You can watch it here.
Anyone think she's not running now?
Make a new account
Second her explanation of "convenience is not a good one. I know it's possible to read and send messages from multiple accounts on one device because I've been doing it for years with "off the shelf" products. I'm pretty sure others such as reporters and other politicians have been doing so as well. Second, even it were true that it could not be done, many people in business and government carry two devices not because of technological barriers but simply because workplace rules prohibit or restrict private use of employer issued equipment, so the it was too inconvenient for me excuse sounds like it plays right into the "above the rules" entitlement attitude which is widely ascribed to her.
All this did is lay the groundwork for why the server will eventually be shown to have files deleted by individualized operator command.
Was she sending love letters to Putin? Sucking up to the Israelis? Why bother with e-mail, just send an open letter and sign it 47 times.
Any idiot knows when you hit send, even from the Mount Olympus of servers, your e-mail is "out there". Ask your self, if you were up to some kind of "dirty deeds" would you you use your own personal e-mail server to orchestrate it? Parent
Heck, if the Mayor of Bumpkinville exchanges emails with a guy who owns a truck and load of hot patch to discuss a no-bid contract to fill potholes in his city, I'd expect most people might think that should be public information. But, take trivial stuff like foreign relations and people here are twisting themselves into pretzels to claim there could not be any public interest.
Bizarre. Parent
Don't go looking for work as a spinmeister. Parent
Do I have that right?
Not that I doubt Clinton's intelligence...but I also believe sometimes it takes the smartest people to do the stupidest things. Parent
In my estimation HRC is the most vetted politician of all time, yet all her detractors can come up with is that she is still somehow in someway trying to hide some undefinable "crime" without ever coming up with a shred of evidence actually linking her to some wrong doing. In my estimation her biggest mistake is often forgetting that unlike all other pols she's is guilty until she is proved innocent beyond all UN-reasonable doubt.. Parent
Colin Powell also used a personal email when he was SoS. No word yet who owned the server or where it is. Parent
her explanation comes down to "just trust me"
would that response not have been met here with howls of outrage if it had come from, say, Condoleezza Rice (of whom, for the record, i am no fan)? Parent
at all Parent
you really don't get it
Second her explanation of "convenience is not a good one. I know it's possible to read and send messages from multiple accounts on one device because I've been doing it for years with "off the shelf" products. I'm pretty sure others such as reporters and other politicians have been doing so as well.
Not really the question, is it? Much like the question of the law re: government records, it's not the same now as it was in 2009. Why Hillary Clinton couldn't put two email accounts on the same BlackBerry
Prior to 2013, though, there was no standard way to secure a BlackBerry like Clinton's with two email accounts, at least not without giving the IT person in charge complete dominion over all the data on the phone. To fulfill the criteria that Clinton demanded -- secure email that's not sitting on a cloud service, plus a single-BlackBerry solution -- she had just one option: Set up her own email server. Politically, it was probably not the best choice. But for what she wanted to do, it makes total technical sense.
Politically, it was probably not the best choice. But for what she wanted to do, it makes total technical sense.
Do you really think she would be stupid enough to put something in email? Honestly. Even she said she didn't put confidential stuff in email and I would tend to believe her because I won't even answer an email asking for my social security number mostly because my email has been hacked. Parent
As long as she insists upon resisting submitting her server for examination we have nothing but her assurance, and, moreover, she is telegraphing that even when she reluctantly concedes an examination is appropriate that we will discover (probably unidentifiable) files have been selectively and deliberately deleted.
Those of you inclined to trust her implicitly are not bothered by this. Personally, if I was standing outside getting wet and she told me it was raining, my first impulse would be to look for someone with a hose-- and that's NOT "just me."
I am quite confident everyone whomis not an ardent supporter is growing more suspicious not less. This isn't a court case where playing discovery games can sometimes lead to better outcomes. This is all a matter of perceptions and it looks bad, which is, of course, why her sycophants are urging everyone to look away.. Parent
That admission in what was obviously a carefully crafted response, that revealed nothing she did not want revealed, signals that she is smart enough to know this isn't going away. It's an explanation for what was deleted and why .
