Even Clinton is now acknowledging that it’s a real issue. Finally. Tell ya, that woman doesn’t give an inch unless she has to. Which is actually a pretty positive trait when dealing with foreign assholes like Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein. At least if she’s elected I need have little concern about her being weak.
Did Hillary send emails with classified info at the time, or was she the recipient? Obviously, those are two very different things.
I think your definition of strong and weak need calibration. ‘Not giving an inch’ is not necessarily strong (Cheney was an incredibly weak leader who greatly weakened America, for example), and compromising is not necessarily weak.
Sounds like someone should not have sent those. I can’t see how the recipient can be blamed.
I support compromise, and Clinton can compromise. What I meant is that when it’s an issue she feels really strongly about, she doesn’t give an inch, and her privacy is something she feels strongly about. It’s a stupid thing to feel strongly about when you’re running for President, so it is a weakness in this case. But the general attitude has served her well in other contexts. Sometimes what makes you a terrible candidate can make you a good President. My issue with Clinton has always been more about the insult that her candidacy does to our system due to her chronic dishonesty, rather than her abilities as a potential President.
You can’t be…if you have an above-board, legal government e-mail account. If you have a skeevey homebrew server that is insecure and you tell your flunkies to send your emails to that…well, then that’s a whole 'nother matter, isn’t it?
It’s kind of like telling a government courrier “Hey, don’t bother depositing those hard-copy top-secret files in the locked mail-drop in my secure room at the Pentagon, just dump 'em on the front porch of my house. It’ll be fine.”
If she asked for the emails, sure. If they sent them without checking what “Clinton.com” was, it’s not on her. According to her recent interview, she had an entirely separate way to receive classified information unrelated to her email account.
Then that would be applicable to the MANY Republicans in high office who have a “skeevy homebrew server” who somehow aren’t the subject of myriad investigations. :dubious:
That’s called a “tu quoque” argument…which is essentially conceding the point but adding “but your guys do it too”, so congrats on at least admitting that Hillary was, at minimum, skeevy, but
-
If Repubs in high office DO have skeevy homebrew servers that receive and send “Top Secret” information, I think they should be prosecuted too.
-
Why, exactly, do you think that President Obama’s FBI and that other agency are just going after Hillary if they could bring down, say Bohener or Cruz or someone? Or do you believe Hillary’s paranoid ravings about how everyone who criticizes her unethical, disgusting behavior is a member of “the vast right wing conspiracy”? I’m sure it’ll be shock to President Obama to hear that he’s in bed with Republicans.
And strangely, none of them are being excoriated in the media. Fancy that.
- Why, exactly, do you think that President Obama’s FBI and that other agency are just going after Hillary if they could bring down, say Bohener or Cruz or someone? Or do you believe Hillary’s paranoid ravings about how everyone who criticizes her unethical, disgusting behavior is a member of “the vast right wing conspiracy”? I’m sure it’ll be shock to President Obama to hear that he’s in bed with Republicans.
[/QUOTE]
You want to point me to the memo from the Oval Office to the Director to the FBI that says, in essence, “roast Hillary on this email thing”?
So…the fact that these mystery Republicans aren’t being roasted in the media for skeevy off-line servers that they may or may not have is…a smoking gun to you? Are you also upset that the media isn’t going after the non-existent evidence that President Obama is a stealth Muslim? The media not doing stories about the absence of wrongdoing isn’t really that weird.
There is no such Oval Office memo which was exactly my point: if this was the “vast right-wing conspiracy”, why’s this happening under a Democratic administration…unless there really is a smoking gun with Hillary. Or do you think Bohner has more control over the FBI than President Obama? The FBI is doing the investigation and turning up lots of Clinton naughtiness because it’s there. Not because of Republican smear campaigns, or vast right-wing conspiracies.
Until she decides to keep them there, on her insecure server.
Then why in hell is she keeping this stuff on her private server?
Every last one of these who’s been keeping classified information on such a server should absolutely be hung up by his thumbs - contemptible and highly illegal behavior.
Can you name one Republican official who setup their own server? I know some used commercial email services for official government service (and should be prosecuted for doing so, or disqualified from holding any position of power), however that is absolutely different than setting up a personal server.
The only reason that makes any sense for Clinton to setup her own server was so that Clinton had the ability to ‘permanently’ delete items. And the only reason for Clinton to do that is to evade discovery. Every excuse Clinton has put forward is pure bullshit. Clinton, in normal Clintonian fashion, has lied, evaded and played the victim card to avoid responsibility. I am actually sorta surprised she hasn’t pulled out the ‘Well, it depends on what the definition of ‘email’ is.’ bit yet. Now that the usual tactics aren’t working so well, she is sorta, kinda in a halfassed way taking responsibility.
What will be really interesting is what the FBI finds. If the FBI finds most of the emails and they are what Clinton claimed and purely personal then Clinton may get out of this ok. If the FBI finds classified emails were deleted, she is toast. If the FBI cannot recover most of the emails that will mean someone used advanced tools to delete the files and that will look extremely bad.
I’ve done a reasonable amount of file recovery including deleted emails. In two cases the file recovery was used in criminal proceedings. Both times, once the person found out the emails were recovered, they pled out so no testifying for me. The tools are out there and, assuming no advanced deletion tools were used, quite easy to use. Hell, I have one on my utility USB drive. So I expect the FBI to find most, if not all, of the data.
It should be interesting.
Slee
Really? That’s the “only reason that makes sense”? Why not say “the only reason Bush bought that ranch in Crawford was so that he’d have someplace to bury the bodies”? If you start with dubious premises you can make pretty much any argument you want, and if you start with an assumption of malign intent it’s remarkably easy to reach a conclusion of malign intent.
I know lots of people who set up their own servers - some because it was more efficient from a business standpoint, some because they didn’t find the commercial servers reliable and some (ironically) because it was the most secure arrangement for their data. Perhaps their real intent was so that they could delete data with free abandon but that seems unlikely.
And yet, we know for a fact and by her own admission on multiple occasions that she did without authority delete tons of data with free abandon . There was no oversight, there were no written procedures, she just deleted what she felt like.
So there may be other reasons she might’ve done it for, (none of which makes sense or are legal) but the one we know for a fact is true is that it gave her complete oversight on what she could and could not delete.
Some questions she really ought to answer: Sorry For What, Hillary?
And, though she claimed otherwise, some of the emails she deleted were in fact work-related.
Here’s a link to a NYT article about emails between Blumenthal and Hillary that were handed over by him, but not by her.
After reading the couple dozen most recent posts, my only comment is “And…?”
Seriously, where’s the beef? “She didn’t do everything by the book, and she deleted some stuff she might shouldn’t have” is pretty weak tea.
If this had been a Bush Administration scandal, it wouldn’t have been a scandal, by simple virtue of being way too far down the list for anyone to care about.
It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup. She lied. So naturally voters don’t trust her.