If you got “smoking gun” out of what I wrote*, probably a lot more than than you probably need to.
*I was pretty clear that it wasn’t a smoking gun when I wrote that The Atlantic was “speculating that Biden may know”
Running-dog bourgeois lackeys of the capitalist oligarchs at the ultra-conservative New York Times attack Hillary saying
So…10% of a random sample were classified? From a server that Hillary herself said "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” and “I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.” (Notice she didn’t say “material marked as classified.” which is her newest lie) Cite, again from reactionary minions of the crypto-fascists at the New York Times
Okay then I’ll play too!
Bernie Sanders may actually be an alien reptile overlord in disguise.
Joe Biden might be a member of a Satanic cult.
Donald Trump might actually be a genius and would be a great President uniting everyone in pursuit of a liberal agenda.
I might actually be 6 feet tall and amazingly handsome.
Your turn again.
Show a legit news source (unless you’re dismissing The Atlantic or NPR or the NY Times) reporting on any of those, and let’s talk.*
*Except the Biden one. We all know that that one is true. 
Been working for it since before you ever heard of it.
The e-mail non-story has been hashed and rehashed and the cite to the actual source letter from the Intelligence IG has been given in the past. The NYT had to apologize for misrepresenting it. The simple reality is that there is a wide range of judgements within the intelligence community over what should get classified and what does not need to be. Those who made the decisions in real time did not decide that say ordering soft toilet paper for a particular upcoming visit was a state secret and some think it should have been considered as such … may be a clue about the dignitary’s hemorrhoid problem which might be used against him or her … some think it should have been classified at the time and that those making the decisions in the state department and therefore communicating about toilet paper purchases via non-secure channels which then went out into Hillary’s private server as well are routinely making mistakes. The Intelligence IG is concerned about that and states that trusting previous assessments made at the time is not enough to say that they can be released at this time under Freedom of Information requests. He believes they need to be carefully vetted first under the more stringent standards that he would apply and proposed a process to do so. And he may be right. There may be a case for making nearly everything classified. Maybe those who have been making the decisions are too lax in their decision process and maybe that process should be investigated. I am no intelligence expert and this is a debate for them to have between themselves, and with those outside of the community who feel that less should be protected from FOI requests.
Fenris the point is that “speculating” is not reporting. Anyone can speculate anything and doing that speculation is no more meaningful because it is done by a talking head on cable news or pundit in some paper press.
Unsupported speculations are bread and butter for all political media. When you have no news and you can’t get away making it up (although the NYT did try to get away with that this time) you create interest by speculating what might be. Or would be interesting if it was. Anything that gets people reading or clicking. I don’t care if you are quoting a Nobel Prize winner, if you are quoting what they speculate, not what they have evidence for, it not really of any value.
One thing that is not speculation is that Clinton evaded FOIA by maintaining a private server to do public business, and deleted emails from that account.
Apparently, keeping a private email account to do public business with is a-okay in the government(which is yet another reason to have zero confidence in government’s competence), but if you have a private account for that purpose, then it’s covered under FOIA and it must be made available to those who want to read the contents.
The Atlantic article has nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with lazy journalism. “What if…” is not journalism when there’s no evidence, and the writer of that article admits that there’s no evidence Biden knows anything special about Hillary’s emails. Pure clickbait garbage, from a magazine/website that I often read.
Yes. This has been my real objection to the private email from the beginning, and strikes me as the much more legitimate scandal.
I also suspect it is the real reason she had the private server at all.
I suspect the *underlying *real reason was to keep the hyenas from having rich pickings to misrepresent in their campaign ads, don’t you?
Yes. But that’s just another way of saying that the goal was to prevent the public from using totally legal means to scrutinize her.
Using a generous definition of “the public”.
I suspect there needn’t be only one underlying reason.
Of course.
Has she even said whether it was her idea?
Very Clintonian. “The public” is every last one of us, and does not exclude the ones you would like to not have access.
Not an excuse. She’s a public figure. She does not have the right to hide official communication. And personal communications are just not damaging no matter how silly.
The problem isn’t really with what’s actually there, but with how you people would misrepresent it, right? :dubious:
Which again, is no excuse. Public figures do not get to hide things from the public that the public has a right to know just because people who don’t like them will use it against them.
She evaded FOIA, and the law should be changed immediately to encompass private email accounts used for public business. Those accounts should be regarded by law as de facto government accounts.
In short, yes.