She's "volunteering" that innocent explanation now before there is any independent proof of deletions be cause it will play better to certain people if it's made before she has to confront the "examination shows operator deletions from Hillary's server" publicity that was unexpected by others. She gets that. Parent
Everybody deletes email. I delete a ton everyday but you want her to prove a negative.
David Gergen said bravado on how she handled it. Parent
It's beyond ridiculous to dispute that. That some are willing to swallow her self-serving assurances at face value is their choice. That doesn't mean their laughably naïve choice should prevent those who don't act like good little subjects from pursuing disclosure. Parent
"Do you really think that she would put stuff in an email that was going to be made public?"
You let the entire point sail past you. She set up the whole whiz bang in an effort to keep all of it from becoming public. Now that is no longer an option and she thinks SHE ALONE should be allowed to decide what must be disclosed.
Parent
There comes a time when you have to move on. Parent
Knock yourself out. Parent
So, yes, attempts will continue by wingers, It will be another obsession (cf. Benghazi). But, for others, even those who may concur in retrospect, as she does, that separate is better, this "scandal" will be right up there with that controversial hat she wore at Bill's first inaugural. I do wish, however, that Mrs. Clinton would have made this response earlier. Parent
That at some point in her career people may want to view her official government correspondence, that is should not be wrapped up with personal emails. They own the domain, how about multiple accounts.
I doubt she broke any laws, but that doesn't mean it wasn't 5 kinds of stooopid or that her email was secure. It's not like it was covert, the domain is clintonemail.com. Which we can all assume is used by the entire family, talk about a rich target environment.
They, literally, have no idea if they were hacked. And for her to claim nothing went out of value, please, it was the only email she was using and if if she didn't send anything, she has absolutely no control over what was sent to her. And if any of the released emails are redacted, it should not have been sent using personal email. Parent
Not sure if I am in shock or beyond envious at his revelation. About half my day at work is spent replying to emails. Parent
I've tried not to have a system where I can just say the first dumb thing that comes to my mind.
But...he has a Twitter account that he's on all the time! No chance he could say something dumb on Twitter, I guess.
Here are some of his deleted tweets.
Digby has some examples of tweets he didn't delete. Parent
At the same time, Graham serves on a Senate subcommittee overseeing privacy, technology and the law, which includes the National Security Agency. You remember them: They're the ones that routinely monitor Americans' electronic communications, including email. It's interesting, shall we say, to know that a senator responsible with keeping government out of our private communications is anxious about using them himself. Then there's Graham's unspoken contention that, if he were to answer his own email - including the ones he solicits from constituents on his Senate home page --he'd see or read something that would compel him to answer immediately, in the heat of the moment, without contemplating an appropriate response. Or, apparently, the consequences.
Then there's Graham's unspoken contention that, if he were to answer his own email - including the ones he solicits from constituents on his Senate home page --he'd see or read something that would compel him to answer immediately, in the heat of the moment, without contemplating an appropriate response. Or, apparently, the consequences.
Beyond the stupidity of not using technology that allows documents to be sent instantaneously, he has an official email account, but he makes someone else man it. E-mail Senator Graham
Funny, one of the fields for contacting Graham is email address, idiot. Parent
That in my mind is as big a scandal as HRC's emails. Parent
Maybe sooner would have been better but the timing seems to be right. It's being said in the middle of the GOP sucking all the oxygen up and no one is dissecting every word. Parent
Here is what I believe to be a reasonable compromise. She agrees that the State Department can take control of the server. an image of all storage media can be made and she may retain that for her use. The server will then be examined and all data on it will reviewed by counsel for State familiar with the rules relating to record retention and classification and a representative of the archivist.
There will be an agreement in place that operates as a protective order would in a court case forbidding those tasked with the data review from disclosing any purely private information to any party and instructing them to redact private info from communications that may contain a mix of public and private information prior to disclosure (much information might be subject to retention but exempt from present disclosure because of security/classification).
In addition to the data review there should be a report detailing, to the extent possible, forensic information concerning the volume and time of any deletions, modifications, downloads, transmission transfers, etc. of files that are or had been present on the server. And, of course, a description of the security measures in terms of hardware, software, operator actions and access (this might need to be somewhat non-specific for security reasons and amount more to expert quality assessment than detailed itemization.)
