Hillary Clinton's e-mail icontroversy

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
I'm a bit mystified that someone thought this was a good idea. On the other hand, I don't think it's a disqualification.

And the Republicans need to be careful about throwing stones over this, because their two frontrunners apparently did exactly the same thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-republican-overreach/index.html

Jeb Bush, while he was governor of Florida, often used a personal email address connected to a home-brew server -- and, like Clinton, gave his top aides addresses, too. It has allowed him an unusual level of control over what's released and what's kept private.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and his aides set up their own private internal email system while he was a Milwaukee County executive, and mixed official government business with campaign politics. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and his aides' private communications became a focus of the "Bridgegate" investigation. Texas Gov. Rick Perry sometimes used a personal address, too.
 
Last edited:

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
Perhaps she felt her own dedicated server was more secure than the government system.

As we have seen through several high-profile cases, the security of governmental emails would not necessarily inspire a high level of confidence.

As I said, I think this was a very bad idea on her part. But I really can't see any nefarious purposes. If she had anything to hide, she certainly would not wanted to co-mingle it with governmental business. It would be far easier to separate it out to a personal email account, while conducting all governmental business on a governmental account.

My personal belief is that she didn't trust the governmental email because of the access that could be obtained, not by outsiders, but by high-level people in government. People who would be scrutinizing everything she said or did with the desire to bring her down.

Ordinarily, I would deem that as being paranoid. With Hillary's history and the right's obsession with destroying her, I'm not so sure it is.


This is all true enough. The fact remains, though, that official communications by government officials are supposed to be sent through official channels, as they are subject to auditing, FOIA inquiries, etc. It may be understandable that she wanted to bypass these requirements because she really does have enemies who are out to get her... but she was still violating the law.

I don't think this is the most horrible thing ever and proves the lawlessness of the Clintons and Benghazi and Vince Foster and blah blah blah... But by the same token, her defenders should not pretend that this was some trivial oversight. It was a very real violation that would get someone lower than her on the food chain in serious legal trouble.
 

MaryMumsy

the original blond bombshell
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
3,396
Reaction score
829
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
My understanding might be flawed (or there might have been further facts I haven't noticed), but...

1) using a government email address was recommended, but not required during the time in question.

2) any emails she sent to official email addresses are archived on their end.

:Shrug:

MM
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
All of the other officials would have also seen which address she was sending information from. IF there was a problem and she was not given one or sending it from hclinton @fed.govewhatever and no one questioned it the entire period of time she was there, then they are just idiots in the worst possible incompetent sense, or they didn't care which means it's all a non-issue.


1. Not everyone she was communicating with was necessarily a US official.

2. The fact that her peers did not notice or care that she was using a personal email address to conduct official business does not mean it was a non-issue. See above, concerning auditing and FOIA requests.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
This is all true enough. The fact remains, though, that official communications by government officials are supposed to be sent through official channels, as they are subject to auditing, FOIA inquiries, etc. It may be understandable that she wanted to bypass these requirements because she really does have enemies who are out to get her... but she was still violating the law.

I don't think this is the most horrible thing ever and proves the lawlessness of the Clintons and Benghazi and Vince Foster and blah blah blah... But by the same token, her defenders should not pretend that this was some trivial oversight. It was a very real violation that would get someone lower than her on the food chain in serious legal trouble.
But her defenders have to pretend this is some trivial oversight, because:
What is causing Dems a bit of angst is Hillary is Plan A and there is no Plan B should she falter badly coming out of the gate. She is their best hope to maintain control of the White House. If she fails to launch and crashes on the pad, that's bad news for her and her party.
As you pointed out, Amadan, this would get someone lower than her on the food chain in serious legal trouble. Apparently a whole hell of a lot of people have no problem with there being one level of justice for some people, and a different level of justice for others, as long as it keeps their gang in control of the reins of power.

No matter how much they may claim otherwise in other threads.

Either you believe in equal justice for all, or you don't. Nobody should get to pick and choose; that leads to the rule of man, not the rule of law.

ETA: Lest I be accused of partisanship, let me state unequivocally that I'd like to see Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Chris Christie and Rick Perry held to the letter of the law as well.
 
Last edited:

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
OK, so let's get this straight. The practice wasn't banned until last year. Doing what she did was legally permitted at the time she was Secretary of State. The requirement was that e-mails be turned over for archiving at some point (though no time frame was specified). Which she did. So she has complied with legal requirements, to the best of anyone's knowledge.

