Hillary's emails

TarheelsInNj said:

To the first point, yes, that's true about FOIA. My point is simply it doesn't stop the recipient from revealing an email to the world, if there is something to reveal.

She hasn't been Secretary of State for a while...if she was breached, the hackers are waiting quite a while to act on it.

You're assuming a recipient would want to reveal the contents of an incriminating email. I don't know what you'd assume that.

As for hackers perhaps they're waiting for her to actually declare and become a candidate. Or maybe release a potentially incriminating email close to election day when it's tough to react.

I'm sure she could've had two phones and, as Red suggests, have had someone else carry one along with her other traveling things. I'm sure she's secretive. And I'm equally sure she'll frustrate and/or wear out the "investigators" in their ongoing crusade against the Clintons. Given history, who would we bet on?

Oh, and "Benghazi!"

ParticleMan said:

TarheelsInNj said:

To the first point, yes, that's true about FOIA. My point is simply it doesn't stop the recipient from revealing an email to the world, if there is something to reveal.

She hasn't been Secretary of State for a while...if she was breached, the hackers are waiting quite a while to act on it.

You're assuming a recipient would want to reveal the contents of an incriminating email. I don't know what you'd assume that.

As for hackers perhaps they're waiting for her to actually declare and become a candidate. Or maybe release a potentially incriminating email close to election day when it's tough to react.

Precisely the point.

A very simple request was made. Grant access to the server to some 3rd party who would determine what was private and what belonged on .gov. Clinton refused. IOW we are to trust her. Who's kidding who?

As long as she maintains that position this will not go away. Remember how much fun was had ridiculing Romney here on MOL, and in the media by the Dems, when he refused to produce some tax returns. The GOP will be able to ride 'what is she hiding' right up to Nov 2016.

But that's not really an actual point, is it? What a funny controversy- "something almost maybe might have could have happened!"

I'll get worked up when there's a reason. For now it seems a non-story.

TarheelsInNj said:

But that's not really an actual point, is it? What a funny controversy- "something almost maybe might have could have happened!"

I'll get worked up when there's a reason. For now it seems a non-story.

Yet we'll never hear the end of it. These are the folks who insist there's more to "discover" about what happened in Benghazi, after all.

I think it wasn't the smartest thing she's ever done, but that's about it. Ho-hum.

More news from the most transparent administration of all time. Shocker.

TarheelsInNj said:

But that's not really an actual point, is it? What a funny controversy- "something almost maybe might have could have happened!"

I'll get worked up when there's a reason. For now it seems a non-story.

mjh said:

TarheelsInNj said:

But that's not really an actual point, is it? What a funny controversy- "something almost maybe might have could have happened!"

I'll get worked up when there's a reason. For now it seems a non-story.

Yet we'll never hear the end of it. These are the folks who insist there's more to "discover" about what happened in Benghazi, after all.

I think it wasn't the smartest thing she's ever done, but that's about it. Ho-hum.

Non story? Ho-hum? Tell that to CNN or the NYT or WaPo.

Why won't she open the server? Ho-hum.

BCC said:

Non story? Ho-hum? Tell that to CNN or the NYT or WaPo.

Why won't she open the server? Ho-hum.

Really? You're using the fact that news outlets are reporting current events as indicating that this is "BIG"?

No matter what Ms. Clinton does, it won't be enough. Especially since the usual "Obama Derangement Syndrome" is combined with vintage "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" in this one.

I'm sure BCC and the news outlets will continue to talk about it forever. Whether this story changes votes in 2016 is all that matters to Hillary. I remain doubtful that there will be an impact, but time will tell.

Meanwhile, it's a ho-hum story for me. I think it was a mistake, and that's about it. Everyone else is perfectly free to choose to react differently.

There is a difference between the R's on a witch hunt, and we HRC supporters (of which I am one) who expect better. She has said she is the most transparent person in American politics. I'm tired of having to defend her for unforced errors and mistakes made due to her attitude of entitlement.

"I did it for convenience"

= I do what I want when I want so you can all suck it.

She shouldn't have done it, she should have used ".gov". It's a mistake, and she should keep admitting that it was a mistake.

That having been said, it's not something over which to rend garments and gnash teeth, no matter what the GOP folks say.

I'll wait until I see some people here comment on these

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/bush-emails-found-22-mill_n_391557.html

but of course if I were to go back to the archives in 2007, I'm certain the same posters would be calling these a non-story.

any in there from hillary.gov?