The state department looking over stuff isn't going to work like I told you before. They are going to believe that it's done by her friends.
Are you seriously naive enough to believe that a court order is going to stop the GOP from releasing private information? Where were you in the 90's? There were all kinds of court orders and they were less than worthless.
You really don't get it do you? It's time to move on. You can believe what you want to believe and so can everybody else but this subject is pretty much done. Parent
People who don't like Hillary Clinton now have another reason. People who do like Hillary Clinton aren't going to change their minds because of some missing emails considering all the other cr@p that has been flung at the Clintons over the years.
People have already made up their minds about Hillary to some extent. And I look forward to her crushing the GOP on election day.
And it's not like she personally had to carry two in her pockets like a prole, she's Hillary Clinton. She has a staff to carry her briefcase, she could put a dozen phones in there. Parent
And look, I'm not complaining. Government officials have aides that carry things.
But kdog's bigger point remains. If you want privacy use separate phones/computers. I did for years and years. It is no big deal. Parent
I mean speaking of observations. Parent
People who have two phones have them because work purchased one and they don't want to put personal info on their work phone or work has security that isn't available on their personal phone.
Not to give Jim more ammo, but there is no way IMO Hillary doesn't know this. They are playing a clip on the TV with Hillary at Silicon Valley somewhat bragging about all the devises she uses, implying that she is at least somewhat savvy in regards to technology. Certainly savvy enough to know that she could install a server at home and use her own domain for email.
I don't understand why she isn't stating the obvious truth, "It wasn't required and I didn't break any laws".
She was SoS from 2009-2013, funny how no one noticed this 'ground breaking scandal' for up to 5 years, even with Congressional hearings regarding her SoS communications. Parent
BTW - Has Hillary signed DOS form OF-109? If so she broke the law. If not she broke the law. Parent
At least you have found something specific to accuse her of not doing.
Even a blind pig has been known to find an acorn.
You must be scared sh*tless of her becoming POTUS. Parent
1. I have surrendered to responsible officials all classified or administratively controlled documents and material with which I was charged or which I had in my possession, and I am not retaining in my possession, custody, or control, documents or material containing classified or administratively controlled information furnished to me during the course of such employment or developed as a consequence thereof, including any diaries, memorandums of conversation, or other documents of a personal nature that contain classified or administratively controlled information.2. snip . I have been advised by the interviewing officer whose signature appears below and fully understand that Section 1001 of Title 18, United States Code, provides criminal penalties for knowingly and willfully falsifying or concealing material fact in a statement or document submitted to any department or agency of the United States Government concerning a matter under its jurisdiction
snip
. I have been advised by the interviewing officer whose signature appears below and fully understand that Section 1001 of Title 18, United States Code, provides criminal penalties for knowingly and willfully falsifying or concealing material fact in a statement or document submitted to any department or agency of the United States Government concerning a matter under its jurisdiction
Link Parent
Why you, or Megyn Kelly, or anyone else thinks that she didn't sign it is beyond me. Did Colin Powell sign it? Are you going to go after him, or does "both sides do it" not count when it comes to Hillary?
You believe in the horse-pucky broadcast on Fox News, and I don't.
That's the difference between us.
Thanks again for playing RW Talking points! Parent
Violation of that standard boiler plate is a crime.
I have no knowledge what Colin Powell did or didn't do.
And one more time. Two wrongs do not make a right.
You don't have to what FNC to know that. Parent
Keep trying to prove she didn't sign it, Jim. But, yes, you don't care if Powell signed his or not.
😃 Parent
Powell will never be Prez. Parent
I say, investigate them both then. Two wrongs means each one is investigated separately.
You only believe in persecuting Hillary. Don't pretend otherwise, like how you "know" she didn't sign the document in question. Parent
And yes, I make no excuses about the fact that I do not like Powell or Hillary.
Hillary's past is replete with the odor of corruption and entitlement. She learned it during her "youth" in the Arkansas political establishment which was second only to Chicago.
But the current issue before us is simple.
Why did she establish a back channel communication system and why didn't she sign OF-192 and comply??
It is very likely she is trying to conceal emails concerning requests for donations, emails having classified or administrative controlled information and emails concerning Benghazi.
