This is about the nonest non-story I have seen dredged up by the false media. Who the hell cares.
Keep on linking it to Benghazi, Pubbies. There’s no surer way to help her in 2016.
I wasn’t a fan of hers before and this reinforces my view that the Clintons are a bit shady. Try using your home email server to for work email to/from clients at a company and see how that goes over. It’s even worse for a public official.
I think this is another illustration of the “do as I say, not as I do” tendency from public officials.
This is pretty much how I feel.
I don’t like Hillary Clinton, but I’ve never thought of her as the devil or anything; just a politican I don’t care for. But this keeps looking worse and worse. She eschewed the usual government system, and went to considerable lengths to set up a private system located on her property, and guarded by (I presume her husband’s) Secret Service detachment. And we’re supposed to believe that she did that because it was the simpler option? :dubious:
At this point, I’m assuming that she has something pretty major to hide, like taking bribes to steer US foreign policy.
That seems like a fairly large leap. Like a Wile E. Coyote wearing rocket boots leap.
I find it interesting that while some folks are hemorrhaging over Hillary very few even know that Jebby Bush did the same while Governor of Florida.
Fence sitter. Wasn’t impressed how she handled her 2008 campaign, but probably prefer her to the likely Republican candidate.
Strikes me as partisan witch hunting.
Not at all. She has pretty clearly gone to great lengths to avoid disclosing her e-mails, even to the usual government archivists. (She set up her own personal e-mail server, for chrissake. A bit more involved than using a Gmail account or something.) This begs the question of why you would go to so much trouble. And the most obvious answer is that she has something to hide.
Basically, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
The most obvious answer is that she thought she would come under attack. That is not the same thing as she thought she had something to hide.
And I really don’t think you want to use smoke/fire reasoning, not if you’re a political partisan.
Shrug I don’t want to vote for Jeb Bush, either.
In any event, this is an irrelevant red herring.
Not sure I’d call it a “bribe”, but one wonders if there are emails relating to questionable donations to the Clinton Foundation that have been redacted.
Anyway, the whole thing about her deciding which e-mails to release is laughable, and feeds into the notion many people have of the Clintons-- always scheming, always with something to hide, and always controlling. Matt Bai had a good article on yahoo news today about this.
Wow? Seriously? “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. Wow.
Where there’s smoke, sometimes it’s just a bunch of vigilantes waving torches along with their pitchforks.
Who is wondering this? Is it you?
Supporter. Don’t care in the least.
I will vote against the Republican* by selecting Hillary. I’m not thrilled by her at all.
- (most likely, I don’t know of any current Republicans I would vote for but it is not impossible that I would)
This little scandal-in-a-teapot calls for SCIENCE. Political Science, that is.
5 Lessons On The Clinton Email Scandal From Political Science
TL;DR: The bullet points:
[ol][li] Don’t pay attention to the polls; pay attention to Democratic politicians.[/li][li] Clinton’s in less trouble than she would be if voters felt that Democrats were certain to keep the White House in 2016.[/li][li] Unless more comes out about this scandal, Clinton is likely to escape any major damage.[/li][li] Clinton’s better off with this scandal coming out now.[/li][*] Clinton would be smart to play nice with the press.[/ol]
[quote=“Senegoid, post:97, topic:714150”]
TL;DR: The bullet points:
[ol][li] Clinton’s in less trouble than she would be if voters felt that Democrats were certain to keep the White House in 2016.[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]
I think this is absolutely true. Even Democrats or liberals who don’t like her but who want a Democrat to remain in office will try to avoid hamstringing her.
[quote=“Senegoid, post:97, topic:714150”]
[li] Clinton would be smart to play nice with the press.[/list][/li][/QUOTE]
Probably won’t help. If they don’t have a primary campaign to cover with their usual lazy horse-race reporting, then they’re forced to focus on her, while appearing to be doing their due diligence etc. The coverage she’ll get is based on the press’ need to look like they’re reporting something, not on what that actually is.