"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Name one other politician that the public demanded personal emails from as a condition of being elected. None. Name one public official whose private email is monitored as a condition of employment? None.
I don't care what's in her email, and honestly, it wouldn't matter one bit if she had archived and released them. The Rs will latch on to ANYTHING they find and make a big deal out of it. "Oh? You wrote a recommendation letter to Harvard for a friend's daughter? CURRYING FAVOR!! BRIBERY!! UNDUE INFLUENCE!!!"
The bottom line is that she followed the law and protocol in place at the time. We are not entitled to her personal email, and I think it's bullshit that we think we are.
IT IS NOT JUST HER PERSONAL EMAIL. Seriously, are you living under a rock right now? She ONLY used this email. But, blinders are on you, I guess?
It is shady as fuck but as far as I'm concerned the only thing that makes her worse than nearly everyone in government and politics is that she got caught.
I'm sure many, many people in DC conduct at least some business on personal emails and trash what they don't want people to see. If it were not par for the course, we would have known about her private email address years ago.
It is absolutely shady as fuck, but it isn't going to be a deal breaker for most people, as most voters don't trust any politician.
Imagine if she had used best practices and carried around two phones. You think any of these detractors would be like, "she's using her iPhone. That must be a personal email and none of our business." Fuck no! How do we know she wasn't using her iPhone for official business?!? We don't, just like we don't know that about any other official.
And really, I'm appalled that people seem to think the public has a right to go through the SOS's email and determine for themselves what is official and what is personal. I'd sure love to browse Dick Cheney's email from ten years ago, but I'M NOT ENTITLED TO IT!!
His personal email, no. But his government one? Absolutely. And if he had commingled them, I would have thought it was shady as fuck for him to wipe the server.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
But we have no idea what was personal or official business. It is her own fault for the questions. I have my own tiny, small business and I never use my business email for personal stuff. It is just stupid and shady.
Also, hasn't Jerry Brown run for president like 40 billion times?? He has been around forever.
Yes, we do. Official emails were sent/copied/forwarded to federal emails and are archived, which everyone agrees meets the standards in place at the time. If she says the other email was personal, well there isn't a mechanism, law, regulation, protocol, precedent, nor any other thing that allows a review of that (short of a subpoena). It's basic discretion granted to every federal employee. If the rules aren't good enough, then change them. But what kind of crazy totalitarian government do we want that needs *someone* to tell a Cabinet member the difference between official and personal? Or that owns public officials so completely that they literally have no privacy? .
No, we don't. We know what she says was official and all of it, but we don't know.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
It is shady as fuck but as far as I'm concerned the only thing that makes her worse than nearly everyone in government and politics is that she got caught.
I'm sure many, many people in DC conduct at least some business on personal emails and trash what they don't want people to see. If it were not par for the course, we would have known about her private email address years ago.
It is absolutely shady as fuck, but it isn't going to be a deal breaker for most people, as most voters don't trust any politician.
Imagine if she had used best practices and carried around two phones. You think any of these detractors would be like, "she's using her iPhone. That must be a personal email and none of our business." Fuck no! How do we know she wasn't using her iPhone for official business?!? We don't, just like we don't know that about any other official.
And really, I'm appalled that people seem to think the public has a right to go through the SOS's email and determine for themselves what is official and what is personal. I'd sure love to browse Dick Cheney's email from ten years ago, but I'M NOT ENTITLED TO IT!!
I don't feel entitled to her personal emails. But she made the choice to do her work through her private server. Considering she always had 2016 on the table this never should have happened.
No one at all would have cared about her private email server if it had been kept strictly for personal use.
But we have no idea what was personal or official business. It is her own fault for the questions. I have my own tiny, small business and I never use my business email for personal stuff. It is just stupid and shady.
Also, hasn't Jerry Brown run for president like 40 billion times?? He has been around forever.