She still shouldn't have done it. But unless someone can find evidence she's withholding e-mails that should have been turned over for archiving, then I don't see a legal case here.

What Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and Rick Perry did probably wasn't illegal at the time they did it, either.
 

Magdalen

Petulantly Penitent
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
6,372
Reaction score
1,566
Location
Insignificant
B . . . Apparently a whole hell of a lot of people have no problem with there being one level of justice for some people, and a different level of justice for others, as long as it keeps their gang in control of the reins of power. . . . .

Not a flying fuck is given by me, here, but I expect better. Is that too much to ask?

No shit!! I'm still pissed about Scooter!!
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
This is all true enough. The fact remains, though, that official communications by government officials are supposed to be sent through official channels, as they are subject to auditing, FOIA inquiries, etc. It may be understandable that she wanted to bypass these requirements because she really does have enemies who are out to get her... but she was still violating the law.

She may have been violating the law. (Was she? There is now a policy -- wasn't through all of the time involved apparently, but IS there a law that says all SoS email, or cabinet email, or fedgov email has to go through a specific server farm?)

Either way, it doesn't get her protection from FOIA or audits. In fact, a FOIA request could go after all email in and out of just her domain and skip the .gov domain family entirely.

However, according to the story she has already complied with FOIA and other requests.

So this appears to be making political hay where the sun don't shine.
 

Vince524

Are you gonna finish that bacon?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
15,903
Reaction score
4,652
Location
In a house
Website
vincentmorrone.com
IMHO, while this may not be as Earth shattering as the right might like, I don't think it's as ho-hum as other people are making it out to be.

Clinton used her own personal email where she controlled the server exclusively. This means that any email she sent that could be damaging, she very well may have permanently deleted. And these emails couldn't be a part of a sunshine law request.

If you work for the Gov't and you use either the gov't email or say one from yahoo or gmail, one can go to the gov't or the email server to get the records. Not so with these.

As far as the Jeb Bush and other's comparisons, keep in mind that Bush was a Governor, not Secretary of State. Huge difference in the type of emails they would have dealt with.

Of course former SOS's Powell and Rice used personal emails, but not exclusively and emails weren't used as much when they were in office.

There are also a few other things to keep in mind.

There's also a tinge of hypocrisy in the air.

During Clinton's personal-email-using, private-server-having tenure, U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration was criticized and ultimately pushed out of his post in part for using a personal email address "for official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information."

LOOK: Alternatives to Hillary Clinton 2016

Again, there's no evidence Clinton included "sensitive but unclassified information" in her emails, but a State Department investigation skewed the ambassador in question for using his personal email at all in his official capacity. (He also used an official government email.)

The 2012 Inspector General's report, which was released shortly after Gration resigned his post as the ambassador in Kenya, wrote that the use of personal email was against policy "except in emergencies" and repeatedly slams him for using "commercial email for official government business."

All the while, Clinton was exclusively using her personal email.

There's just one more tidbit revealed in a 2011 internal, unclassified, diplomatic cable from Clinton's office -- though there's no evidence she personally reviewed the cable. It gives the department's employees guidance on "securing personal e-mail accounts," Fox News reported.

One of the guidelines?

"Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail account."

As far as the rights obsession to going after Clinton? Sure, it exists. So does IMHO the Clinton's belief that rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to them. And there's never a clear, simple, "here's the answer that will clear it up." It quickly becomes about parsing words, looking for loop holes, being able to say it depends on what the definition of is is with a straight face. And being able to be in the position of blundering like this and counting on people to simply chalk it off to another vast right wing conspiracy.
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,099
Reaction score
8,848
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
all-purpose partisan rationalization template

This country is threatened by vicious enemies who would like nothing more than to burn it to ashes, crumbling infrastructure, poverty, income inequality, environmental destruction, racial animus, sexism, homophobia, betrayed and abandoned veterans, homelessness, dysfunctional politics and obsessing over pseudo-celebrities and the color of ugly dresses, but I'm really supposed to get stressed out over ______________'s _________________________________?
.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
The right wing has been Elmer-Fudding around after the Clintons for more than 20 years (and more often than not end up with shotgun pellets in their polka dotted underwear to show for it).