It is also possible that they contain information concerning the ME donors that would be highly embarrassing to all parties involved.
General Petraeus, who had the gall to not toe the Obama line, paid the price for his hubris and not following the rules.
Hillary should do no less. Parent
Hillary's past is replete with the odor of corruption and entitlement.
She learned it during her "youth" in the Arkansas political establishment which was second only to Chicago
Early Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton's potential opponents had already tried to capitalize on the opportunity to push her off message. Former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida sent an email to reporters reminding them of his disclosure of personal emails and provided links to news articles criticizing Mrs. Clinton for a lack of transparency.
The New York Times
Also she may have been lying about her main point that she used one phone for "convenience".
Reason Magazine
As the YouTube video in the link shows today she uses a Blackberry and an iPhone. Hnmmmm.
I guess she's busier now then she was then? No need to have two then when it would have actually met State and Obama administration policy.
Also she gave a really bad answer when asked why The Kenya ambassador was fired for not using a government email account.
Other then those bug a boos she did a great job.
Other than that, those are some serious accusations. Parent
Do you know that having two phones now doesn't mean that she had two then. LOL.
Y'all are repeating the same mistake you always make but this time you're trying to keep her from running.
Scandal mongering is all the jihad has these days. Parent
It's name-calling that isn't even accurate; I don't know of any Republican who believes in the creation of an Islamic State, or who wants to use war to do it.
I know the GOP is off the rails; I know their ideas are wrong, and dangerous, and small-minded, that they are hypocritical to the nth degree.
But they are not jihadis. Parent
Beyond silly rhetoric, the more important thing is that when you defend errors by those you support you very much destroy any ability you have to credibly criticize your opponents for doing similar things.
If you assert there are legitimate reasons for a Democrat to take affirmative steps to control access to and conceal communications from the public record, you (to the extent your assertions are not dismissed as ridiculous) are granting license for others you don't support to use the same lame justifications.
Perhaps, we should stake the position that some things are wrong when anyone does them. Parent
They are against Pluralism. Pluralism threatens their faith structure, and they seem to be ready to drag the world into war for that reason. That's a jihad :)
Granted, they haven't killed anyone doing it....yet :)
Very tempting, but okay, not quite jihadis :) Parent
A lot of this comes from their seeting rage going back to 1980 though they never hold Reagan accountable for not starting a war with Iran back then. Parent
One of Barack Obama's first battles when he arrived in the White House in 2009 was to keep his beloved BlackBerry, despite objections from administration lawyers and the secret service. "I'm still clinging to my BlackBerry," he said at the time. "They're going to pry it out of my hands." Ever since, the US president has been permitted a modified BlackBerry handset, with enhanced encryption. Only a handful of senior White House officials and family have his personal email address. Three months ago he told a group of young people: "I am not allowed, for security reasons, to have an iPhone."
Was Obama breaking the law, risking security, hiding something? Where those E-mails to his personal "secret" address ever released? Who cares? Parent
President Obama said he first learned from news reports that Hillary Rodham Clinton used a private email account while serving as his secretary of State. "The policy of my administration is to encourage transparency, which is why my emails, the BlackBerry I carry around, all those records are available and archived," Obama said in excerpts of an interview with CBS News that aired Sunday. "I'm glad that Hillary's instructed that those emails about official business need to be disclosed."
"The policy of my administration is to encourage transparency, which is why my emails, the BlackBerry I carry around, all those records are available and archived," Obama said in excerpts of an interview with CBS News that aired Sunday. "I'm glad that Hillary's instructed that those emails about official business need to be disclosed."
I guess we'll see if he's telling the truth after he leaves office Parent
In fact, there are a few crazies around here who accuse me of being a Republican apologist, and then there are other crazies who accuse me of being a Hillary apologist. Guess we know which you group you belong to, huh? Parent
I guess we'll see if he's telling the truth after he leaves office
then you need to work on your sense of humor. Parent
To quote the playwright, "Don't b-s a b-ser". If you want to play the martyr here, just do so honestly, if that's possible for you. Parent
Say something worthwhile and true and you'll get a different response. Parent
But, go ahead and snitch on me to Jeralyn about your violations and mine. Make my day for me. Parent
President Obama said he first learned from news reports that Hillary Rodham Clinton used a private email account
Now that it's dawned on people none of that is remotely true, the new tack is to complain continued scrutiny is nothing more than scandal mongering."
