Hillary Clinton eGhazi Press Conference

You can watch it here.

Anyone think she's not running now?

< Tuesday Open Thread | ISIS Uses Child Soldier to Kill Mossad Agent >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That is not even going to begin (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:15:05 PM EST
     to quell the controversy. In fact, the admission she "chose" not to keep "private emails that were stored on the same server  immediately rings alarms. First, it looks like a  preemptive attempt to explain why a forensic examination of the server would show communications had been deleted. Assuming she deleted and did a government wipe, it may be that no one will ever have anything but her self-serving assurance  that only private communications were INTENTIONALLY deleted (that's what "chose connotes).

      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.

    So what (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 05:01:08 PM EST
    EXACTLY is she trying to hide? Did use her private e-mail to send ambassador Stevens to his death? The stand down orders? The cover-up instructions? How is she committing her (unnamed sins) with her accomplices in government? Do they all have secret servers too.

    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?


    Ya know (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 05:07:28 PM EST
     there just might be information concerning  matters that don't involve murder, treason or high crimes and misdemeanors that should be available to the public now, upon request or in the future for information justifiably withheld for a period of time.

     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.



    Thus (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 05:27:25 PM EST
    proving the Mayor is an idiot. A smarter corrupt pol would pull it off without their finger prints all over it. Say the words politician-back room, diplomat-back channel. Now answer two questions:
    1. do you expect that "unofficial" communication to go away?
    2. would you expect a top notch politician/diplomat to do it over e-mail?

    so your point is (none / 0) (#120)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:14:40 AM EST
     you believe Hillary is a smart, corrupt pol and you're totally down with that?

      Don't go looking for work as a spinmeister.


    Seems one Clinton defense... (none / 0) (#139)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:15:55 AM EST
    boils down to "the person stupid enough to use the same email account for work and play is way too smart to ever do anything nefarious or incriminating via email."  

    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.


    No just that (none / 0) (#145)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:23:39 AM EST
    my point is you keep inferring that Hillary is up to no good and by "hiding" her E-mails she is somehow proving your point. Once again you are pointing to a "lack" of info as somehow "proof" that something exists. I do not consider Hillary corrupt nor do I consider her pure, absolutely no politician is. I am just that saying that even if she were as corrupt as the Gambino family you would not find evidence of it on Hillary@Hillary.com.

    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..


    Governor Jeb Bush uhhhh he also (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:54:29 PM EST
    Deleted his personal emails. He uhhh, he also owns his governor server.

    Colin Powell also used a personal email when he was SoS.  No word yet who owned the server or where it is.


    Not to mention Scott Walker (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:19:16 AM EST
    and the private server he had when he was just a County Executive prior to becoming the governor of WI.

    that's (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:30:43 AM EST
    what's so ridiculous. The same people who think Scott Walker who is under criminal investigation for email problems would make a great candidate are the same ones having a meltdown about Hillary.

    the whole point (none / 0) (#43)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 05:11:02 PM EST
    is that she has even made it necessary for you to ask that question

    The point is (none / 0) (#52)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:00:19 PM EST
    SHE is the only one who MUST answer questions like this. EVERYBODY else gets the benefit of the doubt that the are NOT doing any thing "bad" PRIVATELY.

    so yourr respnse is "VRWC"? (none / 0) (#57)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:17:32 PM EST
    then maybe it wasn't such a bright idea for Hillary to hand the goons of the VRWC a sh!tload of ammunition

    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)?


    Are you really (none / 0) (#67)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:36:43 PM EST
    that dense, every politician for all time has had  one basic message "just trust me". Yet some how after decades on the State, National and Global stage with no major blemishes on her record, you find Hillary's use of that primal political mantra as some how laughable if not devious. Please>

    good god (none / 0) (#73)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:55:19 PM EST
    you really don't get it

    at all


    Saying (none / 0) (#77)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 07:27:37 PM EST
    you really don't get it
    is not much of a counter argument.

    Really? You think so? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    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.

    Yes, the idea that the government issued phones (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:46:22 PM EST
    work like 'off the shelf' phones is just wrong.  They are like the corporate issued phones many of my co-workers have - locked to one server and account, apps limited, etc. All of my coworkers that have them carry two phones - one for work, and one for personal. This is what Clinton was trying to avoid.

    When (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:47:35 PM EST
    I found out she had a blackberry that explains a lot. My husband had one and they are awful for email. He was so stinking glad to get rid of that thing.

    Goodness, well it hasn't been labeled (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:20:00 PM EST
    eGhazi now for nothing :)

    Naw (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:23:48 PM EST
    it's pretty much done. After the GOP goes over those emails with a fine tooth comb and finds nothing people are going to quit giving them any serious thought. The GOP is certainly gonna try but darn these people are being accused of treason all over the country even on front pages of newspapers. You might want her server but I'm not sure the GOP is going to keep going down this dark hole.

    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.


    that would be true (none / 0) (#25)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:36:37 PM EST
     if there was assurance the emails that will examined with a fine tooth comb represent anything more than the specific emails Hillary deigned to be allowed to be examined.

      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..


    You aren't going (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:45:42 PM EST
    to be satisfied until she submits the server but even doing that is not going to work. I keep telling you. It's not going to work. There is going to be nothing on the server either because she's not an idiot and then the goal posts are going to be moved to saying she deleted something that they are sure is there which never was there.  There comes a point where you have to let it go and quit letting the GOP define everything in politics.

