Hillary Clinton's e-mail icontroversy

Ambrosia said:

However, what she wiped was her personal emails and not her work emails. She turned over the 30,000+ work related emails already, as requested. In the same article you quoted, it states:

She should be arrested for deleting personal emails? I do believe that goes against everything this country stands for, even if it is a government official.

The article you quoted also says:

It sounds to me more like the regular GOP witch hunt that continues on Hillary, because she is a strong democrat. They want to keep the controversy going to give the impression of wrong doing and they want to do it behind closed doors so they can give their version of the "truth". They don't want to make their witch hunt open to the eyes of the public, because they know they will be caught. So keep the "evil" stories going even when there is no substance. Enough people will be fooled to turn the tide because it is in the news so it must have substance.


The adversarial party system in this country is killing the country. There are real problems in the U.S. that need to be addressed and solved. But no. Let's spend all our time and resources on GOP vs Democrat vs GOP vs Democrat ad nauseam. I'm sick of both parties.

Click to expand...

Responding via phone so excuse my badly formatting response.

1st off, Bahrain SAID she only deleted personal emails, but we know this how? Her word? The whole point of this was that Clinton wanted to be the one who chose what was seen and by whom. It was never supposed to be her call. Bonus she did not turn over any emails. She turned over copies printed out, not the original unaltered electronic version. And knowing there's this controversy she decided to wipe every thing so nobody can have a chance to go in and verify?

As far as the right wing witch hunt nonsense, that's a convenient way of making this about the GOP and not her actions.

Ambrosia said:

However, what she wiped was her personal emails and not her work emails. She turned over the 30,000+ work related emails already, as requested. In the same article you quoted, it states:

She should be arrested for deleting personal emails? I do believe that goes against everything this country stands for, even if it is a government official.

Click to expand...

You know what else goes against what this country stands for? Lack of transparency.

Perhaps not so deeply ingrained, but fundamental nonetheless. And she doesn't have the right to tell us (the people) what's personal and what isn't. She intermingled them, and she was and is obligated to have a third party make that call.

I'm not qualified to make a legal judgment, but as a matter of opinion, I find wiping the server to be a form of obstruction of justice.

Shouldn't the recipients of official government emails from the Secretary of State have her emails archived on their account?

Can't the government IT folks run a comparison. If it is found that some official emails exist on someone else's account that Clinton deleted from hers, the assumption can then be made that there are more, and further action can be taken.

All this "we can't know" stuff seems to forget that everything sent and received has another account on the other end. It's completely possible to know if she deleted sensitive information or not.

Myrealana said:

Shouldn't the recipients of official government emails from the Secretary of State have her emails archived on their account?

Click to expand...

Well, not if they're using a personal account. Plus, they don't all necessarily work for the US government (which means, per your edit, that it's not possible to know if anything is missing).

Official communication is official communication. Everything Clinton wrote in the capacity of Secretary of State is not her property. It's supposed to be a part of the government's archives as a matter of course. That's all there really is to this. Attempts to excuse her are just that; what she did--regardless of legalities--was not right, was not the way things should be done. And she's smart enough to know that, I think. So are most of her defenders.

Myrealana said:

Shouldn't the recipients of official government emails from the Secretary of State have her emails archived on their account?

Can't the government IT folks run a comparison. If it is found that some official emails exist on someone else's account that Clinton deleted from hers, the assumption can then be made that there are more, and further action can be taken.

All this "we can't know" stuff seems to forget that everything sent and received has another account on the other end. It's completely possible to know if she deleted sensitive information or not.

Click to expand...

Not really.

An aide who had been with the Clintons since the 1990s, Justin Cooper, registered the domain name, clintonemail.com, which had a server linked to the Clintons’ home address in Chappaqua, N.Y. Obtaining an account from that domain became a symbol of status within the family’s inner circle, conferring prestige and closeness to the secretary

Click to expand...

Vince524 said:

As far as the right wing witch hunt nonsense, that's a convenient way of making this about the GOP and not her actions.

Click to expand...

That's because it IS about the GOP and not Clinton's actions as Senator Barbara Boxer reported in May 2014:

• 9 different House and Senate committees have already investigated the attacks
• 17 hearings have been conducted
• 50 briefings have taken place
• 25 transcribed interviews have been conducted
• 8 subpoenas have been issued
• more than 25,000 pages of documents have been reviewed
• 6 congressional reports have been released

Some reports put the cost of these multiple hearings and investigations at $14 million and Trey Gowdy's fishing expedition will probably add another $3 to $4 million to the tab--which the taxpayers are picking up.

