let's make fun of Hillary Clinton's E-MAIL DRAMA
Options
janklow
Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
because why not:
Hillary Clinton Tweets: "I Want the Public to See My Email." She Doesn't.
Hillary Clinton Tweets: "I Want the Public to See My Email." She Doesn't.
i get why people are liking to default to "Republicans ? about Clinton it's like the 1990s again HHHRRRAAAUUUGGGHHH" and all, but still.At 11:35 p.m. eastern time last night, Hillary Clinton offered her first response to the email scandal that has made front-page news over the last several days, in which it was revealed that Hillary Clinton relied exclusively on a personal, privately controlled email account to conduct business while Secretary of State, contrary to federal records rules.
"I want the public to see my email, " she wrote in the Tweet. "I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible."
Obviously the best way to ensure that a public official's emails are seen by the public is to hide them on a privately managed server.
Anyway, it's nice, I suppose, that Clinton asked State to review and release her emails, but it's also totally beside the point. The problem is that the Department of State didn't have all of her emails to begin with.
Instead, according to The New York Times, trusted Clinton aides recently reviewed her emails and turned over some 55,000 pages of them to the Department of State. So, at very best, Clinton is asking State to turn over emails that her staffers have already weeded through and marked as potentially acceptable for public consumption.
What we need to see are the other emails—the full batch of written electronic communications she sent and received in her professional capacity as Secretary of State, unedited by her politically minded staff.
It is incredibly hard to justify Clinton's decision to keep those emails out of public view and uncollected by federal recordkeeping. As a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration told The New York Times when the story first broke, “It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business.” Yet that is exactly what Clinton did. (You may note there was no nuclear winter in the last six years.)
That Clinton took unusual and perhaps out-of-bounds steps to hide her emails only makes it more important that they now be accessible to the public. In context, her tweet suggests that, contrary to her stated desire to see her emails made accessible to the public, she prefers to hide many of her electronic communicatations from public scrutiny.
Comments
-
and just to pile on:
Hillary Clinton’s Question-Dodging Response to the Private Email ScandalYesterday, a photographer for the celebrity gossip site TMZ became the first reporter to ask Hillary Clinton on camera about her unusual, exclusive use of a personal, privately run email address while serving as Secretary of State. The photog bungled the wording of the question, asking, "With the blunder of the emails, was that just a generalization gap or can that be corrected?" Clinton just walked by.
It wouldn’t have mattered if the question was worded a little bit better, though. Clinton has no plans to answer questions about the emails any time soon.
According to a Bloomberg Politics report by Jennifer Epstein, Clinton’s plan is to avoid any in-depth discussion of the scandal for the time being, and instead refer questions to State, and to a Tweet from Wednesday night, in which she said, "I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible."
The tweet itself was artfully disingenuous: Why run email through a privately controlled system except to hide your communications from the public? And while it’s true that the Department of State is now reviewing thousands of pages of her emails for possible public disclosure, the review only covers emails that Clinton aides hand-picked and turned over. She’s already edited the archive. She demonstrably does not want the public to see the rest.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of questions Clinton should be answering.
For example: How does she square her use of private email with State Department policy directing that work be conducted on an authorized, secure email system? As Politico reports, since 2005 the State Department has had a "clear cut" policy in its Foreign Affairs Manual that "general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized [Automated Information System], which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information."
A representative from State told Politico that the policy only applies to the transmission of sensitive information. That doesn’t put Clinton in the clear, though. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted Wednesday that "there is a substantial amount of sensitive information that is included in her email."
Proper email use wasn’t laughed off during Clinton’s time at State: In 2012, an Ambassador to Kenya was pushed out in part for using his personal Gmail account, unconnected to the official State Department email system. Why was it okay for her to do the same thing? (Other documents indicate that under Clinton, State employees were specifically instructed not to use private emails.)
And then there are the security risks. The agency policy stresses the importance of maintaining secure communications, but Clinton’s use of a homebrew email system raises serious questions about how secure it really was.
For Democrats, meanwhile, the story should raise other questions about the individual who is, despite not having officially announced a campaign, the party's presumptive 2016 presidential nominee. Clinton's team has reportedly known about the issue since at least last August, according to Politico. And yet not only did she choose to let it sit until after the mid-term election, almost certainly making it a bigger issue in the run-up to her expected campaign, she seems to have given Democratic allies no warning or way to respond.
The story, and the way it has rolled out, illustrates the risks of an all-in bet on a single candidate. And it's revealing about how Hillary Clinton operates: She wasn't concerned about the security of high-value communications in the administration she worked for; she wasn't concerned about the policies and procedures of the department she oversaw; and she wasn't concerned about the political preparedness of the rest of her party when the scandal broke. Instead, she was concerned about herself.