    She admitted (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:59:08 PM EST
     she deleted "something."

      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.


    So you want (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 04:07:03 PM EST
    to crotch sniff it would seem? Have it at. If you don't believe that people have a right to privacy then say so.

    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.


    Your right to privacy (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 04:27:17 PM EST
     and the asserted right to privacy of someone who was holding public office and comingled allegedly private communication  on a device used to conduct critical government are dramatically different when the privacy right she is asserting relates precisely to the device she used to conduct government business.

      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.


    What you don't (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 04:32:12 PM EST
    understand is that the GOP wants to get her private email. They really do not want the state email. That's only what they are using. And again, she's not stupid. Do you really think that she would put stuff in an email that was going to be made public? So my work can go through all my private emails is what you're saying if I happen to look at them at work? Really, you want this to drag on but it's done, over finito.

    no, i do understand that (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 04:36:56 PM EST
     that's a collateral consequence of an epically stupid choice she made. You ask:

      "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.  



    Well (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 05:24:53 PM EST
    the options are either you believe she is lying and there's no personal email in there or you believe there is more than personal email in there but you don't care and you are willing to go through or wanting to go through her personal email to find it. You have no evidence but you want to go through it anyway. This went on for four years and no one raised an eyebrow. She sent emails from that account and no one said anything or knew anything?

    There comes a time when you have to move on.


    And there are other "sycophants" ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:18:05 PM EST
    ... willing to make baseless accusations without the slightest bit of evidence to back them up.

    Knock yourself out.


    Was that "bravado"? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:46:29 PM EST
    or "bravo"?

    You're 100% right (none / 0) (#101)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 09:22:20 PM EST
    If she gave them the server they would just demand the "long form" server.

    Agreed There (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:59:49 PM EST
    is unlikely to be  any major issue from Republicans regarding the State Department emails released (and redacted.)  However, that does not mean that they will not continue to try. Their greatest efforts will be on all those emails that were not released--the truly personal ones, for it is those that they really would like to gain access to and use. And, not the wedding and funeral personal emails, but anything personal than could be somehow twisted and misconstrued.  With emails being co-mingled, as permitted at the time by the Department, it is understandable that Mrs. Clinton would delete them.  

    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.


    That, To Me, is What is So Confusing (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 04:37:13 PM EST
    For a Clinton to not think understand the importance of separating personal and work correspondence is insane.

    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.


    Note... (none / 0) (#140)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:16:06 AM EST
    ...today I learned that Bill Clinton is claiming to have sent 2 emails his entire life.

    Not sure if I am in shock or beyond envious at his revelation. About half my day at work is spent replying to emails.


    Lindsey Graham claims to have sent (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:18:42 AM EST

    I find it hilarious that his reason for (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:42:42 AM EST
    not using e-mail is

    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.


    LOL...he needs to learn to control his mouth (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:48:07 PM EST
    then. email is the least of his troubles.

    Lol (none / 0) (#164)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:50:27 AM EST
    Twitter is only for propaganda? If it isn't propaganda delete it. Almost reminds me of ISIS.

    I Cannot Wrap My Head Around That (none / 0) (#176)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:53:11 AM EST
    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.


    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.


    By having a staffe run his account (none / 0) (#177)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:11:59 AM EST
    He has a filter or layer to keep him from doing something that will end up on a NSA server somewhere.  Smart move.

    Smart for Him Personally... (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:42:55 AM EST
    ...but a huge fail for the general public when you consider part of his job is to craft legislation concerning a technology he refuses to use.

    That in my mind is as big a scandal as HRC's emails.


    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 04:10:54 PM EST
    if the GOP wants to invade her privacy they are going to get a major swift kick in the pants from the voters on that one.

    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.


    I doubt a single voter (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 04:53:24 PM EST
     who is not heavily predisposed to favor her against any opponent for the nomination or lection will deliver any rebuke whatsoever. The ones feigning outrage obviously would vote for her come hell or high water, so there is no upside at in this for her.

      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.)



    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 05:30:13 PM EST
    Do you really think people are not going to think that if they can invade the Clinton's privacy that they can't invade the privacy of the average citzen? I guess the NSA stuff really isn't that big of a deal either then. No one should need warrants or anything else.

    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.


    just a minor reminder (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by CST on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:50:28 AM EST
    This isn't going to affect the election.

    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.

    As a former multiple device user (4.50 / 2) (#5)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 02:37:37 PM EST
    I can totally relate. No one wants to look like Batman with a utility belt.  I've tried it, it's not a good look.

    otoh... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 02:51:09 PM EST
    if my employer gives me a phone for work, I'm still keeping mine for personal use.  So I can keep my business separate from my boss's business.  It's not as inconvenient as my boss potentially having easy access to my personal business.

    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.


    And then it (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:14:03 PM EST
    would be look at her! She should be carrying her own stuff not having someone else carry it.

    seriously? (none / 0) (#39)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 04:46:24 PM EST
    If you had watched the press conference (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:52:17 PM EST
    you would seen, at its conclusion, a black lady come up and get what ever Hillary had been working with and carry it away as Hillary followed carrying nothing.

    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.


