Ooh. Snap.
her own State Department instructed employees not to use personal email accounts.
In any case, it shouldn’t matter. The government has the right to simply seize her account and publicize the emails. It is a government account because she used it to do official government business. She does not get to decide which emails we get to see and which we don’t.
The AP is considering legal action:
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/234743-dems-do-damage-control-on-emails
So why is Hillary Clinton being discussed in a thread about stupid Liberal ideas? Are liberals attacking her?
Not nearly as much as they should be.
- Hillary is a liberal.
- Other liberals should be lighting her up, but they aren’t.
She was doing no more than what Powell and Rice did before her. Stupid as all hell but within the rules at the time. Even Bricker thinks so.
The real question is why the current rules weren’t put in place when email became a common tool in government work
What a dumbfuck you are. Hillary a liberal? I cannot laugh hard enough.
Remember, Clothy is so far to the right everybody is a liberal.
We are, actually. Pay attention.
This thread is about stupid ideas, so “within the rules” isn’t really a relevant defense.
Maybe we need a Stupid Bi-Partisan Idea thread.
And “within the rules” is a relevant defense since most of the blather is that she broke the rules, not that it was a specifically liberal stupid idea.
If you want to bring up the same idea in the SROITD thread, be my guest. As I’ve said elsewhere, “Bush did it” is not a byword for good policy. Hillary is as close as we get to having liberals in government and this was a stupid idea. I disagree that most of the blather relates to the rules; most of the blather relates to the fact that this allows Clinton to avoid having her e-mails to non-SD employees in the public record.
Also, she went much farther than anyone else. She had her own server, used multiple email addresses. And by the time Clinton became SecState, the culture, if not the rules, strongly discouraged personal email use.
The Clintons don’t break the law. They are way too smart for that. They just skate as closely as possible to the line. So all of their scandals are minor, but there will always be a lot of them. Can Hillary overcome these problems as skillfully as Bill did? So far, the answer seems to be no. And the media is acting very unfriendly.
Then it is well that they are coming out now. The voters have short memories, and the media will move on to the Republican rape comment of the week by the time the primaries start.
It’s not a matter of short memories, it’s that nobody cares.
No, you’re a complete fucking moron. If I knew I would have to spend the rest of my life with your low level of noetic development I would get in the tub and open an artery. OK, maybe I’d do something silly first like put on my karate uniform.
That was the bailout you hoped for in 2014. It never came.
Plus it doesn’t matter when this stuff comes out. There’s always more to find with them. It’ll be a steady drip of little things that will all add up to “Do we really want to do this for the next four years?”
No love for Bob Menendez’ pending indictment yet?
Maybe Chris Christie should run for his seat when he’s forced to step down. 
This gets about a 1 on the Richter scale AFAIAC. There will always be corrupt individuals in either party. And “crooked NJ official” isn’t quite redundant, but it’s pretty close. So it doesn’t exactly strike me as something that says anything about liberalism or Democrats in general.
Now if, say, Hillary Clinton was about to be indicted and we Dems and libruls were all cool with that, it would say something about us, because she’s the leading candidate for the Presidential nomination on the Dem side. (Nothing like that’s happening on the Republican side, of course. :D)
It says nothing about liberalism, just a liberal who got in trouble in a non-ideological way: doing illegal favors for a donor.
Now Clinton, there’s less “stupid liberal ideas” emanating from her camp, and more “What has she done to justify being considered for President?” can anyone name her accomplishments as Senator? As Secretary of State? In private life? What does she stand for, other than secrecy and non-transparency?