Yes, we do. Official emails were sent/copied/forwarded to federal emails and are archived, which everyone agrees meets the standards in place at the time. If she says the other email was personal, well there isn't a mechanism, law, regulation, protocol, precedent, nor any other thing that allows a review of that (short of a subpoena). It's basic discretion granted to every federal employee. If the rules aren't good enough, then change them. But what kind of crazy totalitarian government do we want that needs *someone* to tell a Cabinet member the difference between official and personal? Or that owns public officials so completely that they literally have no privacy?
I have over a decade experience in local govt. I have NEVER assumed that my e-mails were private. I don't assume that I have any privacy. I'm not elected, but I know that at any point because I have plenty of e-mails that go to elected officials that a nosy bunch of citizens can pull an FOIA and ALL my emails are to be handed over.
According to this article, she did hand over what she had, but when she can't give them anything else BECAUSE HER SERVERS ARE CLEAN.
It leaves a bad taste here. And it looks fishy. And all you need, the appearance of funny business.
Hillary Clinton has been in politics all of her adult life. She knew she was doing some shit she had no business with the work and personal emails and whether or not she was doing something shady, it LOOKS like she was doing something shady and she knew better. Optics matter. She has been at this game too long to do stuff like this especially because the GOP has been on her ass like bloodhounds. This ain't her first time at the rodeo.
And this is what bothers me. The hubris of the Clintons.
Long ago they developed an intense martyr complex, possibly once justified, in order to excuse behavior that is indefensible, and that complex has continued to shape their behavior through the years. I'm so very, very tired of them, and I say this as someone who would seriously consider voting for HRC, all things considered.
If I were to use my personal email for work and we went through a federal audit, I'm pretty sure my personal emails would be subject to some kind of scrutiny. Federal oversight of anything tends to open those gateways, and I'm not even talking about direct staff of the government. It makes complete sense that, once it came out that she conducted govt business using her personal emails, her entire server could be served up for eyeballs.
I'm with you, MrsAxilla in principle. But the Debbie downer in me knows that people will just latch onto this the way they do, and that'll be the end of it.
It makes me sad on a lot of levels. I'm hopeful, though.
I'm with you, MrsAxilla in principle. But the Debbie downer in me knows that people will just latch onto this the way they do, and that'll be the end of it.
It makes me sad on a lot of levels. I'm hopeful, though.
Okay, I have to ask you or any other supporter of this line of thinking. Is it ok because it is Clinton? Because you believe she sent all gov emails and archived ALL of them? Would you(general) be okay if this were an R? I am just a bit dumbfounded that shadiness, at the very least, isn't an accepted thought on this so I am trying to honestly understand.
I'm with you, MrsAxilla in principle. But the Debbie downer in me knows that people will just latch onto this the way they do, and that'll be the end of it.
It makes me sad on a lot of levels. I'm hopeful, though.
Okay, I have to ask you or any other supporter of this line of thinking. Is it ok because it is Clinton? Because you believe she sent all gov emails and archived ALL of them? Would you(general) be okay if this were an R? I am just a bit dumbfounded that shadiness, at the very least, isn't an accepted thought on this so I am trying to honestly understand.
This is why the HRC email ordeal bugs me. It's shady as all get out because we can't know if she deliberately withheld information or if it was part of her standard destruction of records. My next line of questions here are in that vein. If she had her servers wiped clean, was it in line with some sort of record retention policy (and I ask because she was doing official work and storing it there meaning that those emails would likely be governed by that policy).
And I just finally saw United States of Secrets and I'm mad at Obama too for not taking the higher ground and ending the NSA spying program. It's just too much going on here. Sorry.
Post by penguingrrl on Mar 28, 2015 19:09:59 GMT -5
This is shady, but given the likely alternatives it wouldn't cost her my vote in the general. It makes me far more interested in who runs against her in the primaries where I previously had every intention of voting for her then. I think that all politicians are hiding things, but I really do try to find the least shady person who shares my values when I vote.
I wish I could say that I would be more inclined to vote 3rd party, but I'm way too scared of Pres. Walker or Pres. Cruz to actually risk that.