    Silly Jim... (none / 0) (#170)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:14:53 AM EST
    We common citizens have no privacy, except maybe the privacy of being lost in a crowded database/privacy of not being interesting to the NSA/CIA/FBI/DHS/DEA/etc.  

    Jim (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:18:13 AM EST
    can you at least be consistent?

    He's already found her guilty (none / 0) (#185)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:52:32 PM EST
    so why would any subsequent observations of Hillary from Jim be of any value?  

    Has Hillary signed (none / 0) (#191)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:08:44 PM EST
    DOS OF-109??

    I mean speaking of observations.


    You're the techie (none / 0) (#192)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:11:17 PM EST
    use Google if you're not just interested in slinging rhetorical questions around.

    There is No Limit... (none / 0) (#178)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM EST
    ...to the number of email addresses one can use from one phone.  This two phone notion is non-sense.  If I wanted, I could check my gmail using the gmail app, HTC's email app, or a thousand other apps.  If I cared I could use the Outlook app to get my work email on my personal phone.

    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.


    Thanks Scott (none / 0) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:12:39 PM EST
    And you are correct. You buy and use your own because that makes it really difficult for your employer to see what's on it. Not impossible but at least a court order and that would require cause.

    BTW - Has Hillary signed DOS form OF-109? If so she broke the law. If not she broke the law.


    She probably did sign the form (none / 0) (#194)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:21:26 PM EST
    and complied with the relevant rules and regulations.

    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.


    You should read the form. (none / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 09:54:05 AM EST
    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.


    . 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



    It's standard boilerplate about (none / 0) (#196)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 10:12:54 AM EST
    classfied material.

    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!


    Uh, standard boilerplate that says what you (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 07:30:20 PM EST
    must do.

    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.


    if two wrongs don't make a right, (none / 0) (#198)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 08:37:02 PM EST
    Then why are you so focused on only punishing one wrong.

    Keep trying to prove she didn't sign it, Jim.  But, yes, you don't care if Powell signed his or not.



    Why are you so interested (none / 0) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 08:42:53 PM EST
    in protecting Hillary??

    Powell will never be Prez.


    Whose protecting Hillary? (none / 0) (#200)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 09:42:33 PM EST
    But you think it only matters if the person who didn't sign isn't running for POTUS.

    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.


    You should really quit making (1.50 / 2) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 10:46:20 AM EST
    these comments personal. The facts speak. Powell, who I haven't the vaguest what he may have done or did not do, isn't running for President and if so would not be supported by the Repub base and would be attacked for the same "thing" that Hillary is now  trying to defend.

    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.


    oh that smell (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 11:01:12 AM EST
    Hillary's past is replete with the odor of corruption and entitlement.
    and after 25 years of the finest blood hounds and gumshoes on her trail we will find the bodies any day now.
    She learned it during her "youth" in the Arkansas political establishment which was second only to Chicago
    . What, NJ gets no love ?

    The video is so busy, (4.50 / 2) (#7)
    by fishcamp on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 02:37:54 PM EST
    that we can't even watch it down here at the end of the USA.

    NYT excerpt: (4.50 / 2) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 02:38:18 PM EST
    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.

    Paddle Jeb....paddle faster :) (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    If he's already paddling.....and Senate Republicans are pushing his head under right now.

    That release included (none / 0) (#11)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 02:46:43 PM EST
    Personal details about the people in the e-mails by mistake, so don't see why it's some sort of triumph for him to be braying about now.

    Republicans got a great deal of mileage (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 02:53:58 PM EST
    Out of this story.  The press seemed to doggedly go from one day to the next with few facts or outlining any real issue.

    Jebya (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:16:59 PM EST
    Sharia ain't the sharpest tool in the box as we say down here in GA. All of the kids must be absolute morons if he's considered the smartest one.

    Her performance did nothing to end the story (3.50 / 2) (#107)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:04:09 AM EST
    The Atlantic

    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.  

    Nothing she said would have ... (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 06:01:53 AM EST
    ... "ended the story".  You can't prove a negative.  "May have been lying" - heh.  Gotta love how every accusation in this story is short on facts and long(form) on qualifiers - "May have" "Could" "possibly", etc., etc., etc.

    Other than that, those are some serious accusations.


    Look (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 06:31:30 AM EST
    the GOP is going to never let it die. We always knew that.

    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.


    I don't know when you decided to (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:31:28 AM EST
    start describing Republicans as "jihadis," but given the actual definition of the term, and the inflammatory nature of its association, I don't know what, exactly, it contributes to the discussion, other than to rile people up.

    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.


    Well (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:33:00 AM EST
    that's how they've been acting. When they quit acting like that then I'll quit using the term.

    Good luck with that advice. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:42:27 AM EST
      I don't think many here recognize the unintended irony of juxtaposing their rhetoric demonizing those with whom they differ with their complaints those opponents are demonizing Hillary.

      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.


    I'm sort of fond of the jihadi label (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:44:09 AM EST
    For the 47.

    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 :)


    Well (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:47:03 AM EST
    the morons made common cause with the mullahs in Iran with their idiocy. Their goal is the same in that case.

    I don't specifically know if the Mullahs are (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:56:35 AM EST
    Jihadis though.  A jihadi can be a Mullah but not all Mullahs are jihadis how we are referencing the word.  And a greater jihad is the internal spiritual struggle and a lesser jihad is killing others in protection of your faith.  So all jihads are not equal. I wish Conservatives would launch a greater jihad.

