bbauska:

If she would have turned over ALL emails immediately, and gave the server w/o it being cleaned (scrubbed), and if she wouldn't have used a flippant comment about washing the outside with a rag, there would be less uproar.

Or perhaps she would have been indicted.

Ray Jay wrote:bbauska:

If she would have turned over ALL emails immediately, and gave the server w/o it being cleaned (scrubbed), and if she wouldn't have used a flippant comment about washing the outside with a rag, there would be less uproar.

Or perhaps she would have been indicted.

Whatever is proper following of the law, is fine with me.

Powell and senior aides to Rice had classified mail on their private servers
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/268 ... -emails-on

Got to think this helps Hillary a bit.

freeman3 wrote:Powell and senior aides to Rice had classified mail on their private servers
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/268 ... -emails-on

Got to think this helps Hillary a bit.

Are they in the wrong? In my world, it does. Who cares who it helps.

freeman3 wrote:Powell and senior aides to Rice had classified mail on their private servers
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/268 ... -emails-on

Got to think this helps Hillary a bit.

Maybe. From your link:

He added that there was a difference between his email situation and that of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who also used a personal email server that was found to have received classified information.
"It's a lot different from what the rest of us were doing and what Mrs. Clinton is doing," Powell said.

One thing Powell is not: a partisan. In fact, he supported Obama twice.

And, it doesn't tell us that she didn't break the law. He may have done so as well, but maybe he didn't.

I guess at first impression it seems to me it makes the issue seem more institutional than a sui generis issue with Hillary.

freeman3 wrote:I guess at first impression it seems to me it makes the issue seem more institutional than a sui generis issue with Hillary.

I think it depends on the levels of info. Furthermore, there are motivations to consider. When Powell was in office, the technology (and the hacking) were not as sophisticated.

Well, then there's the fact that she keeps lying about it.

Freeman, Do you think Mrs. Clinton is handling this issue well?

Anytime a politician is trying to minimize political damage it never looks pretty. True confessions don't work in politics. She is going to put the best possible spin on things given the state of information. Something new comes out adjustments are made. She is not out to satisfy our curiosity with regard to what happened but wants to manipulate the interpretation of what occurred to cause her the least political damage. That's politics.

And I don't think Republicans have really got the smoking gun--whether it a total whopper lie that cannot be explained away or evidence of criminal wrongdoing-- (at least not yet) to really hurt her. So I think she is handling it well enough.

bbauska

If Mrs. Clinton had just used a government server/email, this would not even be an issue.

And for that to happen one of three things had to happen.
- the law allowing her to do so should not have existed. But it did. WHo should take blame for the law existing?
- The people in charge of cyber security for the government should have insisted, that despite the law, she use a government server.
- Three. Hillary should have ignored her consultant, and her desire to have some privacy, and made the decision to use only a government server.

As for this:

Why were classified materials not classified on her server? Maybe the emails were classified AFTER they were sent. Maybe the people sending the emails failed to classify them.

Who removed classifications (if any)? Who says anyone did?
Who authorized her to have this server? The law. Apparently there is no one in charge of authorizing specific computer usage. But its a good question... And what I've been harping on. Its an institutional failure.

Who is responsible to classify information in the State Department? Thousand of people. Classification of information is an industry unto itself.

Why is she not opening documents sent to her? I don't always open up all my email. Do you? And I'll bet she gets more.

Where are the documents sent to the government within 20 days? On government servers.

Why was the security violation of sending "unmarked" documents not reported? Look up the word "knowingly".

Who sent the "unmarked" documents? Who indeed? And When. And What. Sending a news report that reports on information that might be classified, but is in fact in general circulation due to the news report .... Where does that fall.

This is largely farce. Trying to knee cap the apparent Democratic nominee with technicalities is not a winning strategy. Time is on her side on this issue, as it was on Benghazi. Eventually the conspiracy theories run out of gas....
Meanwhile has anybody actually changed the law on private use of servers, or has any agency stepped forward to take charge of policiing their use?
Karl Rove never used a government email account for any business by the way.. Its amazing this stuff doesn't get fixed...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Whit ... ontroversy

freeman3 wrote:Anytime a politician is trying to minimize political damage it never looks pretty. True confessions don't work in politics. She is going to put the best possible spin on things given the state of information. Something new comes out adjustments are made. She is not out to satisfy our curiosity with regard to what happened but wants to manipulate the interpretation of what occurred to cause her the least political damage. That's politics.

And I don't think Republicans have really got the smoking gun--whether it a total whopper lie that cannot be explained away or evidence of criminal wrongdoing-- (at least not yet) to really hurt her. So I think she is handling it well enough.

It's not the GOP she has to fear. She has to worry about the FBI. If they have the goods on her, she's a goner.

Especially don't lie to the FBI--that tends to be an easy case.

I must admit I'm finding this whole 'Hillary's emails' thing to be increasingly tedious. I have a genuine question for the people involved in this thread - does this actually matter ? I agree that Hillary is a flawed candidate with a great many faults who in an ideal world you wouldn't want to see as the President, but when it comes right down to it is what she did here actually such an egregious act as to warrant a thread that runs to over 50 pages already with no end in sight ? What it indicates to me is poor judgement and a certain degree of arrogance in the assumption that the rules don't apply to somebody as important as herself. At worst it might suggest a desire to cover up her actions from scrutiny, but since the emails in question have now been read and nothing seems to have come out of it that's probably a slightly paranoid interpretation. So we're left with poor judgement and arrogance, a description that could apply to almost anybody in public life if we're honest. I genuinely don't get it. We had a similar 'scandal' in the UK when a senior government minister was discovered to have been communicating through personal email and it was a storm in a teacup story that blew over in a matter of days. Yes, what he did was against the rules and wrong, just like what Hillary did, but nobody was terribly bothered and it certainly didn't dominate the airwaves for months upon end.

Yes. Did it matter when Bush "lied"? Apparently it mattered back then.

sass

We had a similar 'scandal' in the UK when a senior government minister was discovered to have been communicating through personal email and it was a storm in a teacup story that blew over in a matter of days. Yes, what he did was against the rules and wrong, just like what Hillary did, but nobody was terribly bothered and it certainly didn't dominate the airwaves for months upon end.

If it were anybody but Hillary it would be about the same.
Republicans are convinced they have to bring Hillary down with scandal. Or do whatever they can to damage her elect ability. Thats why they has 13 useless hearing on BenGhazi...
Because she is a strong candidate that can defeat anything on offer from the Republicans. And despite the constant smearing, she's still in that position. The email issue, is an issue because there is no perspective possible in the over heated American media and political environment. It comes from having elections constantly instead of every 4 years or so. From having a constant state of campaign rather than 5 weeks and time for governance.

They have succeeded in damaging her image as she now has to deal with a question of honesty. And in part she's at fault herself for how she's handled things.
But in the end if the election is fought on actual issues, and policies, and the ability to communicate them.... she's likely to over come anything on offer. Sanders has made her take up more progressive positions, and that will actually help her in the end.... She'll be significantly different from her eventual opponent .... Especially if its Trump or Cruz. And Rubio is wearing thin already under increased scrutiny.

Question for you: Did the issue in the UK result in changes to government policies and actions?