Why would a Republican House continue to investigate and investigate and investigate a potential Democratic presidential candidate? The question is the answer. This far out from the 2016 let's not be disingenuous. It's all about kneecapping Hillary and it's all about partisan politics.

Which means this is a right-wing witch hunt. Sorry if you find that truth to be inconvenient.

nighttimer said:

That's because it IS about the GOP and not Clinton's actions as Senator Barbara Boxer reported in May 2014:

• 9 different House and Senate committees have already investigated the attacks
• 17 hearings have been conducted
• 50 briefings have taken place
• 25 transcribed interviews have been conducted
• 8 subpoenas have been issued
• more than 25,000 pages of documents have been reviewed
• 6 congressional reports have been released

Some reports put the cost of these multiple hearings and investigations at $14 million and Trey Gowdy's fishing expedition will probably add another $3 to $4 million to the tab--which the taxpayers are picking up.

Why would a Republican House continue to investigate and investigate and investigate a potential Democratic presidential candidate? The question is the answer. This far out from the 2016 let's not be disingenuous. It's all about kneecapping Hillary and it's all about partisan politics.

Which means this is a right-wing witch hunt. Sorry if you find that truth to be inconvenient.

Click to expand...

None of that has anything to do with her emails or the fact that they were never turned over in full. Or that she chose to use a private server or the fact that she was the sole arbiter of who got to read and see what and when and how.

I don't disagree, but... the problem is, sometimes fishing expeditions actually catch something.

I totally believe this is a right-wing witch hunt, but Hillary knew they were out to get her. She shouldn't have given them ammo.

"It's a fair cop."

Vince524 said:

None of that has anything to do with her emails or the fact that they were never turned over in full. Or that she chose to use a private server or the fact that she was the sole arbiter of who got to read and see what and when and how.

Click to expand...

Sure thing, Vince. You believe anything you want to. I won't be the one to tell you there's no Santa Claus.

Just don't ever say "where are the facts?"again and once they are presented, you give them the back of your hand.

Amadan said:

I don't disagree, but... the problem is, sometimes fishing expeditions actually catch something.

Click to expand...

Sure. Maybe a minnow. Or an old shoe or a rusty piece of junk. Most fishing expeditions don't cost the taxpayers $14 million.

Amadan said:

I totally believe this is a right-wing witch hunt, but Hillary knew they were out to get her. She shouldn't have given them ammo.

Click to expand...

Being "Hillary Clinton" is all the ammo needed as the nearly 30 anti-Hillary books are ample evidence of.

You're missing the point. A lot of people here who are not right-wing Hillary haters find her actions not just a little bit troubling. Dismissing it because the discovery is the product of a vendetta of actual right-wing Hillary haters does not address the concerns. If you think what she did is literally of no consequence, fair enough - say so and we'll disagree. But "It doesn't matter because haters gonna hate" is not a defense.

And yes, I know to the voting public at large, this will end up being of little or no consequence.

nighttimer said:

Sure thing, Vince. You believe anything you want to. I won't be the one to tell you there's no Santa Claus.

Just don't ever say "where are the facts?"again and once they are presented, you give them the back of your hand.

Click to expand...

What facts did you present that explain her refusal to turn over all her emails? Or wiping her server? Or her believing she should decide what others are allowed to see? Or that she didn't actual turn over any emails, but rather printed copies that could have been altered.

Amadan said:

You're missing the point. A lot of people here who are not right-wing Hillary haters find her actions not just a little bit troubling. Dismissing it because the discovery is the product of a vendetta of actual right-wing Hillary haters does not address the concerns. If you think what she did is literally of no consequence, fair enough - say so and we'll disagree. But "It doesn't matter because haters gonna hate" is not a defense.

Click to expand...

Fortunately for me, as I am not versed in the law, I am not tasked with the burden of defending Mrs. Clinton. I'll leave that to someone qualified for it.

No, I don't think this is anything of consequence. From here it looks like the same old Washington "gotcha" game where the subject dies a slow death of a thousand little drip-drip-drip leaks that we're told will turn into a flood and barely amounts to a puddle.

I understand why the Republicans are long-stroking this. The longer they drag it out the greater the possibility something may fall into their lap they can use to club Clinton's candidacy like a baby seal. That's hardball and it's not for sissies or the faint of heart.