I'm with you, MrsAxilla in principle. But the Debbie downer in me knows that people will just latch onto this the way they do, and that'll be the end of it.
It makes me sad on a lot of levels. I'm hopeful, though.
Okay, I have to ask you or any other supporter of this line of thinking. Is it ok because it is Clinton? Because you believe she sent all gov emails and archived ALL of them? Would you(general) be okay if this were an R? I am just a bit dumbfounded that shadiness, at the very least, isn't an accepted thought on this so I am trying to honestly understand.
To be honest, I'm not sure how to answer this. I'm not sure I'm "ok" with it, but it's not a dealbreaker for me. Maybe because I've used my school email for personal stuff in the past, and I would *love* for those to go away... not because I was doing anything illegal, but because, well...they were personal emails. I don't know. I might need to think about it more. And yes, I feel confident in saying I'd be in the same place regardless of party.
And yes, I can see the shadiness of it. I just...I guess I want to believe better than that.
I also believe that this is a brilliant move on her part because 1) no more emails so the investigation is stopped in its tracks, and 2) as stated earlier, no one is really going to care.
Post by sugarglider on Mar 28, 2015 19:39:09 GMT -5
I had federal govt externships in law school. I was allowed to send myself homework and work on it at my internship, but I was not allowed to delete ANYTHING on my computer there, even stuff that was 100% personal. And I was an extern. I still shrugged off the commingling of emails issue, but this?! No bueno.
I'm with you, MrsAxilla in principle. But the Debbie downer in me knows that people will just latch onto this the way they do, and that'll be the end of it.
It makes me sad on a lot of levels. I'm hopeful, though.
Okay, I have to ask you or any other supporter of this line of thinking. Is it ok because it is Clinton? Because you believe she sent all gov emails and archived ALL of them? Would you(general) be okay if this were an R? I am just a bit dumbfounded that shadiness, at the very least, isn't an accepted thought on this so I am trying to honestly understand.
It's the same line of thinking that objects to the NSA listening to all my phone calls because I shouldn't care if I have nothing to hide. Am I shady if I refeuse to consent to a search of my home? Maybe I'm hiding something, or maybe not, but I have a right to privacy.
So far as I know, based on what's been reported, she hasn't broken any laws or regulations, and she's not the only official to do this. She hasn't been accused of a crime; in fact, I haven't even heard what it is people suspect she's hiding. People just want to peruse her emails to see if they can catch her in something.
Post by StrawberryBlondie on Mar 28, 2015 19:43:34 GMT -5
I'm not a huge HRC fan. I'll vote for her, but she's never been a first choice for me. That said, while I know its shady and looks bad cans is actually a big deal, I just can't get myself to care.
I also believe that this is a brilliant move on her part because 1) no more emails so the investigation is stopped in its tracks, and 2) as stated earlier, no one is really going to care.
I wonder if she had them really wiped or if they can be recovered. Wiping clean is rarely that so I question the brilliance.and, add in the recipient's email...yeah
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Okay, I have to ask you or any other supporter of this line of thinking. Is it ok because it is Clinton? Because you believe she sent all gov emails and archived ALL of them? Would you(general) be okay if this were an R? I am just a bit dumbfounded that shadiness, at the very least, isn't an accepted thought on this so I am trying to honestly understand.
It's the same line of thinking that objects to the NSA listening to all my phone calls because I shouldn't care if I have nothing to hide. Am I shady if I refeuse to consent to a search of my home? Maybe I'm hiding something, or maybe not, but I have a right to privacy.
So far as I know, based on what's been reported, she hasn't broken any laws or regulations, and she's not the only official to do this. She hasn't been accused of a crime; in fact, I haven't even heard what it is people suspect she's hiding. People just want to peruse her emails to see if they can catch her in something.
hiding is not the issue. I can't tell if you are being obtuse on this or are reading different reports on why her only doing biz on her personal email is questionable. I'm not trying to be snarky, just trying to figure it out.