Apology just released by Hillary on FB

[jln]

[jln]

In case you can't see the above...


I wanted you to hear this directly from me:

Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I'm sorry about it, and I take full responsibility.

It's important for you to know a few key facts. My use of a personal email account was aboveboard and allowed under the State Department's rules. Everyone I communicated with in government was aware of it. And nothing I ever sent or received was marked classified at the time.

As this process proceeds, I want to be as transparent as possible. That's why I've provided all of my work emails to the government to be released to the public, and why I'll be testifying in public in front of the Benghazi Committee later next month.

I know this is a complex story. I could have—and should have—done a better job answering questions earlier. I'm grateful for your support, and I'm not taking anything for granted.

I understand that you may have more questions, and I am going to work to keep answering them. If you want to read more, including my emails themselves, please go here:
www.hillaryclinton.com/emails/
Thank you,
Hillary

[chedifuen]

I just can't get it up to care about the whole email thing. I know and respect that it's a deal breaker for many but I personally want to sing "let it gooooo" every time the topic comes up.

[bugandbibs]

Yup, don't care. She's got my vote. This isn't even a blip on my radar.

[ECB]

Sept 8, 2015 22:03:16 GMT -5 chedifuen said:

I just can't get it up to care about the whole email thing. I know and respect that it's a deal breaker for many but I personally want to sing "let it gooooo" every time the topic comes up.

yup. When we have candidates who want to take away various rights from us, I just can't get it up for a candidate who used their personal email for work.

[zoegirltx]

glad the finally apologized- wish she'd recognized what a big (over blown) controversy this would be from the beginning. People are looking for any "scandal" they can cling onto to throw her under the bus. It's not a deal breaker for me, but it does show lack of judgement in the initial actions & also poor handling skills from the fall out.

[IIOY]

You can despise the politics of the Republican wannabes and still be tired as hell of Clinton shenanigans, including piss-poor handling of the aftermath. This is not a zero sum game.

[Velar Fricative]

This would be a dealbreaker for me if there were any other legit D or R candidates. Yeah yeah Samders but I don't see him getting shit done like HRC would. And not voting is not an option for me.

But if Biden enters the race, this is enough for me to switch my vote from HRC.

[Michelle]

This is a big deal for me. The violation. I don't understand how she can say she never sent or received items that were classified at the time when an investigation revealed two emails out of 40 with classified in the subject line. Unless they were about a new car advertised in the classified ads of the paper...

[ChillyMcFreeze]

The only reason I care about this is because she should have recognized what a shitstorm this would be and how badly the optics of it would hurt her actual policy stumping. And she's clearly surrounded by yes-people who don't seem to be giving her sound counsel. But do I think it has any bearing on her ability to lead? Nuh uh.

[ttt]

For the most part, knowing what I know about the state of federal IT, I give her the benefit of the doubt. And frankly her personal server was probably more secure than the govt one.

But she only used her personal email address, right? And in the entire time she was Sec of State, she never once sent or received a single classified email??? I find that.....hard to believe.

[elleblue]

Sept 9, 2015 7:15:23 GMT -5 ttt said:

For the most part, knowing what I know about the state of federal IT, I give her the benefit of the doubt. And frankly her personal server was probably more secure than the govt one.

This is how I feel about the whole thing. On the other hand, I don't approve of the way she handled this issue either. 

[pixy0stix]

Sept 9, 2015 6:27:30 GMT -5 Michelle said:

This is a big deal for me. The violation. I don't understand how she can say she never sent or received items that were classified at the time when an investigation revealed two emails out of 40 with classified in the subject line. Unless they were about a new car advertised in the classified ads of the paper...

Well, not quite. 

www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/second-review-finds-classified-material-was-hillary-clinton-email-report-n423201

[eponinepontmercy]

Nope. Still not caring.

[heyjude]

Sept 9, 2015 10:27:47 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

I don't give a shit about email addresses when there are candidates who actively want to take away my fucking healthcare out there.

And your life.

[ttt]

Sept 9, 2015 10:27:47 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

I don't give a shit about email addresses when there are candidates who actively want to take away my fucking healthcare out there.

I think Hillary's shady but I'll still vote for her because a. the other candidates are just as shady and b. this.

[cookiemdough]

As I said before I am more bothered by cthe shady actions after this came to light. Self-identifying what was important, the server wiping when questions came up...

[cookiemdough]

Of course this isn't going to make me vote republican

[cookiemdough]

But I think it is completely fair game in the primary and I am fine that she is still answering questions regarding the situation

[mcsangel2]

Look, I'm still voting for her (if I don't vote for Bernie), but 1)I find it hard to believe that she didn't send or receive ANYTHING classified in that time and 2)How the hell is/was this allowable at the State Dept??? I most especially want to know #2.

[autumnfire]

Sept 9, 2015 10:58:25 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Like, all other things being equal, I'd be pissed about this and would think it was a big deal. But in light of the truly egregious views and ideas put forth by other candidates, the email server just doesn't compare. Not even a little bit.

When you start talking about criminalizing abortion doctors, deploying the national guard to women's clinics, building a fucking wall to keep out brown people and systematically dismantling equal pay measures? Sorry, but I don't care if your opponent is posting classified emails on goddamn Twitter.

This is exactly where I'm at! I wish I was able to vote here (only a permanent resident). If I was I'd be voting for her.

[miniroller]

Sept 9, 2015 10:27:47 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

I don't give a shit about email addresses when there are candidates who actively want to take away my fucking healthcare out there.

