Hillary Clinton exclusively used personal emails at st dpt

[boomerang]

And still no Bob Mendez thread on this forum. :hmm:

I noticed that too. No liberal is going to start a thread. I wouldn't be surprised if their news sources weren't even covering it. Myself, I'm a little flabbergasted that Holder is going after one of "his own" so to speak. Menendez has been associating with shady characters and has been caught up in the fringes of some questionable situations. But I think his support for Israel is what is bringing the ceiling crashing down on him now. Of course they can't go after him for that, so they are using what they already knew.

It's kind of funny. One gets the idea from numerous politicians that they feel they aren't being compensated fairly. Maybe only they know the internal pressures they are under and that's why they feel that way? So many know so much and are just waiting for an opportunity to use it. Like an enormous multi-level chess game in which you've got to think 100 steps ahead never knowing which move is the right one.

Whatever. Something has to be done from time to time to keep the corruption from becoming completely and totally unbridled. These guys aren't stupid. They realize they've got their lips wrapped around a teat that could run dry due to their own greed.

 

[Jhhnn]

SO I did about 5 minutes of googling and I'm having a really hard time figuring out why this is even an issue, let alone a scandal...she broke no laws, Kerry was the first SoS to even use his state department email regularly, so she didn't even set a precedent, and she's done her best to comply with records retention regulations and has been under no scrutiny for failing to do so.

Reaching much?

Hillary hate is not rational. It doesn't have to make sense- it just has to feel good.

That's how right wing opinion gets astroturfed right into their brains.

 

[Bowfinger]

SO I did about 5 minutes of googling and I'm having a really hard time figuring out why this is even an issue, let alone a scandal...she broke no laws, Kerry was the first SoS to even use his state department email regularly, so she didn't even set a precedent, and she's done her best to comply with records retention regulations and has been under no scrutiny for failing to do so.

Reaching much?

Oh, I don't know about that. I think it's inappropriate, even though it was legal and at least somewhat common. It's just wrong for our public servants to conduct public business using personal email. That does not serve the public interest.

That said, it's also wrong -- though predictable -- that the right wing slime merchants are hard at it with their standard SCANDAL!!!!!!!! template. They are never content to rage about the actual facts. No, they have to embellish the story with speculation and innuendo, purely partisan supposition parroted as fact. It's how the puppeteers behind the GOP keep the rubes properly outraged.

 

[Bowfinger]

Nah, to fix it you'd have to add something.

Scared of technology enough to pay someone (with other people's money) to set up her own home email server?​

Classic Hildabeast - Use other people's money to build herself an illegal political advantage. ...

Don't suppose you can give us a credible citation that Clinton used "other people's money" to pay for this, can you? It sounds more like the usual gratuitous hate mongering to me, but you might surprise me.

For that matter, I'd like to see something credible showing she had a server at her home, or even a mail server at all. My guess (though it is only a guess) is she paid some hosting service for an email domain. While the domain name was registered to her home, the email service itself was hosted at an ISP, probably on a shared server. Again, that's only speculation, but I pay around $100 per year for such a service, giving me my own domain with unlimited email accounts. Several friends have similar services. It's not difficult, exotic, or expensive.

 

[dali71]

She'll be POTUS in 20 months.

FYI.

Quoted for posterity.

 

[dali71]

What I just have to shake my head at is the Whitehouse keeps saying they did not know Clinton was using a private E-mail. Yet @clintonemail wasn't suspicious?

At the very least, the Press Secretary knew about it. :hmm:

 

[uclaLabrat]

You need to do more and better research. Unless of course you're happy with what you feel you've learned. In that case continue along blissfully unaware. It satisfies the overwhelming majority of voters quite well. In other words, you're in good company.

Then please enlighten me as to what I've missed, Obi-Wan.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Oh, I don't know about that. I think it's inappropriate, even though it was legal and at least somewhat common. It's just wrong for our public servants to conduct public business using personal email. That does not serve the public interest.

That said, it's also wrong -- though predictable -- that the right wing slime merchants are hard at it with their standard SCANDAL!!!!!!!! template. They are never content to rage about the actual facts. No, they have to embellish the story with speculation and innuendo, purely partisan supposition parroted as fact. It's how the puppeteers behind the GOP keep the rubes properly outraged.

I don't disagree that it's inappropriate, but to go through and crucify her for it when everyone else was doing the same just seems like a witch-hunt while holding her to a double standard. Clinton is probably the biggest target of the smear-machine, I don't doubt she appreciates that, and would probably do anything she can to keep information out of the spotlight, no matter how innocuous it might be, for reasons that we're seeing here.

If we want better transparency, it'd be nice if we held everyone to the same standard instead of busting out a non-existent scandal when it's politically expedient. But that will never happen.

 

[Bowfinger]

I don't disagree that it's inappropriate, but to go through and crucify her for it when everyone else was doing the same just seems like a witch-hunt while holding her to a double standard. Clinton is probably the biggest target of the smear-machine, I don't doubt she appreciates that, and would probably do anything she can to keep information out of the spotlight, no matter how innocuous it might be, for reasons that we're seeing here.

If we want better transparency, it'd be nice if we held everyone to the same standard instead of busting out a non-existent scandal when it's politically expedient. But that will never happen.