    Either (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:59:24 AM EST
    way they're a rabid dog that needs to be put down. I'm hoping the voters put them down in the next election.

    It is a treason how they hope (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:14:44 AM EST
    To bolster and firm up warmongering belief systems and the existing isolation infrastructure.  Isolation generates fear on both sides.  If Iran began to become a known, that's very dangerous to the Conservative message as it exists right now.  It's dangerous to military complex contractors too who I guess lack creativity or are perhaps too lazy to challenge themselves to invent anything non- killing. Fear sells, fear is job security for Republicans, and fear is profitable, safe happy people start sharing :)

    Not (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:21:36 AM EST
    sure the public is going to support another budget busting war after Iraq especially from Republicans who they don't trust on that account.

    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.


    People need to move on (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:28:20 AM EST
    Knowing your history is much different than clinging to it like a cat on new drapes. As Wes Clark has mentioned more than once, the citizens of Iran are big fans of the West.  The leadership is not.  We will likely lose those fond citizens though through their extended isolation. With each isolated year, the religious extremists are strengthened.

    Remember (none / 0) (#116)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:46:56 AM EST
    in 2009 as now the times they were a changing in the digital world. Just google Obama's Blackberry. Even now, obviously, the issue is unsettled with regard to security/privacy/transparency.

    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?


    Those emails (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:57:54 AM EST
    Are being archived.

    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."

    I guess we'll see if he's telling the truth after he leaves office


    That's what I like about you, (3.50 / 4) (#119)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:01:25 AM EST
    Obama and Hillary are guilty until proven innocent.

    Absultely hilarious (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:54:46 AM EST
    Since I was defending Obama by saying his emails are being archived (and it is absolutely a fact we won't know until he leaves office) and I have been a Hillary supporter - since way back 2007. Way before you came around these parts.

    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?


    Asking for fairness for somebody (none / 0) (#141)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:17:41 AM EST
    isn't being an apologist, and if you meant to write this in jest:

    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.


    I read your comments (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:24:49 AM EST
    Those are the best laughs I get all day.

    Which is why you've given the ones I post here (2.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:28:57 AM EST
    addressed to you 1s and 2s on a consistent basis.

    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.


    I give you 1s and 2s (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:35:33 AM EST
    Because your comments are light on facts, name-calling (against Jeralyn's rules) and outright trollish. FTR, I can handle name calling - I just consider the source.

    Say something worthwhile and true and you'll get a different response.


    Troll rating is also against her rules (none / 0) (#160)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:39:49 AM EST
    (1s). But you don't seem to be as zealous about it as you are about her other rules for commentators here that apply to me in your mind.

    But, go ahead and snitch on me to Jeralyn about your violations and mine. Make my day for me.


    First (none / 0) (#127)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:38:58 AM EST
    President Obama said he first learned from news reports that Hillary Rodham Clinton used a private email account
    I believe the WH walked that one back. I can call BS on that one.
    I guess we'll see if he's telling the truth after he leaves office
    How will this "truth" be determined? Should he release all of his E-mails (even personal ones) or should he decide which ones are private and which ones are public (ala Hillary, Jeb and countless others)or maybe he could ask Darrel Issa to have a look, I get the feeling that even if he were to find nothing there, it would not be enough for the doubters. The same applies to Hillary of course, in spades.

    Oh, (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:59:33 AM EST
    it's all a bunch of BS. The GOP is going over the top once again. Maybe they'll put on their suicide vests and just blow themselves up.

    Strange... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:27:59 AM EST
     up above in this very thread, I read it's "over," "done, the GOP was drenched in "flop sweat" (and presumably quaking in the wake of her masterful performance), that all the questions "have been answered,"  "there's no there there," etc.

      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.


    You've (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:35:09 AM EST
    repeatedly said that the GOP should be allowed to define the terms of the debate. I disagree.

    I've said no such thing. (none / 0) (#136)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:00:35 AM EST
      That's merely your absurd attempt to justify a lack of proper response from Ms. Clinton.

       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.



    A "proper response" (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 04:31:05 PM EST
    That's merely your absurd attempt to justify a lack of proper response from Ms. Clinton.

    As adjudicated by you.



    You (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:04:50 AM EST
    are allowing the GOP to define the terms of the debate because I don't see you advocating that Jeb Bush quit the presidential race because of email nor Scott Walker not run because of his email issues and those are the terms that the GOP is putting out there.

    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.


    Why stop with the principals ? (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:32:09 AM EST
    Why not Sasha's? For all we know, Barak might have used her E-mail to send secret messages to the Mullah's. Maybe Hillary "borrowed' one of Chelsea's to conspire with the muslim brotherhood. Can anyone here prove they didn't?

    you're a piece of work (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:17:50 AM EST
      You also don't see me advocating that Hillary not run. What you see me doing is explaining why she needs to answer questions and take other steps to address her conduct in this matter.

      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.


    Everybody (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:27:32 AM EST
    needs to hand over their personal email accounts then because there's no way to know until they do.  And even then we won't know will we?

    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.


    Talk is less effective (none / 0) (#165)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:51:24 AM EST
      when the target of that talk can respond by showing he has taken every available measure to remedy problems created allay concerns.

