Uh-oh.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation- ... 14762.html

This email thing might just be her undoing.

Panic in the Clinton home!

(funny video/sad video)

No one rising to Hillary's defense?

That there was classified info is not up for debate. So, did she know?

Even if she didn't (to give her the benefit of the doubt) she should have known that satellite info, info about the whereabouts of important people (Amb. Stevens), and other info should not be handled on private servers. Anyone who can't sort that out should not be POTUS.

#disqualified

What I would like to know is what the difference between Petreaus' and Clinton's actions were.

bbauska wrote:What I would like to know is what the difference between Petreaus' and Clinton's actions were.

Hers are (arguably) worse, particularly should we ever find out her private server was hacked by the Chinese or Russians. She (laughably) claimed it was safe because it was guarded by the Secret Service. I'm not really sure she understands how the Internet works.

Perhaps Al Gore could help. It is his baby, after all.

Houston, we have a problem:

The poll gave three options: Clinton lied, There’s another explanation, and Clinton told the truth. Only 2% overall think Hillary told the truth, a staggeringly bad number, and only 33% overall think there’s another explanation than Hillary lying. On option 3, the internals on this poll are instructive. The highest that Clinton told the truth polls in the demographics is 5% among black voters, where 63% choose another explanation. Among Democrats, the number is a whopping three percent. And among younger voters — who are presumably very familiar with e-mail — the “Hillary’s honest” option didn’t get enough responses to register.

So, virtually no one is believing Hillary's explanation . . . uh-oh. Maybe Bill can lie for her--he's a more believable liar?

You liberals must be in a total panic. Not even rickyp showing up to tell me Hillary is going to be the next President (again).

Anyone want to defend this claim re email?

On conference call, @brianefallon says Clinton was "passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became classified."

First, being "passive" is not a legal defense in this situation.

Second, what is "unwitting information?" Was the information sent against its will? Or, did it not know it was being sent?

And, then there's this:

Further to that point, here’s another spokesman, Jennifer Palmieri, shrugging off Hillary’s fateful decision to set up a private e-mail server in the first place as one she “didn’t really think … through.” You buy that, don’t you? An incoming Secretary of State, knowing that she’d routinely be accessing the most sensitive state secrets, was never warned by any trusted allies in the legal or tech fields that a private server would be much less secure than the government’s system and that transmitting classified material on it would be a serious criminal matter. Deciding to go off the federal communications grid as a cabinet member is something that anyone could have done absentmindedly, with no eye to the consequences for national security. That’s what The Smartest Woman In The World’s reduced to arguing.

Any defenders?

Have they really erased the entire server?

So, President Clinton, is it your policy that all members of the Executive Branch are entitled to store government information on their own personal servers and not make that information available to the public?

This gives a little more balanced appraisal. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... cials-hav/

Other public officials have been a bit sloppy with regard to this issue including Colin Powell and Jeb Bush. I don't really buy the distinction made above (in Politifact)between having a private address and a private email server. Either way, you are off the government servers, supposed to be more secure. But a Secretary of State would be seeing more sensitive information than a governor and would want to make sure they were on a secure server. But then you have Colin Powell using private email just a few years before.

It seems to me that if classified material is being sent to her isn't that the fault of the sender, not her? Did she send out classified material over her private server? If not, then I can't see this being an issue that derails her candidacy. Ok, it's a mistake of judgment but others have done it. Assuming she did not send classified info herself and no damage was done then I think she'll be ok.

We'll see.

freeman3 wrote: But then you have Colin Powell using private email just a few years before.

I believe I heard somewhere that the rules were changed after Colin Powell was SoS that made the rules more definitive about not going the private email route.

I also thought I heard a snippet of an exchange between Clinton and a reporter where he asked if she wiped the server and she responded with "Do you mean with a cloth?" However, I wasn't really paying attention and I haven't been able to find it since. I am curious if she was trying to be funny or just old and not understanding the question. I truly hope if I heard correctly it was a failed attempt at humor.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/17/hillary-clinton-white-house-too-much-baggage

How long until Redscape Dems begin bailing?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Well, these polls are going against Freeman2's presidential selection criteria of anyone who can beat a Republican. Who now?

bbauska wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Well, these polls are going against Freeman2's presidential selection criteria of anyone who can beat a Republican. Who now?

Hillary is a crook, Jeb would be more of the same, Trump is a buffoon, everyone else seems like they are either crazy or just stupid.

Do we really have no better choices???