Given Clinton’s history of secrecy and distrust of public scrutiny, it seems more than likely that her primary goal in setting up and relying exclusively on the private email setup was to create an email system that gave her a high level of control over what messages could ever be revealed to the public. That she is now refusing to answer difficult but pertinent questions about her unusual email system is really no surprise: The system itself was created to help her avoid answering uncomfortable questions in the first place. -
Rip Hildog
And I'm still interested in what a libertarian government would look like -
Hillary hiding something from the public, she might actually be smart for doing this. Considering what happened in Libya and Benghazi, being secretive might be her best option to avoid the tough questions.
-
Rip Hildog
And I'm still interested in what a libertarian government would look like
It would be the absence of government, followed by a fascist corporatocracy. Anyone buying into all that irrational Randian ideology, is a fool. Adam Smith--the man considered the founder of Libertarianism admonished us to be weary of those driven by self interest and greed, which is essentially the corner stone of modern American libertarianism. It's utter and absolute ? , driven by ideology and not reason... Oh and ? supply side economics and the "unseen (non-existent) hand of the free market."
-
And Hilldog can suck a ? , but more likely than not, if she runs, she will be president.
-
And Hilldog can suck a ? , but more likely than not, if she runs, she will be president.
You're likely right, but I give her only a 45% chance to win. She historically isn't a great campaigner, she won the Senate in NY because her competition was weak. She lost the presidential Dem nomination against a young Senator from Chicago who didn't have the monster Clinton machine behind him, and she is known to say lots of dumb things and blatant lies while campaigning. It's still shocking how Hillary and the Bill Clinton machine could lose in the way they did.
She in some ways reminds me of John Kerry back in 2004. The media and polls said Kerry would likely win because Bush was so unpopular, but his dumb comments and flip flops ("I voted for the war in Iraq before I voted against it") turned his lead in polls into a win for George W. I have a very strong feeling Hillary is gonna end up the same way. -
i am pretty sure this won't ? Hillary's chances because...Rip Hildog
And I'm still interested in what a libertarian government would look like
a. Democrats will largely pretend it's meaningless because of Partisan Reasons;
b. Republicans will not be able to improve the quality of their candidates because of this drama (not that they CAN'T field a good candidate, just that this won't do anything to help it)
if she's really hiding something, she's probably NOT smart for doing this because there's an outside chance it could lead to something. not that she'll get busted for something, but it's never a great idea to call attention to your dirt.kingblaze84 wrote: »Hillary hiding something from the public, she might actually be smart for doing this. Considering what happened in Libya and Benghazi, being secretive might be her best option to avoid the tough questions. -
i am pretty sure this won't ? Hillary's chances because...Rip Hildog
And I'm still interested in what a libertarian government would look like
a. Democrats will largely pretend it's meaningless because of Partisan Reasons;
b. Republicans will not be able to improve the quality of their candidates because of this drama (not that they CAN'T field a good candidate, just that this won't do anything to help it)
if she's really hiding something, she's probably NOT smart for doing this because there's an outside chance it could lead to something. not that she'll get busted for something, but it's never a great idea to call attention to your dirt.kingblaze84 wrote: »Hillary hiding something from the public, she might actually be smart for doing this. Considering what happened in Libya and Benghazi, being secretive might be her best option to avoid the tough questions.
Well Hillary released a ton of her emails, so maybe the criticism will subside? Of course, people REALLY want to see the emails she sent around after the American embassy in Libya was being bombed out. If her emails seem transparent on that subject, I think she'll be fine. But if Republicans keep pouncing on it, Hillary will probably give a nervous answer and ? things up for herself. It's gonna come back to Benghazi I bet. -
well, did this actually happen? because the last time i checked, all she did was tell State to release the emails she gave them, which fails on two levels.kingblaze84 wrote: »Well Hillary released a ton of her emails, so maybe the criticism will subside? -
well, did this actually happen? because the last time i checked, all she did was tell State to release the emails she gave them, which fails on two levels.kingblaze84 wrote: »Well Hillary released a ton of her emails, so maybe the criticism will subside?
Yeah you're right, no mention on the emails she gave others outside the State dept....even Democrats are asking her to be more clear on what she was doing -
to be specific, i suppose:kingblaze84 wrote: »Yeah you're right, no mention on the emails she gave others outside the State dept....even Democrats are asking her to be more clear on what she was doing
ultimately, this may look worse than it is, but it's a wonderful BAD look for Clinton.
-
to be specific, i suppose:kingblaze84 wrote: »Yeah you're right, no mention on the emails she gave others outside the State dept....even Democrats are asking her to be more clear on what she was doing
ultimately, this may look worse than it is, but it's a wonderful BAD look for Clinton.