      Talk is more  effective when  it is able to identify concrete, specific actions available but that the target has refused to perform.



    You seem (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:55:59 AM EST
    to have a different standard for Hillary. I say everybody should release everything. If Hillary having personal emails is a problem then they're a problem for everybody. Every congress person and every senator needs to submit to having their personal email examined.

    I think it would be fine, if expensive, (none / 0) (#174)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:42:47 AM EST
     to require that all communications made on equipment known to contain or have contained communications relating to the conduct of government business by public officials, be subject to review. If the official used his government account and government equipment to make private communications, we would not need to check any private servers. On the other hand, if he chose to use a private account and private equipment to conduct government business which is supposed to be retained BY THE GOVERNMENT then I would absolutely require that someone other than him must be allowed to review the contents of his private storage media to ensure that all documents that are required to be preserved by the government are located and transferred to the appropriate government storage medium. If that process necessarily entails someone viewing private communications, that falls into the "tough luck, use better judgment next time "  category. I have no problem with the people who necessarily must sort the various types of messages being required to maintain confidentiality and forbidden from disclosing truly private communications, but going farther than that obviously opens a loophole an aircraft carrier could sail through and would render laws requiring records retention and disclosure pursuant to law empty vessels.

    (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)  


    So (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 01:30:17 PM EST
    if someone inadvertently recieves a personal email on their government account then they are subject to having their personal email gone through. Which  would render having a personal email moot. Everything would be public information under that standard. So just ban people from having personal accounts while in public service.

    No (none / 0) (#188)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 03:49:00 PM EST
     as I stated that single, inadvertent email would be among those reviewed by someone sworn to uphold confidentiality and prohibited from disclosing private communications as part of the job of ensuring the huge number of communications containing public information are properly collected.



    Thus spoke (none / 0) (#190)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 04:37:25 PM EST
    the Red Queen
    The thing is, I am in a credible position to take that stance, you are not.

    Oh (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 02:22:54 PM EST
    good Gawd now the GOP is whining about where she is holding it. No suprise to me though :). Whiners gonna whine you know.

    Ha! Well this faux issue (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 02:27:54 PM EST
    Has probably died now as the nation is thrown into a weekend of whether or not Senate Republicans can be charged, should be charged, acted treasonously, trying to start a war with Iran, supporting the troops, not supporting the troops.

    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.


    Great timing (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:20:21 PM EST
    on her part. The press is too obsessed with the nuts in the GOP to be dissecting every word she has.

    I just watched a Republican strategist on CNN (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:39:10 PM EST
    Declare eGhazi will never go away :). NEVER!!! It's huge, it's all encompassing.  This Logan Act stuff, he's not the expert on that.  He uhhh, he doesn't have much comment on it because uhhhh he just doesn't know that legal stuff :)

    The flop (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:48:49 PM EST
    sweat coming off of them today is amazing for sure. I'm sure it's never going to go away in the fevered mind of the Fox viewers who still think a lot of things.

    He's probably right flogging dead horses ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:37:29 PM EST
    Flogging dead horses is what they do. Perhaps they should read that story about a boy crying wolf.

    Timing & waiting, Ga6th (none / 0) (#55)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:08:54 PM EST
    When Hillary Clinton spoke, she spoke from the UN ...recapping key women's issues on the agenda, first & referencing her disagreement with the Republican letter (known on Twitter as #47traitors.) She did not fall into a trap of claiming security or other complicated matter; she said it was "for convenience."  If people disagree, they disagree.

    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 ....


    So, not much there there... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 02:25:29 PM EST
    which is not to say there won't be people still trying to find something there, but what I heard didn't get my spidey sense tingling in any way.  I still come back to the reality that in her four years as SoS, there wasn't even a hint or a whisper of anything untoward regarding these e-mails.  In a city and an environment that thrives on leaks and backstabbing, that tells me there just isn't anything to see.

    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.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 02:28:41 PM EST
    Bill already answered some of that by saying that some of the countries who donated are fighting ISIS. So it's not all black and white like people would like to believe.

    After having her life gone over (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 02:37:43 PM EST
    with a fine-toothed comb, it would stand to reason that she wouldn't have anything on her SoS e-mails that could come back to haunt her.  

    She's that most fabulous (in the original sense) of creatures in the menagery of the Republican imagination, the Incompetent Mastermind.


    Case in point: (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 02:46:20 PM EST
    Don't know if it's true (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    But aparently one of the Republicans investigating Benghazi wants the e-mail she was reading or writing when they took that picture on the plane.  Guess they want to make sure the SoS wasn't writing to Chelsea or Bill when she was suppose to be on the clock.  😃

    She should just tell them she (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:11:50 PM EST
    was playing Candy Crush...["on the government's dime!  How dare you!"]

    Now there's a scandal (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:13:30 PM EST
    Candy Crush is rigged

    This is What I Imagine (none / 0) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:20:33 PM EST
    ...a republican thinks Candy Crush is.

    Asking the SoL to send her an extra life? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:22:00 PM EST
    I just saw this post (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 03:48:55 PM EST
    after I had posted one about the press conference. I deleted mine since we don't need too. Sorry, BTD, I should have looked first.

    How did she do? (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 04:38:11 PM EST
    Not able to watch and can't tell from comments how it went....