Hillary should have learned how to respond:

I'M NOT KNOWN TO make many mistakes,'' said Senator Lloyd Bentsen modestly, in extricating himself from a fund-raising furor, ''but when I do, it's a doozie.''

mjh said:

I'm sure BCC and the news outlets will continue to talk about it forever. Whether this story changes votes in 2016 is all that matters to Hillary. I remain doubtful that there will be an impact, but time will tell.

Meanwhile, it's a ho-hum story for me. I think it was a mistake, and that's about it. Everyone else is perfectly free to choose to react differently.

BCC is not the only one talking about it. Check the 2 posts right after yours, and the news outlets are treating it as a lot more than ho-hum, as will the GOP and disenchanted Dems.

A 'mistake'? The way it was set up hardly suggests that that was all it was. Regardless, why not rectify the mistake. Open the server.

Another little tidbit. Read the whole article.

When Hillary Clinton stepped down as Secretary of State in 2013, she left an agency that has one of the most "dismal" transparency records in the federal government, according to an independent review released Tuesday that tracks response rates to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
The nonpartisan Center for Effective Government examined compliance rates for FOIA request during fiscal years 2012 and 2013 --Clinton's final two years in office -- and found that of 15 federal agencies that take on the most requests, the State Department was the least likely to respond or provide information in a timely manner.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-transparency-hillary-clinton/

LOST said:

Hillary should have learned how to respond:

I'M NOT KNOWN TO make many mistakes,'' said Senator Lloyd Bentsen modestly, in extricating himself from a fund-raising furor, ''but when I do, it's a doozie.''

If the e-mail 'mistake' was the only thing it might be finessed. However this is only a partial list of Hillary's problems. You can probably dismiss some and I can add some but she carries plenty of baggage without the e-mails.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415120/how-many-straws-hillarys-back-victor-davis-hanson

BCC said:

A very simple request was made. Grant access to the server to some 3rd party who would determine what was private and what belonged on .gov. Clinton refused. IOW we are to trust her. Who's kidding who?

If she also used or uses that account for very personal emails or possibly campaign strategy discussions, I could see not wanting to allow anyone to see them and possibly disclose them to the public.

ParticleMan said:

BCC said:

A very simple request was made. Grant access to the server to some 3rd party who would determine what was private and what belonged on .gov. Clinton refused. IOW we are to trust her. Who's kidding who?

If she also used or uses that account for very personal emails or possibly campaign strategy discussions, I could see not wanting to allow anyone to see them and possibly disclose them to the public.

I understand, but file it under "shoulda thought about that".

And let's be clear about how this originated. Using a personal email may have been a mistake as she says, but it for sure wasn't an accident.

Red_Barchetta said:

And let's be clear about how this originated. Using a personal email may have been a mistake as she says, but it for sure wasn't an accident.

Agree it wasn't by accident, but there must have been a few lawyers that told her it was okay.

yahooyahoo said:

Red_Barchetta said:

And let's be clear about how this originated. Using a personal email may have been a mistake as she says, but it for sure wasn't an accident.

Agree it wasn't by accident, but there must have been a few lawyers that told her it was okay.

Apparently, the legal advice was, "It's allowed under the law", and apparently at the time it was.

Political advice would have been different, and she shoulda' just carried the two phones. In which event, nobody would have been asking about what was on the other emails.

Just kidding, they would find something else to complain about.

She is who she is, warts and all. She'll either get elected or we'll have a GOP POTUS. No dem has her stature or appeal to WS, women, labor, etc.

I think she was advised not to cite all the crazy conspiracies dating back to Arkansas as a reason to be "judicious" so she won't appear to be playing the victim.

She should open the server. She made a mistake and unfortunately now has to let investigators know that no harm came of it.

It's ok. The secret service was guarding her server the whole time. Now how's a hacker gonna sneak in to her office with that much SS coverage.

ParticleMan said:

BCC said:

A very simple request was made. Grant access to the server to some 3rd party who would determine what was private and what belonged on .gov. Clinton refused. IOW we are to trust her. Who's kidding who?

If she also used or uses that account for very personal emails or possibly campaign strategy discussions, I could see not wanting to allow anyone to see them and possibly disclose them to the public.

The 3rd party investigator was supposed to deal with that, however, it's not going to happen.
The GOP is left with a perfectly legitimate weapon to challenge her trustworthiness and transparency and I don't doubt that they will use it.

Gives 'em something to do besides campaign for the next election; Tom Cotton has made his bones with Boeing, Grumman, etc.