31,000 plus emails not turned over?? ? , that's a lot of "personal" stuff. Something sounds fishy with this story, and her press conference can't possibly glance over that. That's a HELL of a lot of emails to not turn over, especially after the Libya disaster. If she runs, she better run a hell of an inspirational campaign, I listened to talk radio today and plenty of women were making fun of her. -
Had the same issue with the Bush administration, aside from the fact it was a non-issue. Not to mention, at the time she was using a private email it was not in anyway an illicit act. Again, I don't like Hilldog, but for someone who supposedly hates partisan politics--you are far from impartial Jank.
The criticism will remain this way until people like Jank and Fox news, find something new to latch onto, the minutiae of this ? is startling. Why is this even a point of discussion when the GOP just attempted to subvert the executive branch by sending an open letter to a US adversary, that was not only suggestive, but myopic and disrespectful to Americans as a whole?
-
Had the same issue with the Bush administration, aside from the fact it was a non-issue. Not to mention, at the time she was using a private email it was not in anyway an illicit act. Again, I don't like Hilldog, but for someone who supposedly hates partisan politics--you are far from impartial Jank.
The criticism will remain this way until people like Jank and Fox news, find something new to latch onto, the minutiae of this ? is startling. Why is this even a point of discussion when the GOP just attempted to subvert the executive branch by sending an open letter to a US adversary, that was not only suggestive, but myopic and disrespectful to Americans as a whole?
Republicans writing that letter to Iran and trying to mess up all the negotiations was very outrageous, treasonous in some ways. I think Republican leadership admitted writing that letter was a mistake today, it was that bad -
pretty much.kingblaze84 wrote: »31,000 plus emails not turned over?? ? , that's a lot of "personal" stuff. Something sounds fishy with this story-
well, there's an illicit act and there's an inappropriate act. it's definitely the latter and her actions subsequent to this story have been a little... lacking.Had the same issue with the Bush administration, aside from the fact it was a non-issue. Not to mention, at the time she was using a private email it was not in anyway an illicit act.
it's also possible that her server was actually in violation of State standards but, hey, why do we need to know, right?
wait, does someone comparing me to Fox News have the audacity to discuss what's impartial? or rather, you can dislike Hillary and that's cool, but i can't without being compared to Fox News because... ?Again, I don't like Hilldog, but for someone who supposedly hates partisan politics--you are far from impartial Jank. The criticism will remain this way until people like Jank and Fox news, find something new to latch onto, the minutiae of this ? is startling.
one suspects you don't actually know my politics, but here's a hint: i don't have to be partisan to not like Clinton or her action in this case.
another question: what does that letter have to do with whether or not Clinton's actions were wrong?Why is this even a point of discussion when the GOP just attempted to subvert the executive branch by sending an open letter to a US adversary, that was not only suggestive, but myopic and disrespectful to Americans as a whole? -
It has everything to do with your self professed anti-partisan ideology, which based on what I've seen is really anti-democrat. One suspects it's uncessary to type in 3rd person when addressing someone directly, but to each his own. Pardon the comparison to Fox, but If your interest didn't parallel Fox--e.g. ignoring actual corruption within government to nitpick a political celebrity's use of email--I would have never made the comparison
-
well, i do happen to hate on Democrats because they happen to have made attacking my prime political issue part of their national platform. but did you take that into consideration, or just jump to some generic partisan theory?It has everything to do with your self professed anti-partisan ideology, which based on what I've seen is really anti-democrat.
also... do you see me posting tons of threads praising Republicans or something?
one also suspects questions like "what does that letter have to do with whether or not Clinton's actions were wrong" somehow going unanswered in favor of this complaint is disappointing.One suspects it's uncessary to type in 3rd person when addressing someone directly, but to each his own.
so here's the thing: this is a single thread about a particular news story that's big right now. it's not only our only thread -you may notice there is a thread about your Republican complaint- and there's nothing stopping you from, hypothetically, starting another thread about any particular topic.Pardon the comparison to Fox, but If your interest didn't parallel Fox--e.g. ignoring actual corruption within government to nitpick a political celebrity's use of email--I would have never made the comparison
now i DO recall, for example, posting up a thread to rip on the administration selling out to Chase, which i hope meets your exacting standard for what i am allowed to post about (actual corruption in government), but i fear might also be turbo-biased. you tell me!
now all THAT being said, i think we both know you used the Fox News comparison as a means to insult, so let's not double down on that and pretend otherwise, okay? -
deez ? hoes
-
well, i do happen to hate on Democrats because they happen to have made attacking my prime political issue part of their national platform. but did you take that into consideration, or just jump to some generic partisan theory?It has everything to do with your self professed anti-partisan ideology, which based on what I've seen is really anti-democrat.