At this point, if they actually think they'd have to dig through 50k emails to find some dirt, I'd advise them to spare themselves the effort and make shit up like they usually do.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
What is causing Dems a bit of angst is Hillary is Plan A and there is no Plan B should she falter badly coming out of the gate. She is their best hope to maintain control of the White House. If she fails to launch and crashes on the pad, that's bad news for her and her party.

But her defenders have to pretend this is some trivial oversight, because:

As you pointed out, Amadan, this would get someone lower than her on the food chain in serious legal trouble. Apparently a whole hell of a lot of people have no problem with there being one level of justice for some people, and a different level of justice for others, as long as it keeps their gang in control of the reins of power.

No matter how much they may claim otherwise in other threads.

Either you believe in equal justice for all, or you don't. Nobody should get to pick and choose; that leads to the rule of man, not the rule of law.

This would almost be funny if it wasn't coming from a guy whose supposed love for "equal justice for all" is eclipsed only by his mancrush for an inveterate racist old fart and his brat whom both oppose the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

This would almost be funny if it wasn't coming from a guy who has defended that racist old fart's racist newsletters, no matter how much they may claim otherwise in other threads, HERE and HERE.

See how much "equal justice for all"/"either you believe it or you don't" you can find HERE:

Not much to explain away, really, other than piss-poor management by Dr. Paul during that period. He dropped the ball while he was practicing medicine and let the staff of the newsletters run away with them. Nobody's saying whether it was Fred Reed or Lew Rockwell who actually penned the columns, but they're clearly not written by Ron Paul, as anybody who's read anything he's written can attest. There's no similarity in style at all. My guess would be Fred Reed, personally, based purely on style.

Anybody who knows Dr. Paul's record knows he voted for the establishment of Martin Luther King Day, considers Rosa Parks and Dr. King role models of civil disobedience, and is the only candidate of either party who's been talking about the racial inequality in the justice system for decades.

Even Wolf Blitzer, part of the hit team, says he's never heard anything from Dr. Paul that would lead him to believe the things in the newsletters are anything that he believes.

Nelson Linder, Austin president of the NAACP, said "he has personally known Paul for 20 years and heard him speak out against police oppression in minority communities, racial biases in mandatory drug sentencing, and favorably about late civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr."

This is about as major an issue as the rock outside Perry's hunting ranch, and nothing compared to Gingrich's thinly veiled racism toward the president and other groups.

Whenever Ron or Rand Paul have demonstrated through word and deed their antagonism, disdain and contempt for equal justice for all (like all them Black folks) it's been a constant their defenders will pretend this is some trivial oversight.

Apparently a whole hell of a lot of people have no problem with there being one level of justice for some people, and a different level of justice for others, as long as it keeps their gang in control of the reins of power and those with the right complexion firmly with their foot on the necks of those with the the wrong complexion.

Perhaps in Bizzaro World you can be wrong for 50 years about the most significant civil rights legislation and self-righteously proclaim a belief in equal rights for all but here in the Real World that looks mighty like picking and choosing how you fall on an given issue if your favorite politicians are for or against it.

This would almost be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. :deadhorse


Thanks for contributing the deep, insightful and brilliant insight, William. Whenever you get around to it.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
The right wing has been Elmer-Fudding around after the Clintons for more than 20 years (and more often than not end up with shotgun pellets in their polka dotted underwear to show for it).

At this point, if they actually think they'd have to dig through 50k emails to find some dirt, I'd advise them to spare themselves the effort and make shit up like they usually do.

Love this post. Brilliantly put, and I agree.
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
This would almost be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.


Okay, what about me? I am no defender of Ron Paul, nor am I a right-winger who's out to get the Clintons.

What I am is a federal employee (almost the lowest form of life, according to Don) who knows what federal regulations are, because they are hammered into all of us peons, and that if I did what Hilary Clinton did, I would at the very least lose my job, and quite possibly be facing jail time.

This has only become an issue because of partisan hacks out to get the Clintons, without a doubt. But that doesn't mean she didn't do anything wrong or worthy of censure. It just means that people at her level only get punished for doing this shit when they have enemies who care enough to point it out.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
This has only become an issue because of partisan hacks out to get the Clintons, without a doubt. But that doesn't mean she didn't do anything wrong or worthy of censure. It just means that people at her level only get punished for doing this shit when they have enemies who care enough to point it out.