And I think this is what Hillary has been internally screaming when this comes up, which is one of the reasons an apology is somewhat forced & pretty tardy into this topic she can't believe we're still discussing.

[Alyssa]

I really don't care. I'm only shocked that she is dealing with this. You would think she would have been aware of email dos and don'ts by this time.

[Michelle]

Sept 9, 2015 10:58:25 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Like, all other things being equal, I'd be pissed about this and would think it was a big deal. But in light of the truly egregious views and ideas put forth by other candidates, the email server just doesn't compare. Not even a little bit.

When you start talking about criminalizing abortion doctors, deploying the national guard to women's clinics, building a fucking wall to keep out brown people and systematically dismantling equal pay measures? Sorry, but I don't care if your opponent is posting classified emails on goddamn Twitter.

I actually agree with this.

I can't vote for any of the currently slated Republicans over Hillary, so like most elections, I'd vote for the lesser of two evils and all things considered will probably vote for her unless someone like Huntsman makes a resurgence.

However,

At this point in the campaigning, I usually like to have the guy or gal I'm rooting for. They never make it to the final two but I at least like to be excited about someone. I'm excited by exactly no one right now.

And I'm definitely not excited about voting for someone who may or may not have classified information in her personal emails depending on whether you ask the State department or top intelligence officials, per the article Pixy linked. Two top intelligence officials say it is top secret. A State dept rep said that indicating the emails are "classified" is premature.

Ultimately, she felt she was above following government protocols for intelligence communications and that is a big f-ing deal for me. What else will she think she is above or are just "guidelines" instead of clear rules, regulations, or laws?

Our last two presidents have already demonstrated their disregard for essential protocals - Obama with his illegitimate recess appointments to the NLRB in an effort to push the equivalent of EFCA, expedited elections, mandatory arbritration, and card check through after it all failed even with a majority democratic senate; and Bush with his lack of concern for individual privacy through the Patriot Act as well as his pushing for a means to start a war whether it was supported by congress or not. Maybe they have all always been that way. Republicans certainly feel that way about Bill Clinton's perjury about not sleeping "with that woman." Maybe I just got old enough to really notice once GW was in office.

I respect both men for the good things they both did, but I would like someone who has a bit less hubris and respect for some boundaries and limits of power of the office, and with this intelligence/email issue Hillary just doesn't seem to have that.

[Deleted]

I'm more shocked there was no oversight to anything. It wasn't a secret that she was using a personal email address, yet NOBODY questioned it/stopped it in all of this time? I know at my job if I did something like that (and I'm not working with state secrets - or for the government, just financial information) it would be stopped in about 30 minutes because of the oversight we have in place.

Did I miss where that was discussed? I'd love to read something on it if it was, so links would be appreciated

[jeaniebueller]

Sept 9, 2015 11:15:37 GMT -5 miniroller said:

Sept 9, 2015 10:27:47 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

I don't give a shit about email addresses when there are candidates who actively want to take away my fucking healthcare out there.

And I think this is what Hillary has been internally screaming when this comes up, which is one of the reasons an apology is somewhat forced & pretty tardy into this topic she can't believe we're still discussing.

Listen, I'll vote for Hillary if she is the D candidate, but come on. She has handled this issue horribly. She is a pro at politics and presumably has good people advising her, so I can't for the life of me figure out why she didn't handle this issue head on and instead danced around it and made cringe worth joke about it.

www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-has-love-snapchat-joke-about-email-scandal-n410421

I am embarrassed for her each time I see this clip replayed. If she had been upfront about everything 2 months ago, it would have blown over by now and we could all focus on the circus that is the Republican party.

[pixy0stix]

Sept 9, 2015 12:18:10 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Ultimately, she felt she was above following government protocols for intelligence communications and that is a big f-ing deal for me. What else will she think she is above or are just "guidelines" instead of clear rules, regulations, or laws?

She didn't, though. She followed the letter of the law. They haven't been able to pin any lawbreaking or rulebreaking or whatever on her. It's all shady as fuck, but it was legal at the time.

[Michelle]

Sept 9, 2015 12:27:14 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Sept 9, 2015 12:18:10 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Ultimately, she felt she was above following government protocols for intelligence communications and that is a big f-ing deal for me. What else will she think she is above or are just "guidelines" instead of clear rules, regulations, or laws?

She didn't, though. She followed the letter of the law. They haven't been able to pin any lawbreaking or rulebreaking or whatever on her. It's all shady as fuck, but it was legal at the time.

Legal, maybe
Ethical, doesn't seem so.

Of course we all know how I am about being the morality police. :-P

[pixy0stix]

Sept 9, 2015 12:28:01 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Sept 9, 2015 12:27:14 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

She didn't, though. She followed the letter of the law. They haven't been able to pin any lawbreaking or rulebreaking or whatever on her. It's all shady as fuck, but it was legal at the time.

Legal, maybe
Ethical, doesn't seem so.

Of course we all know how I am about being the morality police. :-P

But you expressly said that you don't like it because she broke laws, protocol, etc. And she didn't. 

[StrawberryBlondie]

Sept 9, 2015 12:23:18 GMT -5 @heyitsme said:

I'm more shocked there was no oversight to anything. It wasn't a secret that she was using a personal email address, yet NOBODY questioned it/stopped it in all of this time? I know at my job if I did something like that (and I'm not working with state secrets - or for the government, just financial information) it would be stopped in about 30 minutes because of the oversight we have in place.

Did I miss where that was discussed? I'd love to read something on it if it was, so links would be appreciated

Right? We have to do a training course every year and "you can't use your personal email for business" comes up like 6 times in 20 minutes.