also... do you see me posting tons of threads praising Republicans or something?
one also suspects questions like "what does that letter have to do with whether or not Clinton's actions were wrong" somehow going unanswered in favor of this complaint is disappointing.One suspects it's uncessary to type in 3rd person when addressing someone directly, but to each his own.
so here's the thing: this is a single thread about a particular news story that's big right now. it's not only our only thread -you may notice there is a thread about your Republican complaint- and there's nothing stopping you from, hypothetically, starting another thread about any particular topic.Pardon the comparison to Fox, but If your interest didn't parallel Fox--e.g. ignoring actual corruption within government to nitpick a political celebrity's use of email--I would have never made the comparison
now i DO recall, for example, posting up a thread to rip on the administration selling out to Chase, which i hope meets your exacting standard for what i am allowed to post about (actual corruption in government), but i fear might also be turbo-biased. you tell me!
now all THAT being said, i think we both know you used the Fox News comparison as a means to insult, so let's not double down on that and pretend otherwise, okay?
I didn't double down on anything, I don't "need" it, you earned it. I took your gun fetish into consideration, but should that excuse your bias?
The letter has nothing to do with Clinton, however the letter is relevant to the point I was making and if you read the first sentence of my last post--that was addressed.
-
by pretending the Fox News comparison wasn't based on making it an insult, you're doubling down on it. i mean, obviously it's your decision to make it about personal insults (see also: "gun fetish") than an actual argument. i'm just not going to pretend that's not your intent.I didn't double down on anything, I don't "need" it, you earned it.
phenomenal, but what i am actually trying to figure out is where you cited all that "go go Republicans" stuff. since, you know, you're claiming this is partisan and not me commenting on current events.I took your gun fetish into consideration, but should that excuse your bias?
except you didn't address why we have to talk about other topics in a thread about THIS topic, or why we're pretending we can't have multiple threads on multiple topics.The letter has nothing to do with Clinton, however the letter is relevant to the point I was making and if you read the first sentence of my last post--that was addressed.
also, again, you're saying we can't talk about this because the GOP letter incident happened and is apparently worse. but there's a) a thread on THAT topic you can post in and b) Republicans sending that asinine letter literally has NOTHING to do with this topic. Hillary's ? isn't excused by Cotton & Friends' ? .
but talking about partisanship... there's no bias showing in saying "why are we talking about Hillary when REPUBLICANS DID SOMETHING BAD?!" -
on topic:So, to recap:
Clinton said she used one email account so that she could carry just one phone for “convenience,” but just two weeks ago she said she now carries two phones.
She said that she didn’t send any classified information over her personal account during the years she spent at State, which experts are skeptical about.
She dodged a question about why on State Department ambassador was fired in part for using his personal email account by telling a reporter to read the Inspector General’s report. In fact, the report specifically mentions the fired employee’s “nonuse of commercial email for official government business.”
She won’t let any independent examiner look at the server that stored her email, in part because of Bill Clinton’s communications, which is interesting given that Bill Clinton reportedly doesn’t use email.
And she said she sent emails to government accounts that would be auto-archived, but which apparently weren’t. -
As far as I know that other thread was not yet created. I never said you couldn't talk about anything, so don't put words in my mouth. I simply called out the hypocrisy and inanity of this type of scrutiny--which you appear to relish--when things that are far more important and egregious are happening. However, I understand the point you're making and it wasn't my intent to derail this thread, so I'll bow out. If you felt insulted, that's your problem, not mine.
-
[img]https://scontent-lax.? .fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11026326_426508250807549_382055911592451877_n.jpg?oh=e427a959a950cf2f9f1bc3b0f08d52bf&oe=55B6EFC1[/img]
-
...which would be a great reason for you to create a thread. it's not a challenging concept, exceptions being granted for those without forum permissions to create threads.As far as I know that other thread was not yet created.
you're basically saying "why are we talking about this instead of REAL ISSUES," the implication being that we shouldn't be talking about this. if your actual position is "i don't care"... well, you're posting in this thread taking issue with it, right? so while you're not literally saying "don't talk about this," this isn't far off the mark. "things that are far more important and egregious are happening?" okay, but we can talk about multiple points at once, right?I never said you couldn't talk about anything, so don't put words in my mouth. I simply called out the hypocrisy and inanity of this type of scrutiny--which you appear to relish--when things that are far more important and egregious are happening.
and i do relish ripping Hillary, so there's that.
it is what it is, manHowever, I understand the point you're making and it wasn't my intent to derail this thread, so I'll bow out. If you felt insulted, that's your problem, not mine. -
Hilary's approval ratings are dropping according to the news.....she better make a speech about women now or something