I agree, it is a witch hunt. I also agree we should apply a consistent standard to all public officials regardless of party. This latest Clinton smear reeks of hypocrisy. We know full well that those crucifying her today also wholeheartedly approved of the Bush administration using RNC email, or at best silently accepted it.

 

[Double Trouble]

I don't disagree that it's inappropriate, but to go through and crucify her for it when everyone else was doing the same just seems like a witch-hunt while holding her to a double standard.

Well, she did accuse the gop of shredding the constitution for doing the same thing, and she did send an email to the staff to make sure they complied with the requirements (which means she was aware of them). Basically, it might not be illegal, but it sure smacks of hypocrisy and tarnishes the Hillary brand.

 

[Zorkorist]

I agree, it is a witch hunt. I also agree we should apply a consistent standard to all public officials regardless of party. This latest Clinton smear reeks of hypocrisy. We know full well that those crucifying her today also wholeheartedly approved of the Bush administration using RNC email, or at best silently accepted it.

Nope.

Asking for any sort of Morality from Government is important to me. I would/will attack any Government official that oversteps their bounds/is immoral.

As would most Republicans, and I venture to say, conscientious Democrats.

It's just plain simple. We won't stand for more Government Corruption (than we have to.)

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Don't suppose you can give us a credible citation that Clinton used "other people's money" to pay for this, can you? It sounds more like the usual gratuitous hate mongering to me, but you might surprise me.

For that matter, I'd like to see something credible showing she had a server at her home, or even a mail server at all. My guess (though it is only a guess) is she paid some hosting service for an email domain. While the domain name was registered to her home, the email service itself was hosted at an ISP, probably on a shared server. Again, that's only speculation, but I pay around $100 per year for such a service, giving me my own domain with unlimited email accounts. Several friends have similar services. It's not difficult, exotic, or expensive.

Neither is having a mail server at home.

What is expensive, is protecting that mail server, and securing communications through it.

I imagine that this is where my taxes go, securing Government Mail Servers, but no... Lady Hillary, needs to run her own mail server.

Her "entitlement" and lack of transparency just can't be beat.

She is the equivalent of a babycam nanny, caught in the act; screwing the pooch.

-John

 

[FelixDeCat]

LOL

 

[umbrella39]

Derp! Derp! ^^^ Strawman! Yawngazzzzzzzzzz

 

[Zorkorist]

You should take that gun off your icon, or someone may put a big red X, over it.

-John

 

[umbrella39]

I'll take the gun off when someone pries it from my cold, dead, DERP DERP.

 

[Zorkorist]

It's okay.

He's a democrat.



-John

 

[umbrella39]

Fence sitters... always throwing their nutz at either side...

 

[Zorkorist]

I was scared when New York elected her as a representative, after her husband had been president.

Just way too much political baggage.

If we elect her President, it will be like electing, every friend She and Bill Clinton have made through the years.

-John

 

[Matt1970]

Don't suppose you can give us a credible citation that Clinton used "other people's money" to pay for this, can you? It sounds more like the usual gratuitous hate mongering to me, but you might surprise me.

For that matter, I'd like to see something credible showing she had a server at her home, or even a mail server at all. My guess (though it is only a guess) is she paid some hosting service for an email domain. While the domain name was registered to her home, the email service itself was hosted at an ISP, probably on a shared server. Again, that's only speculation, but I pay around $100 per year for such a service, giving me my own domain with unlimited email accounts. Several friends have similar services. It's not difficult, exotic, or expensive.

When someone else says something you need to see citations but have no problem following them up with your own admitted speculations?

 

[Bowfinger]

When someone else says something you need to see citations but have no problem following them up with your own admitted speculations?

/facepalm

The difference is I openly label my speculation as speculation instead of treating it as fact. Simple concept. Another simple concept is, lacking evidence to the contrary, don't concoct convoluted and nefarious conspiracies when simple explanations suffice. K.I.S.S.

 

[First]

Quoted for posterity.

[Placeholder Bump]

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Now even Feinstein is going wtf over the email debacle? I'm beginning to think Hillary isn't going to get the nomination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-to-step-up-and-come-out-on-e-mail-firestorm/

 

[rudeguy]

Now even Feinstein is going wtf over the email debacle? I'm beginning to think Hillary isn't going to get the nomination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-to-step-up-and-come-out-on-e-mail-firestorm/

I care less about what Feinstein says than I do about what color underwear Perknose is wearing.

 

[Lash444]

Now even Feinstein is going wtf over the email debacle? I'm beginning to think Hillary isn't going to get the nomination.

Is this enough of a scandal for Democrats to think there is another candidate who stands a better chance of winning election? I don't think so.

Everyone knows why she did it. Now the question is, will the fallout be greater for acknowledging it, or not? Acknowledging it means opening up the door to: "So you admit to doing it, what were you trying to hide?" And no amount of proof is going to satisfy people. Hell, even if she provided 10 new Benghazis, the news would be saying "Hey heres 10 things she hid from us, but if those are the 10 things shes talking about, there surely must be 100 more.

Nah,she will probably just state "I talked to my security and technical team, and I was informed that I was still adhering to the guidelines." And that will be that. Bullshit? Absolutely. But whens the last time you heard a politician not spin it?

You aren't getting a confession. You aren't getting closure. Unlike Benghazi, I think this is legitimately an issue, but alas... she is going to still get the nomination, and she is still going to be President.