Since I have not asked yet, what do you think of Clinton's excuse for not using the Government email system?
Washington Wire Phone Policy Change
WP Two Device Excuse
And the fact that Clinton did not volunteer/disclose the emails back in 2013 when the investigations were occurring?
Wiki Benghazi Investigation Timeline
Personally I think she seems to be coming off as a deeply devious manipulative person of low character who sees herself as above the law. I am very curious if Liberals still see her as a great Presidential candidate? Are they able to rationalize away the fact that she didn't just access her email like we do, but she set up and used a private server which allowed her absolute control over what was released and when. And then she held back the relevant emails during official investigations.
I am pretty sure a company who hid emails during an investigation would be in deep "doo doo". Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I find all this very odd. The first thing I would advise any political figure at that level is to maintain both a personal and a business account. Conversely, I find it impossible to imagine that anyone advising anyone to commingle their business and personal accounts. I don't see how such advice is asking for anything other than trouble.
That said, the Clinton's will always be investigated for something or other. It's an essential part of their narrative. That being the case, even if Clinton maintained a personal account, sooner or later some investigative entity will demand access to her personal account, if she had had one.
--Hiram
Hiram,
No one cares that she had a personal server or account...
They care that she used it for much of her official email, and then "forgot" to turn these over during the investigations.
Though I like Bill Clinton as an amusing "character", I don't think him or Hillary have much "character". So I agree with you that "the Clinton's will always be investigated for something or other..." They remind me of watching "House of Cards". Yet a bunch of folks still seem to support them.
From a purely political standpoint, I wish those on the right would hold off on all criticism of Hillary until after she gets the nomination. Right now there are a lot of Democrats wishing they had another alternative and if this criticism continues, they might just find it. Holding your fire until after she is the confirmed nominee is just smart politics for Republicans. But of course Republicans know absolutely nothing about smart politics.
They care that she used it for much of her official email, and then "forgot" to turn these over during the investigations
Well, I don't know if anyone cares or not. I see a lot more posturing than sincerity. What Clinton did wasn't illegal and seems to have been a common practice. It's not something I would have advised, but certainly there is no reason at all to think that if she had maintained a personal account, it wouldn't have been subpoenaed sooner or later.
In political terms, while I am sure it hasn't been pleasant for them, the constant investigations that have targeted them have been more politically beneficial to them than otherwise.
--Hiram
Actually, what Hillary did was flat-up illegal, not that such things matter to the Clinton-Obama imperium.
Hillary's excuse is weak here, but it's hardly as if what she did was unusual. Where were you guys when:
* 5 million (that's MILLION) e-mails from Bush White House officials vanished from the RNC's servers (where these staffers were trying to hide their e-mails instead of using their .gov accounts) in 2007?
* Scott Walker used a private e-mail system to cover up illegal political activities by his staff when he was Milwaukee County Executive?
* Mitt Romney used $100,000 in state funds to wipe his and (his staff's) e-mail from Massachusetts computer systems.
* Bobby Jindal and his staff used private e-mail addresses to avoid records requests in Louisiana.
* Precisely zero of Colin Powell's e-mail while he was SoS were archived.
* Jeb Bush ran his own private e-mail system, hand-picked what e-mails to turn over to Florida state government, and waited until 7 years after leaving office to fully comply with rules surrounding e-mail retention.
Hillary Clinton should be scrutinized for this -- and so should everyone else.
You can't tell me that Jeb Bush's self-selected e-mail disclosure (which includes the time when he was the Governor of a state where the recount determined the result of a Presidential election involving his brother) shouldn't raise fewer red flags than Hillary's.
Sean,
Personally I am indifferent since I won't be voting for her.
You will need to decide if you want a President who chooses to keep secrets from an official inquiry.
Choices, choices...
So John, how will you feel voting for Jeb Bush or Scott Walker, who seem to be just as secretive as Hillary in their use of private email systems?
I am not a huge Clinton fan but I will have no trouble voting for her. I think as far as scandals go this one is pretty minor. I predict she will be our next president.
"You will need to decide if you want a President who chooses to keep secrets from an official inquiry."
You might have to make the same choice.
I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
Laurie,
People died, Hillary did not disclose all of her emails while the investigation was occurring. I would say that this is not minor.
Tu quoque, eh, Sean? Sorry, but what these other folks did is completely irrelevant to what Hillary did. The incident stands on its own and should be judged according to its "severity" with respect to the situation. In this case, Hillary was in clear violation of federal law while being in charge of seeing that her whole department followed the same law. She then refused to turn over subpoenaed documents. I know, it's maybe small potatoes compared to getting Americans killed, or even hiding her hubby's multiple indiscretions, but for me it adds up to somebody totally unqualified for the job she supposedly is a "shoo-in" for. Just like 8 years ago....
Sorry, but I really want to reserve my criticism of her until after she is the nominee. I would vote for any of these other supposed miscreants before I voted for her.
"The incident stands on its own and should be judged according to its "severity" with respect to the situation."
Is this even possible? How can we evaluate things without context? How do we know what is "severe" if we don't know what isn't? And by the way, isn't it just a little bit too convenient for critics of Hillary's email practice to let just about everyone else in a position similar to hers off the hook?
--Hiram
No, it's not convenient at all. Just because Democrats don't make an issue of something Republicans do (a rarity), doesn't mean Republicans must keep silent about Hillary's equal or greater misdeeds. (Though again, I would like to hold fire until after she's anointed the candidate.)
If you're only making an issue about the behavior because a Democrat did it, then you're being a partisan hack.
I'm not making an issue of it; I didn't even know about it. But when it does come to light, yes, my partisan tendency is to make sure the media don't cover it up. Just because a Democrat does it doesn't mean it should be ignored.
"Just because a Democrat does it doesn't mean it should be ignored."
I don't think anyone is suggesting that it be ignored. To the contrary, I think all of these folks (Hillary included) should be subjected to severe scrutiny over these issues.
Post a Comment