I love the admonition to avoid repeating past mistakes. That's actually really good advice, but I think you misdirect it. You might want to send Hillary an email. Parent
It's impossible to view you as anything but a partisan hack, an inept one at that, when your only recourse is to attempt to paint those who disagree with you as wittingly or unwittingly assisting the GOP.
That's merely your absurd attempt to justify a lack of proper response from Ms. Clinton.
As adjudicated by you.
Heh. Parent
If you think servers should be handed in then everybody needs to hand theirs in not just Hillary. Have the entire congress hand in all their personal email accounts all the senate and everybody. But no, just Hillary needs to do this. Parent
Assuming other officials have chosen to use private servers under their exclusive control to conduct government business, then yes, I think they should be asked to the same thing I think Clinton should do, under the same conditions I outlined above.
The thing is, I am in a credible position to take that stance, you are not. Parent
But unfortunately what you don't understand is that doing what you want isn't going to solve anything. Do you really think the GOP is going to quit talking about it because she handed over her server?
What she should say is I will hand over my server when everybody else does. Parent
Talk is more effective when it is able to identify concrete, specific actions available but that the target has refused to perform.
(I'm not attacking existing laws exempting certain public documents from present disclosure due to valid security/privilege considerations and keeping them "sealed" for periods specified in law) Parent
The thing is, I am in a credible position to take that stance, you are not.
After that we can discuss how their letter contained certain falsehoods, which ones......
This is all after we discuss exactly what the Logan Act is. Parent
She understands timing; she understands the significance of setting your timing at your table or place. And...she surely understands perspective and proportion: See her remarks about the outlandish behavior of the 47Republican Senators who forget that they are not the Executive Branch, need schooling on the Constitution, and--as Hillary says either were attempting to befriend the Iranians or attempting to undermine in Commander-in-Chief. That, dear friends, is the issue of the day. It is all about proportion.
Good going, Ga6th .... Parent
She's answered the "why" for me, so that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.
Not sure how she did answering the question about the huge donations to the foundation from countries with terrible records on women's rights, but there's plenty of time for that.
She's that most fabulous (in the original sense) of creatures in the menagery of the Republican imagination, the Incompetent Mastermind. Parent
Backbone will be appropriately applied if the crazies can't contain themselves. It will be used as moments where Clinton will demonstrate that she will stand firm and strong in the wake of Republican crazy BS. For some of us, this will lead to an instant trust being forged...ha! Parent
from the story:
Expressing a mix of regret and defensiveness over the matter, Mrs. Clinton emphasized that she broke no laws.
personally, i believe that's true
but of course this story was broken not by Breitbart or Fox "News" or Bill O'Lielly but by the New York Times
& of course it's far less a question of law than of political perception
stupid, tone-deaf, boneheaded unforced error
Clinton is not a saint; she is (presumptively) running for President. She is liberal on social issues; moderate on the economy (with a good tinge of liberal); and, neither dove nor hawk on foreign policy (see her SOS record that almost completely mirrored President Obama's position.) All in all, she has maneuvered through the traps set by antagonists for 25 years against a strong, smart, strategic woman. I know that my approach approaches that of a cheerleader; but, I truly regard her as the best there is in the coming race ... a race that is going to be as nasty if not moreso than the emotions brought out against President Obama in 2012. For me, I do not intend to allow Repubs to drive a wedge issue between the Dems--whether to hypothesize a catfight or anything else. I'm all in. Parent
second, you & i, from the evidence of several comments, do seem to regard "Servergate"</s> in something of the same light, though i'm not sure your response to christine was entirely fair - in my experience, christine is clear about her allegiances but also fully capable of critical thinking & able to "disagree without being disagreeable"
that said, i actually agree with christine that this whole thing will disappear - where i agree more with you is that i don't think it should disappear so easily
& that's not because i think Hillary should now turn over her private emails to the Benghoulies - i think she was right to draw that line in her press conference
where i think Hillary was wrong, politically & ethically (if not legally), was in appointing herself the judge of what is & is not the public's business, even if all she actually deleted was her private emails - "just trust me" doesn't fly & should not be allowed to fly as an explanation from any politician Parent
Thanks for sis. Parent
appointing herself the judge of what is & is not the public's business, even if all she actually deleted was her private emails.