What I object to is the myopic, obsessiveness by the Republicans and their water-carriers to turn this into a scandal of Watergate proportions as RNC Chairman Reince Preibus is attempting to do with his mouth-foaming rhetoric.

The Hillary Haters can play their games, but I'm not obligated to play along.

Amadan said:

And yes, I know to the voting public at large, this will end up being of little or no consequence.

Click to expand...

At this point, it is of little or no consequence. Of course means it could become extremely consequential, but right now the voting public is way ahead of the pols and pundits.

Hey, if I'm proven wrong and something is proven, go ahead and nail Hillary to the wall. I won't squawk. But I won't be providing the tar or feathers either.

Vince524 said:

What facts did you present that explain her refusal to turn over all her emails? Or wiping her server? Or her believing she should decide what others are allowed to see? Or that she didn't actual turn over any emails, but rather printed copies that could have been altered.

Click to expand...

Vince, you're not interested in anything but turning this into some sort of three-ring circus, so fire your questions at someone interested in answering them, okay? I'm well familiar with your debating tactic of asking five questions followed by ten, then twenty and on and on until the break of dawn.

You got questions? Find your own answers. I've given mine and if they aren't good enough then they aren't and that's all.

nighttimer said:

Hey, if I'm proven wrong and something is proven, go ahead and nail Hillary to the wall. I won't squawk. But I won't be providing the tar or feathers either.

Click to expand...

I don't want to nail her to the wall. I'd just like her to say "Yes, I screwed up, I shouldn't have done that, mea culpa." I realize neither political reality nor her ego will allow that, but it would be sufficient for me.

nighttimer said:

Vince, you're not interested in anything but turning this into some sort of three-ring circus, so fire your questions at someone interested in answering them, okay? I'm well familiar with your debating tactic of asking five questions followed by ten, then twenty and on and on until the break of dawn.

You got questions? Find your own answers. I've given mine and if they aren't good enough then they aren't and that's all.

Click to expand...

Fine, if that's what you think of me. But don't dismiss my questions as unimportant because the fact is there are no good answers.

This is for you, Vince, even though it's questions back at you, lol.

OK, what I don't get is that folks are usually allowed to be on their honor to separate work and personal emails. They usually use two different accounts for that, obviously, and I can see the problem with Clinton not doing that.

But doesn't it at this point boil down to her deciding which were personal same as anyone else does with theirs? Or was there a court order for her to have to treat her personal emails differently than other diplomats once she was found out?

It's actually not unusual for each diplomat to decide which is personal and which is work related on their own, and their personal accounts aren't checked.

backslashbaby said:

This is for you, Vince, even though it's questions back at you, lol.

OK, what I don't get is that folks are usually allowed to be on their honor to separate work and personal emails. They usually use two different accounts for that, obviously, and I can see the problem with Clinton not doing that.

Click to expand...

It goes a bit deeper than that. Work email (State Dept, in this case) operates via an infrastructure that the employer operates, administers, and controls. In this case, work emails never showed up, because they were redirected to a whole other state (as I recall, the state dept servers are in DC/Maryland, the Clinton server is/was in NY State).

backslashbaby said:

But doesn't it at this point boil down to her deciding which were personal same as anyone else does with theirs? Or was there a court order for her to have to treat her personal emails differently than other diplomats once she was found out?

Click to expand...

A congressional subpoena, I believe.

Let's try a physical example, although it's not a perfect fit. You are in a legal action with a Mr Jones. You get a subpoena demanded all documents related to the action. Mr Jones hands you a pile of documents, then blows up the building that housed everything, personal and business.

How do you know that you got everything? How do you know that those documents weren't written up the night before? How do you know there weren't others that also applied? How do you know that Mr Jones didn't deliberately destroy evidence?

backslashbaby said:

It's actually not unusual for each diplomat to decide which is personal and which is work related on their own, and their personal accounts aren't checked.

Click to expand...

The accounts that are supposed to exist on State Dept servers are retained top to bottom, and an inspector general decides what applies and what doesn't. And if there's evidence that work was conducted on those personal accounts, the same can happen there, too. It actually *is* unusual for diplomats to make that call on their own accounts if and when legal discovery determines that relevant communications exist in those accounts.

By operating her work email on a personal server, Hillary Clinton irretrievably comingled her personal and her work email in such a fashion that State Dept (and those appointed in ediscovery) had a right to fully examine the contents for relevant communications.

They would NOT have had a right to reveal personal communications.