Yep.

And regarding FOIA requests, when it comes to official correspondence at State, compliance is State's responsibility, not the responsibility of the individuals involved. So the fact that Clinton appears to be complying with requests (no one can actually say this is a fact, as Clinton is in control of the info) doesn't excuse what was done here in the least.

Now, is the end-of-the-world stuff? Certainly not. But it was wrong. Clinton, I am certain, knows it was wrong. Was it done because everyone is out to get Clinton or because she has a persecution complex? Doesn't matter, imo.

But it's still not going to sink her run.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Okay, what about me? I am no defender of Ron Paul, nor am I a right-winger who's out to get the Clintons.

What about you? Nobody's accusing you of being a blind partisan or inveterate Hillary hater. You were merely quoted by one.

Amadan said:
What I am is a federal employee (almost the lowest form of life, according to Don) who knows what federal regulations are, because they are hammered into all of us peons, and that if I did what Hilary Clinton did, I would at the very least lose my job, and quite possibly be facing jail time.

Surely you don't need me to point out to you there aren't just double standards, but triple and quadruple standards for how the powerful and the peons are treated around here?

Whaddya think this is? A democracy or somethin'? :rolleyes:

Amadan said:
This has only become an issue because of partisan hacks out to get the Clintons, without a doubt. But that doesn't mean she didn't do anything wrong or worthy of censure. It just means that people at her level only get punished for doing this shit when they have enemies who care enough to point it out.

Probably so, but this time the "enemy" fire at Clinton came from The New York Times, not Fox News.

While Mr. Haskins finds mirth and merriment in my descriptor of this inside the Beltway b.s. as a triviality, we've been here before. Clinton "scandals" are as plentiful as dandelions in the spring and while her full-time scolds get hyped whenever a new one seems to bloom, I don't get as giddy as they.

And that seems to be what really pisses them off. They're all hot and bothered and want everyone to be too. Call me when the fire shows up. I ain't got time for the smoke.
 
Last edited:

CassandraW

Banned
Flounced
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
6,476
Location
.
Thanks for contributing the deep, insightful and brilliant insight, William. Whenever you get around to it.

William's a poet. Give him four words and a period, and he'll give an insight.
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,099
Reaction score
8,848
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
Thanks for contributing the deep, insightful and brilliant insight, William. Whenever you get around to it.

oh it was a contribution. and you know it.

that's why you referred to it as "insightful... insight."

'twas a double-dose.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
oh it was a contribution. and you know it.

that's why you referred to it as "insightful... insight."

'twas a double-dose.

It wasn't a contribution as much as it was punctuation.

But if that's all you got to bring to the party it'll just have to do. :partyguy:
 

CassandraW

Banned
Flounced
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
6,476
Location
.
I believe his chief contribution was in his post title and his deletions. Though far be it from me to knock his punctuation.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
I believe his chief contribution was in his post title and his deletions. Though far be it from me to knock his punctuation.

Oh, so you mean I do all the heavy lifting and then he comes in and takes the all credit?

"Hello Willie Dixon. Name's Jimmy Page. Damn glad to meetcha."

Meanwhile, Hillary speaks:

Washington (CNN)Former secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she used a private domain for her official work during her time at the State Department out of "convenience," but admitted in retrospect "it would have been better" to use multiple emails.

"I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two," she said during a press conference after her speech at the United Nations Tuesday. "Looking back, it would have been better if I'd simply used a second email account and carried a second phone."

Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of correspondence to the State Department to evaluate, which department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Tuesday would be released on a public website after a review, which could take months.

The former secretary of state defended her process in choosing emails, telling reporters that she and her staff "err[ed] on the side of providing anything that could be possibly viewed as work-related."

Clinton said she didn't send any classified information with her email, but asserted that there were no security breaches on the server anyway, which she said had been set up for President Bill Clinton's use, was housed on private property and guarded by Secret Service agents.

"I trust the American people to make their decisions about political and public matters and I feel like I've taken unprecedented steps for these emails to be in the public domain," she said. "I went above and beyond what I was requested to do."
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
Love this graph:

Clinton said she didn't send any classified information with her email, but asserted that there were no security breaches on the server anyway, which she said had been set up for President Bill Clinton's use, was housed on private property and guarded by Secret Service agents.

Nice job of pointing out that nothing of hers has been personal for a very long time.