it's one thing to believe that the media reaction to the existence of these issues does or does not rise to the level of requiring some sort of response (both Hillary's press conference & her single tweet of several days ago, whose inadequacy as a response is what made today's press conference necessary, show that Hillary, at least, thinks that the media reaction to the presence of these issues does rise to that level)
it's something else altogether not even to see that these issues exist
i will not spell the isues out for you again, especially since your "counterargument" is basically "Because shut up!" Parent
Winning is everything. The only thing.
To question is to surrender.
It's going to be a long 19 months. Parent
Can't argue with you here.
Even beyond the resolution of what is required to be in the record and archived in future transactions is the matter of expectations about private and/or public. What is the touchstone, what is the guiding principle to sort through the gray areas? Having had to deal with FOIA requests from the government side for some years, I can say that it used to be fairly easy; not so anymore. For example: How far does the reality of "deliberative" process extend now; and, how far should it extend? Going further than the present issue, what should expect--today--to be releasable from government agencies and officials? What do we need to know, what should we know, what are we entitled to know about--say--negotiations (with corporations, with individuals, with other nations?) Honestly, I finally know the questions (I think), but a pathway to answers is still elusive. Parent
There are other issues. Security for one. Personally I think the idea that this system was not primarily to give her total controll over things like FOIA requests is naive. That said, as some one once said even paranoids have enemies. I understand the impulse. I hope lessons were taken. Parent
BTW, Captain, I am nowhere near responding to every comment, most comments, nor in the number that you have on several matters. I understand your concern about the matter; and, as others have indicated, I don't agree with you. No need for you -- tho--to take out your disappointment on how this will likely play out on me. For example: Donald has made some very strong comments, several times, on the issue ... are you angrier or more upset with my comments for some reason?? What gives? Parent
Yep. They hate her. Parent
As for my sister, thanks for asking, that's a long answer. She is still very sick but the change just in the last couple of days has been almost miraculous. And I dont use that term lightly. Just yesterday she started recognizing people and making sense. Today she was almost back to her old grouchy self. With a little short term memory difficulty. But the short answer is the news is good and they is hope we did not dare have just a few days ago. She is finally well enough that they are going to do some surgery on the arm she broke early in this. Parent
Re: Clinton - the "why" question seems to have been answered - and I suppose I could just let it go, but sometimes I can't get my brain to get with that program. It's not that I think she was doing anything wrong - I don't see her as playing fast and loose with state secrets, for example, and I do think she's smart enough to know that putting something on e-mail may be almost the equivalent of shouting your business to the world - it's just that it hasn't been answered for me whether she ran this plan past someone at State, or someone with security oversight and got assurance that having an account on her own server wasn't putting anyone or anything at risk.
She says now that at the time, there was no problem using personal e-mail for work, but it's not the kind of thing you wouldn't ask someone about. So, who did she ask? Did she clear it through someone? How hard would it have been to say today, "I sat down with so-and-so, who handles our technology and IT, and we made sure that what I proposed wouldn't compromise anyone or any information. We arranged for regular scans and checks on the system to make sure there were no breaches or hacks, and if I'd had the slightest concern, I'd have shut it down."
Maybe she can't say that because she didn't do it. Maybe some of what she said today was a bit hindsight-driven, in that she's using what she knows now to spin what she did then. If that makes sense.
Bottom line for me is, she shouldn't be the only one having to vet her email situation for the public. Of the current potential field, Ben Carson and Donald Trump may be the only ones not holding some kind of public office at some point who don't have that public/private problem. Whatever questions being asked of Clinton should be asked of all the others. Whatever Clinton is being asked to prove via hardware examinations, the others should also be asked to comply with.
It won't happen, though. It will just be Clinton-Scandal-of-the-Week for the next too-many months.
Argh. Parent
I'm really glad your sister is doing better :) Parent
What I really hate is being treated as if I would be unable to form an opinion if given all the facts. Is there too much of a chance I could reach a conclusion other than the one CBS wants me to come to?