Vince524 said:

Fine, if that's what you think of me. But don't dismiss my questions as unimportant because the fact is there are no good answers.

Click to expand...

In debate, I feel I should be respectful of the other person's opinion. In fact, it is a prerequisite to remain a member in good standing in Politics and Current Events and this board, so please don't come at me with this "fine, if that's what you think of me" line. That's personalizing something too trivial to have heartburn over.

Nobody cares who "wins" an internet thread.

If you feel I have been disrespectful of you, then select the Report button and notify a Moderator of the offending remark. I can vouch from being on both sides of that button that it will get results.

When I provide supporting material that this email crap is part and parcel of the "Shh...Be Vewy Vewy Quiet....We're Hunting Hillary" strategy the Republican Party and the Right-Wing has doggedly pursued against the Clintons for decades now, you are not required to agree it supports my premise.

I'm not required to respond to the casual dismissal with a whole new set of answers to a whole new set of questions. For who? For what?

I dismiss your questions as unimportant when the answers provided are dismissed as not being important for you to merit consideration.

backslashbaby said:

This is for you, Vince, even though it's questions back at you, lol.

OK, what I don't get is that folks are usually allowed to be on their honor to separate work and personal emails. They usually use two different accounts for that, obviously, and I can see the problem with Clinton not doing that.

But doesn't it at this point boil down to her deciding which were personal same as anyone else does with theirs? Or was there a court order for her to have to treat her personal emails differently than other diplomats once she was found out?

It's actually not unusual for each diplomat to decide which is personal and which is work related on their own, and their personal accounts aren't checked.

Click to expand...

Rob kinda covered it.

At the time, it was policy, not law, that all state department emails go through the official server. This was both because of security and because of documentation. Clinton instead had a server installed in her home to avoid this. I had linked earlier in the thread to an ambassador who got in deep dog doo for the same thing. All she had to do was have an intern from the State Department set it up on her devices. She chose to do this. And she then didn't turn over her emails upon leaving until it became a big deal. Then, she didn't turn over the emails, she turned over copies of emails. Paper copies that she printed instead of the original electronic documents. Those could have been altered. And now she's wiped the server. So we have only her word that she turned over everything she was supposed to. She could have had someone from the FBI come in, go through the server and look at each email, keeping the personal ones private turning over any that had to do with her time as Secretary of State.

Her lawyers, allegedly, did a key word search to determine what emails to print.

nighttimer said:

In debate, I feel I should be respectful of the other person's opinion. In fact, it is a prerequisite to remain a member in good standing in Politics and Current Events and this board, so please don't come at me with this "fine, if that's what you think of me" line. That's personalizing something too trivial to have heartburn over.

Nobody cares who "wins" an internet thread.

If you feel I have been disrespectful of you, then select the Report button and notify a Moderator of the offending remark. I can vouch from being on both sides of that button that it will get results.

When I provide supporting material that this email crap is part and parcel of the "Shh...Be Vewy Vewy Quiet....We're Hunting Hillary" strategy the Republican Party and the Right-Wing has doggedly pursued against the Clintons for decades now, you are not required to agree it supports my premise.

I'm not required to respond to the casual dismissal with a whole new set of answers to a whole new set of questions. For who? For what?

I dismiss your questions as unimportant when the answers provided are dismissed as not being important for you to merit consideration.

Click to expand...

My response my have sounded like it was me flouncing out of the room and slamming the door, but it wasn't. I'll leave that to Cassie. She does it better and looks better at it.

You're asserting that it's a witch hunt and provided your reasons why. You may or may not be right. But that has nothing to do with the original issue of what we all know Clinton did. The fact that there are members of the GOP frothing at the mouth to get her doesn't mean there's no there, there.

Beyond that, we may see things eye to eye, but I'm still a fan NT.

No, but was there a subpoena or something as formal as that, I mean? What were the legal details of her needing turning over her personal emails (or the server would work for me, too)?

And has anyone else ever had to, if that is a legal requirement of the predicament she got herself into?

backslashbaby said:

No, but was there a subpoena or something as formal as that, I mean? What were the legal details of her needing turning over her personal emails (or the server would work for me, too)?

And has anyone else ever had to, if that is a legal requirement of the predicament she got herself into?

Click to expand...

I don't think there was a subpoena yet, there was an official request.

Here's the grey area. She's required to turn over all official documents. She says she did, although clearly not when she first left the State Department. However, we have only her word that she turned over all relevant documents now. And even so, they're copies.