    I thought she did well (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 05:33:34 PM EST
    She made it obvious that she complied with the rules as they were at the time and she has met the requirements for archiving her emails. There isn't anything left to say or do.  

    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!


    Yes (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 05:44:17 PM EST
    most people seemed to think she did well except the crazies. It's still not enough and never is going to be enough for them. They're dripping in flop sweat though. They need to move on though they probably won't. They're desperate to find something anything

    She did great. (1.50 / 2) (#111)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 01:17:11 AM EST

    Those personal emails while SOS to foreign governments discussing donations to the foundation that pays my staff are off limits.  Even though it is from the same address as official correspondence with those those governments.

    Good fact-free analysis (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 03:52:47 AM EST
    If I were you, I'd get a blonde wig, a shave and a dress to repeat this on Fox News.

    Fact free, evidence free (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 06:03:05 AM EST
    As always.

    maybe the NY Times headline says it all (none / 0) (#49)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 05:46:44 PM EST
    Clinton Tries to Quell Email Controversy (emphasis added)

    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

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:15:07 PM EST
    though that the NYT has a real problem with her going back to the 1990's and they were the ones that bought into the bogus whitewater junk. I can't speak for anybody else here but for me the NYT isn't a whole lot better on the facts than Breitbart. And I really wish that wasn't true but it's not just Hillary. They treated Gore the same way.

    well then (none / 0) (#58)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:18:35 PM EST
    there's no discussing this with you

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    what I've seen is disappointing but not surprising.  The only thing I liked was that she admitted that it was a mistake.  

    Well (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:32:30 PM EST
    I'm not disagreeing with you regarding it being an error but I also think the NYT has some issues. Their headline came right out of GOP central as in that is what the GOP is saying over and over again.

    Relax, Addams Family, and think about (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:29:46 PM EST
    the layers of issues.  As always, Hillary Clinton not only will survive, but prevail.  IMO, this always was the first foray into the political jousting match to see how vulnerable the presumptive nominee would be ... it never was about substance; rather, as became clear early on, this was a process in-the-weeds discussion that Washington and related care about while most people let their eyes glaze over fairly quickly absent a tangible, harmful wrong to the country.  (And, a bit of a factor from the paper known as the "paper of record," the NYTimes does have a history of hit pieces by J. Zelleny and others on Clinton.  While I tend to go to NYTimes for decent reporting, these kinds of instances call to mind the shenanigans of one Judith Miller so defended by the NYTimes.  Occasionally, consider the source and add a grain-of-salt.)

    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.


    How about you take your own advise? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:32:30 PM EST
    we know you are all in.  A response to every comment that is not 1000% positive is not necessary for that to be known.

    hey, Capt (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:51:35 PM EST
    first, that's very good news about your sister - so glad to hear it

    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


    You are right (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 07:01:29 PM EST
    im just so tired of the knee jerk.  As for the other.  I need to see the whole thing and digest.  But the whole episode is very troublesome.  On many levels.  I understand why she might do what she did.  If she is the nominee I absolutely will do whatever I can to make sure she is president.  That said, it's begun folks.  We will move seamlessly from ODS to CDSredux.  It's not a surprise but it still makes me want to jump from a high place.

    Thanks for sis.


    Wrong? (none / 0) (#76)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 07:21:05 PM EST
    appointing herself the judge of what is & is not the public's business, even if all she actually deleted was her private emails.
    Isn't that what we all try to do? Are you asserting that all our leaders and those who aspire to be must let someone else decide? If yes then who does the deciding? If no then all you really have is "just trust me" and that is all you you get from any politician.

    i wonder (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:06:49 PM EST
    if blind loyalty to something (to Hillary? the Obama administration? the Democratic Party? some personal notion of how government works?) has left you unable to see that there are actual political & ethical issues involved in this situation

    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!"


    Apparently, the only thing that matters is (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:15:19 PM EST
    keeping the barbarians from the gate, which means ignoring or denying or excusing or deflecting so as to keep our eyes on the prize.

    Winning is everything. The only thing.

    To question is to surrender.  

    It's going to be a long 19 months.


    Where you been (2.00 / 1) (#94)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:44:10 PM EST
     I have  been discussing  the political and ethical  issues here ever since this particular "gate" opened.  Just because  I think they are nothing burgers doesn't mean I can read the menu.    

    Can't argue with you here.

    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)
    at least not without a translation. Are you related to Sarah Palin by any chance ?

    Thank you; and, I agree with (none / 0) (#78)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 07:34:15 PM EST
    the thrust of your final paragraph here in that we--as a people and our government--need to resolve this early 21st century issue.  We need to decide not only the process expected for all levels of government officials in terms of email expectations ... but, more than that, we need to confront the intricacies of privacy vs transparency/openness on a broader level.  

    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.


    Allow me to agree with you (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 07:52:51 PM EST
    The most salient point made that I've seen so far was that if she had two devices she would still be making decisions as to which to use.  It is a difficult issue.

    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.  


    We have come to (none / 0) (#83)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:13:31 PM EST
    the strange confluence of the rapidly expanding and evolving information society with the growing distrust of government from both the left and the right. I guess we can all hope lessons were taken but given this country's recent history I just see another teachable moment becoming roadkill.

