simply glanced over it, and paid it little or no mind. May not have had any good reason to think that it was important. Would be very convenient for someone to leave that fact shrouded, to let the implication remain. After all, if all you have is three, and you want to damage Ms Clinton, you surely would not point that out. Plus, you have the comfort of being technically correct, you should not reveal the contents of classified material for political gain. That works equally well for not revealing classified material that would help her!
Personally, I think Mr. Comey gave as much to the Republicans as he could safely get away with. If memory serves, he didn’t actually say anything about how many e-mails were involved until directly questioned about it. He couldn’t get away with an indictment when his entire staff was unanimous in rejecting that. But he could categorize her actions as reckless and irresponsible, he could give the Pubbies every possible inference and implication. Which I think he did.
YMMV.
I’m in agreement with you with respect to the content of the emails. It may have been carelessness, it may have been human error, it may have been material classified after the fact. None of that is a disqualifier of HRC’s run for POTUS.
It sounds like we also agree that using CP as a defense was a foolish attempt to explain away why she used a private email server.
What I’m saying is, she continues to justify & explain something she has already admitted was wrong, while dragging others into it (staffers & former SoS). To me, it comes across as a character flaw - her inability to simply say, ‘The buck stops with me. Mia Culpa. Period.’ But no… she just keeps trying to deflect.
Again, not a disqualifier. But it does leave a bad taste in my mouth. I imagine I’m not the only one who feels the same way.
Critics calling it “pay for play” but I’m not seeing a lot of “play” here. People who wanted material favors were turned down. A couple people got meetings with Clinton but we’re talking either people Clinton has worked with or the crown prince of Bahrain. Seems that meeting with them is sort of the Sec. of State’s job (and none walked away with more than a meeting).
Yeah, isn’t getting a meeting with someone usually called, “networking”?
Yeah, it seems a lot of these emails are of the sort: “INFLUENCER ASKED CLINTON FOUNDATION FOR MEETING, top aid couldn’t be bothered with the request.”
One thing I don’t think has been mentioned is that approximately 70,000 emails have been “found”. She was Secretary of State for just over 4 years with an average of 48 emails a day-including Sundays. I haven’t seen any spam that she could just delete so I’m frankly pretty impressed that she did that much work on top of her regular business too.
Keep in mind that Virginia’s Gov. McDonnell was indicted for taking money and gifts in exchange for setting up meetings. Certainly, the Supreme Court threw out his conviction, ruling that that wasn’t enough to constitute an actionable quid pro quo, but a lot of people were critical of that result and believed that McDonnell should have been criminally punished.
In the immediate case, of course, the donations were going to the foundation and not to HRC personally, so there appears to be insulation in the process, but we’re also hearing that there was close contact between her State office and foundation officials, so the situation may be muddled enough overall to allow both sides to argue back and forth as much as they care to.
I’m tired of hearing about how Hillary Clinton maybe kind of sorta did something that looks a little illegal, if you just ignore the insulation in the process and the way the Supreme Court threw out a similar case, recently. I don’t give a damn that “lots of people” are critical about any of that.
The next time some conservative wants me to care about some “scandal” involving Hillary, especially if he’s asking for another multi-million dollar special investigation, he damn well better have photos of her shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.
Agreed. Now it’s “Accessgate,” and a (completely untrue) claim that Clinton accepted payments (to her and Bill’s charity) to get “access” to her as Sec’y of State. This has been bubbling up from the tar-pits of the far-right’s imagination; I don’t know where it started, but Glenn Beck was running with it not long ago.
It reminds me (a bit painfully) of the Shirley Sherrod smear, and the Planned Parenthood smear, where only parts of the full truth were brought out, and made to appear damning. Examination of the whole truth showed…nothin’.
(By coincidence, I was listening to a Creationist on the radio, who was playing exactly the same game, by taking parts of Charles Darwin’s letters, deliberately out of context.)
We aren’t facing honest people here.