Here's the thing: as long as Republicans have breath in their bodies, and no matter what gets said or how deeply any issue gets explored, their question will always be, "but what REALLY happened???" I'm waiting for the question of whether she can prove her phone was never in anyone else's possession, or that no one who wasn't authorized ever had access to her email.
Would we be having these discussions if she'd just used her state.gov email for work and her personal email for everything else? Not likely, but who knows?
But if email is going to be an issue, let's make sure it's an issue for any potential candidate.
So mostly I agree that the government policies have not kept up with technology. Parent
Would we be having these discussions if she'd just used her state.gov email for work and her personal email for everything else? Not likely . . .
as far as "stupid sh!t" goes, i did say, in an earlier comment, that Hillary committed a stupid unforced error, & i formed that opinion without reference to wingnut BS about foreign bribes & all the rest
nor am i the only Democrat/liberal/leftist who has questioned Hillary's judgment in this matter while more than a few other Dems/liberals/leftists have been circling the wagons & generally losing their damn minds over our legitimate questions & criticisms Parent
It's gonna be a looooooong 2 years sigh Parent
in the end, i have my one vote & so do you
i can vote while also demanding that the politicians i vote for uphold certain standards (& expecting that most often those standards will not be upheld)
Hillary will have my vote if she runs Parent
Let's be clear about something: I don't think she's hiding anything, I really don't. I don't think she was up to any funny business, either. And whether I am "over" her or not, these are not the things that are still an issue for me. Initially, it was "why." Why did she need two accounts? Follow-up questions to that one would be, did she ask someone if she could have just one, personal, account, through which her government communications would be conducted? Did she run this set-up by anyone to make sure it was in security compliance? What kind of monitoring was there?
I mean, don't these seem like normal things one would do? If she did them, it would help if she'd just say so. I just can't imagine that she did all of this completely on her own, with no input or advice or counsel or assistance from anyone connected to the State Department or who was responsible for managing this aspect of the job.
For what it's worth, I think these are questions that should be asked of every potential candidate who held public office and used personal e-mail to do the government's business. And if she has to turn over her server, why shouldn't the others? Scott Walker's server is probably a treasure trove of impropriety - there's a reason most of the people around him are in some kind of legal trouble or actually serving prison sentences. Parent
But you know as well as I do having a personal account would have changed nothing. People would be insisting that she sent official communications through her personal accounts and that they needed to look at her personal account too. Parent
This was at best a mistake. And at worst a deliberate act to avoid things like FOIA requests. Hillary even admitted, wisely, that it was a mistake. Can't we at least do that? Parent
Thanks for injecting some common sesnse and logic, Captain. Parent
Here is what I think happened, based on absolutely no conversations with any previous (or current) SoS. Previous SoS who served once email became commonplace used private email accounts for State business. Colin Powell has talked on TV about his use of a private account, and that he deleted all his emails after leaving office. Until this current bout of Hillary madness this had never been an issue. Even when all the Bush administration use of private accounts and lost emails came to light Colin Powell was never mentioned.
So, Hillary decided to make her life somewhat simpler in at least one area, her email. No big deal. All emails sent to State Dept. staff would be archived because she sent to their government accounts. She is an experienced and responsible public servant, so she was not going to use email for sensitive or classified information.
As to why she didn't realize that the email would become a rightwing faux-scandal, well, I don't think anyone, even Hillary, can possibly foresee everything single mundane daily activity that will someday cause the rightwing to scream bloody murder.
As she said yesterday, in retrospect, using two accounts would have been the better choice. Who among us has not found ourself in situations where we thought "Boy, if only I had known then what I know now"?
My money says two email accounts, one personal and one business, will become SOP from now on, especially for Democratic public officials. The value of hindsight. Parent
It isn't that she COULDN'T do it, it was she DIDN'T WANT to. Parent
but if you're comparing Hillary to Nixon, i think the most Nixonian president we've had since RMN himself is Barack Obama, & i've said that here before, most recently on the night of Obama's re-election Parent
Obama is no Nixon, but Darth Cheney certainly came closer to him than any other POTUS or VPOTUS since 1974. Parent
More right wing craziness from those GOP water- carrying scoundrels in the MSM