    And, we know (none / 0) (#69)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:51:25 PM EST
    that you have been pushing strongly for alternative(s) such as E. Warren, as you strongly stated a number of times.  And, we know that you have found real fault with Clinton over this email matter ... and, that may be subsiding nationally too. This always has been about political positioning, Captain ... all the way around ... big time Presidential campaign positioning ....

    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?


    Lol!~ says a lot alright (none / 0) (#93)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:43:21 PM EST
    about the paper who tried to create a "scandal" 😛

    Yeah, they hate her much (none / 0) (#180)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:27:11 PM EST
    They've endorsed her more than once.

    Yep.  They hate her.


    That's not fair (none / 0) (#184)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:49:42 PM EST
      You dismiss the possibility the   NYT only endorsed her because the board felt that if she won the paper could have  fun for years publishing  unfair attacks.

    I haven't seen it (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 05:48:13 PM EST
    been at the hospital all day.  Look forward to it.

    David (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 05:53:11 PM EST
    Gergen said she did a great job FWIW.

    Oh well (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:00:24 PM EST
    then why even watch.

    Well (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:04:52 PM EST
    he's the canary in the coal mine for DC conventional wisdom. Didn't mean to disappoint. I hope things are going well with your sister.

    From what I've seen (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:18:38 PM EST
    now watching Canard Ball, I think she probably did what she needed to do.  I find the convenience argument odd.  You can't get two different email accounts on one device?
    Recon is right.  This will certainly not satisfy people who care about the issues discussed here for the last few days.   Fortunately for her there aren't many of those.  
    Look forward to seeing the while thing but it won't happen tonight.   One piece of unsolicited advise. Get Carville the f@ck off TV.

    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.


    Glad your sister is doing better (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 10:19:45 PM EST
    Hope she continues to improve. Everyone needs miracles in their lives.

    Howdy, so glad to hear of the (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 10:40:43 PM EST
    improvements in your sister's condition and hope it keeps going in that direction.

    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.



    I just watched the rest (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 11:27:33 PM EST
    it was handled well.  It's a fact of life that there are two sets of standards.  If you doubt it try imagining democrat senators doing what was just done to a republican president.   I tried to make clear that none of this, so far, would effect my support.   But I will not say it's a non issue because I don't think it is.  I think it was, well, dumb.  Benghazi was dying.  It just got its second wind.

    Yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:31:03 PM EST
    I pretty much agree with what you said. Too many people struggling to make ends meet and too many worries to care about a stupid email account.

    I'm really glad your sister is doing better :)


    Actually I did not mean it was (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:33:12 PM EST
     good thing.

    I know (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:35:44 PM EST
    you don't think it's a good thing that people don't care but then I get back to 2004 and people knew Bush lied to them about WMDs and they didn't care about that either. So i'm not sure what you do to make people care about some of this stuff.

    Much as Gergen can drive one up a tree (none / 0) (#68)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 06:39:04 PM EST
    He is uniquely suited to gauging the wind ... before most others.  His accounts & projections usually are quite accurate.  Good to hear....

    Maybe (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 07:20:40 PM EST
    a lot of people are like me and are just tired of all this and are starting to tune it out. Hillary Clinton apparently sells a lot of papers though so I'm sure they're going to keep talking about her.

    I hate the media; really, I do. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:06:36 PM EST
    Watched CBS news tonight, which, if one had not seen the Q & A, would have given one a completely skewed account of what was said.  Not one word about the fact that all emails that went to any .gov account were preserved as required. No, CBS's spin was that Clinton didn't turn over any emails until just this past December.  It was a total hatchet job.

    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.

    Would it be terribly sexist (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:11:21 PM EST
    to say I think she looked great today?  I'm down with the long jacket suit thing.

    Which is not meant to deflect (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:17:14 PM EST
    of distract from the substance of your comment which I completely agree with.

    Not (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:28:31 PM EST
    sexist. I think that would be a fabulous thing to say :)

    I guess I'm shallow (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:50:47 PM EST
    I thought the same thing about her outfit.  And she looked well rested and coiffed.  I got used to her looking tired and her hair a little less professionally done when schedule was more hectic.  Nobody beats Madeline though disheveled in her very human glory reading bad guys the rules.  I loved that.

    Your (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:32:22 PM EST
    last sentence is the crux of my problem with this whole thing. Why does she have to turn over everything and no one else? Jeb Bush had his lawyer do it. How do we know Jeb Bush isn't hiding something or any one of a lot of other candidates? We don't know.

    So mostly I agree that the government policies have not kept up with technology.


    this (none / 0) (#91)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:42:27 PM EST
    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 if email is going to be an issue, let's make sure it's an issue for any potential candidate.

