32rollandrock

Connoisseur
6,894
United States
illinois
springfield
I think this case is unique for the Clintons.

Whitewater was a lot of smoke--even if it had been proved out, the stakes weren't as high as what we have here, a secretary of state playing fast-and-loose with classified documents. I don't give a rip about the blue dress and Monica. The stuff about huge gifts to Bill Clinton's foundation from Russian interests that needed State Department approval to corner the U.S. uranium market, while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, is deeply disturbing. And now this.

We've crossed the threshold into questions about how Clinton's conduct might have damaged national security. Two inspectors general calling for a criminal probe should not be ignored. Let's get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible. This, really, ain't rocket science. She either kept classified documents on an insecure email account or she did not. She says that she did not. It shouldn't take much more than a subpoena and someone who is functionally literate to determine the truth.

I think going forward, the Clinton's should just have an independent prosecutor attached to them 24/7 for just such things.

Otherwise, it's the equivalent of waiting until your shoes have come undone before looking to buy a new pair.
 

Gurdon

Moderator
2,938
United States
California
Forestville
I think this case is unique for the Clintons.


We've crossed the threshold into questions about how Clinton's conduct might have damaged national security. Two inspectors general calling for a criminal probe should not be ignored. Let's get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible. This, really, ain't rocket science. She either kept classified documents on an insecure email account or she did not. She says that she did not. It shouldn't take much more than a subpoena and someone who is functionally literate to determine the truth.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/24/1405399/-That-New-York-Times-story-on-the-Clinton-emails-has-turned-out-to-be-a-total-crock?detail=email
According to this account the story was in error. If there was no call by anyone for a criminal investigation, there does not appear to be any reason for a special prosecutor.

I am not a Hillary fan and I do not intend to vote for her, but the animosity towards her and the former president to whom she is married seems to me to be excessive and irrational.

Gurdon
 

SG_67

Connoisseur
14,796
United States
Illinois
Chicago
^ They've brought much of that on themselves. Remember how the women who had in the past accused Bill Clinton of sexual impropriety treated?

The NYT story and recantation misses the point and is typical of the hair splitting that the Clintons like to take advantage of to deter attention.

The fact is that of the 40 emails the IG's inspected, they determined that 4, 10%, contained classified data that was classified at the time of conception and transmission and not retroactively classified. What will the other 30,000 show?

Furthermore, why did America's top diplomat, someone with a prominent position within the national security apparatus, run all of her emails through a server owned by her and kept in her private residence without government oversight?

What about the emails she deleted? Why won't she turn over the server? Why are there gaps in email traffic around the time of Benghazi?

These are far more important questions that aren't being answered by the Clintons yet they are both quick to point out errors in NYT reporting.
 

32rollandrock

Connoisseur
6,894
United States
illinois
springfield
I was all for Hillary until not long ago. I feel differently now. I'm not sure how she can reconcile what she's said about the emails--no classified material--with what appears to be classified material. I'm also troubled by the revelations about huge contributions to her husband's foundation from foreign interests that needed State Department approval for acquisition of uranium reserves while she was secretary of state. I'm not bothered that conservative interests uncovered this. It is what it is.

Did she deny having classified material on her email account? Yes. Was that true? No. Did foreign interests make large contributions to her husband's foundation while they needed something from Secretary of State Clinton? Yes. Did they get what they wanted from the State Department? Yes.

I've done a 180 on Hillary in recent months. I still think that her husband was the best president in my lifetime. But I've come to believe that we can do better than Hillary. I'm also, at this point, underwhelmed by the Republican candidates. I'm afraid that she has so much baggage at this point that she can't win. I'd rather see a Democrat who has a chance.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/24/1405399/-That-New-York-Times-story-on-the-Clinton-emails-has-turned-out-to-be-a-total-crock?detail=email
According to this account the story was in error. If there was no call by anyone for a criminal investigation, there does not appear to be any reason for a special prosecutor.

I am not a Hillary fan and I do not intend to vote for her, but the animosity towards her and the former president to whom she is married seems to me to be excessive and irrational.

Gurdon
 

vpkozel

Super Member
1,902
United States
NC
Charlotte
How in the world could a Secretary of State be effective at all without sending classified emails?
 

vpkozel

Super Member
1,902
United States
NC
Charlotte
I'm also, at this point, underwhelmed by the Republican candidates.
Me too. I need to look into Kasich some more though. I probably agree with a lot of what Jeb does, but I am just not a fan of political dynasties. And the way that he handled that whole Iraq question from Meghan Kelly is a big red flag.
 

32rollandrock

Connoisseur
6,894
United States
illinois
springfield
Clearly, the GOP smells blood in the water, which explains the number of candidates. FWIW, I think that the nominee might well be a player to be named later. I suspect that Jeb might well be unelectable. Just too many bad associations with Dubya. Still, he might well squeak past, especially if Bush The Elder kicks the bucket at the right spot during the campaign. Whenever a former president dies, there is always some natural sympathy, a tendency to see the dearly departed in a light most favorable. And, truth be told, Bush The Elder wasn't such a bad president--certainly better than Dubya and, I would argue, The Gipper.

So, if the stars align, we might well see Jeb vs. Hillary for all the marbles. What a depressing prospect.

Me too. I need to look into Kasich some more though. I probably agree with a lot of what Jeb does, but I am just not a fan of political dynasties. And the way that he handled that whole Iraq question from Meghan Kelly is a big red flag.
 

vpkozel

Super Member
1,902
United States
NC
Charlotte
Not the point. The question is, were those emails adequately protected from prying eyes? I think that the jury is still out.
It absolutely is the point. No one with any intelligence at all would ever believe that an SOS could do the job without access to classified emails. She was the SOS. She said she recevied or sent no classified emails from that server. She had no official State Department email addy. Ergo, there is no way at all she is telling the truth.
 

32rollandrock

Connoisseur
6,894
United States
illinois
springfield
Already said that what she says hasn't held up. She said that there was no issue regarding classified material. It seems likely that there is. We've said that, so what's your point?

It absolutely is the point. No one with any intelligence at all would ever believe that an SOS could do the job without access to classified emails. She was the SOS. She said she recevied or sent no classified emails from that server. She had no official State Department email addy. Ergo, there is no way at all she is telling the truth.