Assuming she did something “immoral” with the whole email thing, how would that carry over into her functioning as President? Would a Hillary Clinton presidency be more or less moral than a Cruz presidency, or a Jeb Bush presidency?
What would be the specific proof that she is dishonest, again?
And whether or not she broke the law on this particular issue would very much be the point, as it was one of the OP’s main assertions, and as my question was specific to that. Again: why, in your view, is she not being prosecuted if she has broken the law?
That’s not the point. The point is once the private emails and govt emails were all mixed together, you can’t trust the person, regardless of who they are, to correctly and honestly separate then for review. I would think this point would be astoundingly obvious.
If Cruz or Jeb Bush had committed the same infraction the would be equally suspect. As soon as Hillary took it upon herself to hide the truth from all of us she made herself guilty of an immoral act. Politicians need to be above reproach.
It was pretty stupid of HRC to delete any emails from an account that intermingled personal and government emails. Hell, it was pretty stupid of her to have such an account in the first place, as she should have anticipated it would land her in precisely her current predicament. But whether it’s HRC, Donald Rumsfeld, or Dick Cheney we’re talking about, it does not even rise to the level of scandal–much less criminality–until it is shown that any email was deleted inappropriately.
As pointed out upthread, given that every email has one sender and at least one recipient, it should be possible to determine as much. Until then, the right-wing choir of ire is getting extremely worked up over what could very well be nothing but emails about yoga poses and Chelsea’s wedding. My suggestion is that people of that persuasion calibrate their fury to the actual evidence at hand, if they want to be taken seriously by non-right-wingers.
1- I never said she broke the law. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know the statutes. Plenty of things are dishonest and immoral without breaking the law.
2- Withholding questionable documents from review is dishonest. Only a biased partisan would say that it is not.
3- I doubt there is anything left to see since all you want to do is blindly defend Hillary.
But it is not obvious. You have to trust anyone when they say they didn’t mix their public and private emails. Why is trusting Hillary to turn over all the government emails different? That she mixed them is unpersuasive. It is still a matter of trust.
But they never are. What exactly are you worried Mrs. Clinton would do as POTUS that you wouldn’t be worried about if she had used her Department of State email address?
She’s likely to try to implement policies that those on the right (and left, for that matter) won’t like. What else do you think might happen that is getting you all riled up?
This isn’t true, you know. If I can find deleted items on my hard drive with software I paid $10 for on eBay(it worked really well, honestly), lawyers can surely pay an expert to do the same. They simply need to have the server seized and they’d know what all the deleted e-mails say. Why they haven’t…hmm. Don’t think there’s much of interest to find? No desire to drag it out until long after the election, which surely her lawyers would do everything in their power to accomplish? Worried she’d put a hit out on them? Who knows.
LOL, you’re funny
Would you trust Emails sent between Cheney and cronies at Halliburton? Or would you just take his word for it that they were not pertinent?
So to be clear:
- The only reason this is a scandal is because Republicans are ginning it up.
- We know it’s not real because Republicans aren’t talking about it.
Doublethink. Very plusgood. Hillary would be proud.
Hell no! I want to see them all. But I am not so naive to think it is immoral if they refuse to give them to me.
Oh, well I find HRC to be thoroughly dishonest and more low down than a snake in the grass. This recent example just strengthens that POV. That, however, is not the point. The point is anyone in her position should be open to review.
Haberdash told me s/he had never voted for a Republican. I’m starting to feel that such a statement was a little bit untrue.
I MAY NEVER TRUST AGAIN.
How is it not immoral to withhold evidence of immoral acts???
How is it possible to know the acts are immoral if the evidence is withheld?
???
I’m working under the assumption that if it was not immoral, you would have nothing to hide and no reason to withhold it. Withhold it from public consumption, yes. But not to withhold it from a duly appointed review under a seal that only illegal contents would be made public record.
Well, there’s your problem. It doesn’t have to be immoral, it just has to be something the GOP can inflate into a talking point. Do you think Republicans are trying to expose Hillary’s personal email for the sake of morality, or for political advantage?
Honestly, both, I’m sure they have no more legitimate trust for her than you or I would for Cheney. That they are also using this to smear her is obvious.
So why should I indulge them in their scheme? If they can’t articulate the immoral act they are searching for, that is pretty much the definition of a fishing expedition.
It seems some Republicans are trying to say that it’s not illegal for Clinton to have had the private server, it’s just illegal for it to be a private server.