    I call bullcrap (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 11:12:35 PM EST
    And it is possible she would have funneled both accounts into one account and y'all would still be screaming. Everyone would want to see every effin email on her NON .gov account because she MUST be stupid enough to take foreign bribes for the foundation while SOS AND planning a 2016 run or some stupid sh!t like that . . .

    overreaction (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 11:40:10 PM EST
    Anne didn't suggest anything about foreign bribes & neither did i

    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


    Others have said those things (none / 0) (#109)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:14:27 AM EST
    Sadly both sides who jumped on this are saying similar things (if she only had 2 accounts) and various acts are being batted around. Suppose the NYT had discovered she had GASP! TWO ACCOUNTS!!!!! Same fainting couch different day. Anne would still react basically the same as she's so over Hillary etc, the group you identify with would also react similar via their agenda and lord only knows how far off the deep end the GOP would fall and of course the media would track similar with inuendo and specially crafted bs

    It's gonna be a looooooong 2 years sigh


    i know (none / 0) (#110)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:24:07 AM EST
    it's hard when what can sound like the same discourse is coming from diametrically opposed sources & means very different things

    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


    Given that the default position is for (none / 0) (#131)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:51:03 AM EST
    government employees, generally, to have more than one e-mail account - one for work and one or more for personal mail - I think if Hillary had had that set-up, there'd be nothing to write headlines about, would there?  

    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.


    The problem (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:57:41 AM EST
    is that the government decided to use blackberrys which didn't have the technology at the time to do  two email accounts. Apparenlty a lot of people advised against using blackberrys but Obama refused. So yeah, she could have had a separate personal account but she would have had to have a different device to read and send it.

    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.


    Have you ever seen Hillary carry anything? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:28:13 AM EST
    as for your last paragraph "people" might have.  But most would not be here.  I amazes me that you and others simply refuse to see the legitimate issues raised by this.  

    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?


    No (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:38:30 AM EST
    We've gone from CDS to Hillary can do no wrong. How dare you question her!

    Thanks for injecting some common sesnse and logic, Captain.


    You know what? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:42:46 AM EST
    Let's just have everybody release everything. All the private emails of congress should be gone through. Everybody in government should release everything. The GOP should be demanding this too. Let everything be put out there.

    That's what I proposed to Jim (none / 0) (#163)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    and, unsurprisingly, nobody here agreed with that proposal.

    That would be (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:54:18 AM EST
    because it's an unreasonable deflection.

    Then let's investigate those who are known (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:00:10 AM EST
    to have done what Hillary did, (Walker, Jeb Bush, Cheney, etc) and let the chips fall where they may.

    I'm with (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:16:43 AM EST
    Mordiggan on this. Let's not have one standard for  Hillary. Let's let EVERYBODY have that standard. She should be investigated and so should all other people who have personal email accounts not only just personal servers. Let the chips fall where they may.

    Personal (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:52:14 AM EST
    email accounts need to be banned for people in goverment apparently. I mean how do we know that Tom Cotton is not consorting with the mullahs through his personal email account? There is no way to know that anyone in congress or the senate is not doing something fishy in a personal email account.

    Well (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:32:24 AM EST
    like I said above my husband had a crackberry and they are a pain. Yeah, hindsight being 20/20 she probably should have had two phones but not that that would quell anything as you well know.

    You know (4.00 / 3) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:36:31 AM EST
    this it doesnt matter if she did anything wrong because even if she didn't "people" would have said she did is getting very tired.

    I've seen Hillary carry things. (none / 0) (#183)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:48:56 PM EST
    I have seen photos of her with her bag/briefcase slung over her shoulder, walking while checking her Blackberry or talking to an aide. Shoot, even Obama carries his own Blackberry. And presidents rarely carry anything, not even a little cash.

    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.


    Oddly enough (none / 0) (#146)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:23:42 AM EST
    Her staff, and many other government employees had two phones - their Blackberry for work, and a personal one.

    It isn't that she COULDN'T do it, it was she DIDN'T WANT to.


    Well (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:30:45 AM EST
    that is what she said. She said she didn't want to keep up with two phones. It's a big pain. My husband had a crackberry at one time and he did the same thing--having two phones but I'm telling you it was a headache. And he's not nearly as busy as Hillary was.

    Fer God sake (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:32:13 AM EST
    i doubt he also had a gaggle of aids shadowing him.  This is just silly.

    Okay (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:32:48 AM EST
    Point taken.

    A lot of people didn't until they had to (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:34:55 AM EST

    1967 redux (none / 0) (#92)
    by thomas rogan on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:42:57 PM EST
    In 1967 the centrist Nixon was the "most experienced and qualified" obvious Republican nominee, notwithstanding his character flaws.  You know where that got us.  Even Joe Biden would be a safe caretaker a la Gerald Ford (with similar bumbling habits), and a one term ticket of Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren could set things up nicely for 2020.  

    thanks for the laugh (3.00 / 2) (#99)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:52:55 PM EST
    a ticket of Joe Biden & Elizabeth Warren, in any order, would not win even a single term, but you're absolutely right: that ticket would set things up nicely for 2020 & the Republican president's second term

    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


    I was alive during the Nixon Administration (none / 0) (#108)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:06:58 AM EST
    I read about his crimes and attempted coverups in the press.

    Obama is no Nixon, but Darth Cheney certainly came closer to him than any other POTUS or VPOTUS since 1974.


    Elizabeth Warren (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:50:32 PM EST
    is not running. Joe Biden being a VP would likely lose the election.

    The audacity (none / 0) (#187)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 03:45:00 PM EST

    of some people thinking the people have any right to such information is simply astounding.

    More right wing craziness from those GOP water- carrying scoundrels in the MSM

    Jim, saying you don't like Powell (none / 0) (#203)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 04:05:53 PM EST
    and your willingness to give him a pass isn't making it personal, just pointing out the obvious intellectual incoherence of your position that you take here.