Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do I wish that our entire government actually behaved thoughtfully? That people in power paid heed to the law, and why laws are passed, and what the intention of the law is? Yes. I wish those in power, and those who seek to lead us, actually behaved like thoughtful, responsible adults.
Do I understand that Hillary Clinton did exactly what her predecessors did, thoughtlessly following their lead? Yes.
So while I'm loathe to defend this, I'm more loathe to let people attack Mrs Clinton while hypocritically ignoring that all Mrs Clinton did was follow the precedent set by previous Secretaries of State.
I WANT our government to be as transparent as possible. To operate to the highest standards. I want the people who serve us, the people, to have the highest moral and ethical standards. I'm just reconciled to the fact that what I want is an uphill battle, and in the meantime, partisan politics are a part of the problem.
"Do I understand that Hillary Clinton did exactly what her predecessors did, thoughtlessly following their lead? Yes."
THAT is YOUR PROBLEM. You have made your mind that she din' do ANYTHING different then her predecessors. Which is FLAT OUT WRONG.
Emphasis on ALL. In other words the ONLY system she used was her PERSONAL account."
NO other Sec, of State did this. They used BOTH systems. So saying others did the same thing doesn't hold any water.
"There are e-mails in the archives coming from and going to Mrs Clinton's private e-mail address."
You are missing the point, AGAIN, if it is her PERSONAL account we do NOT have an archive of those emails.
Her staff scrubbed the emails BEFORE turning them over. If we DON'T have ALL her personal emails how do we know who she was conversing with? If her staff scrubbed EVERY email to and from YOU there would be NO RECORD OF IT.
You have lost every point you have tried to make.
EXACTLY! Which is why I cannot understand DC not getting this distinction. It was intentional. She is no stranger to scandal.
Per the State Department, Secretary Kerry is the FIRST Secretary of State to primarily use a government e-mail account.
Here let me help you for your future posts: lalalalala... Hillary is the best....lalalalala....Hillary is the most supreme woman ever....lalalalala...All Hail Queen Hillary...Lalalalala.
Here let me help you for your future posts: lalalalala... Hillary is the best....lalalalala....Hillary is the most supreme woman ever....lalalalala...All Hail Queen Hillary...Lalalalala.
I don't think that's it. It's just that you're complaining about something that's absolutely stupid.
1. It was established during the Benghazi hearings that Clinton used personal email and did not have a government account. Perhaps the right was too busy saying "what difference does it make?" sarcastically to notice that fact. But of course, we all know how powerful the right's taking quotes out of context can be, just look at how "You didn't build that" helped Romney win the 2012 election and how "People cling to guns and religion" helped Clinton herself win the nomination in 2008 and McCain win in 2008, right? lol
2. The law at that time did not require her to use a government email account. Where Clinton may have actually run afoul of the law was NARA guidelines, enacted after members of the Bush Administration did pretty the exact same thing, only they went on to delete their personal emails, effectively stonewalling Congressional oversight of the executive branch, required personal emails used for government business to be backed up and preserved for record keeping purposes. You can speculate all you want she didn't do that, but she was able to turn over 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department to turn over to Congress during the Benghazi hearings (again, when this fact first came out) and at no time, has anyone claimed that Clinton lost, misplaced or deleted emails she was supposed to preserve.
3. Americans didn't care that much about Benghazi itself, they're going to care even less about this. Possibly not following NARA records-keeping guidelines? Whoopie.
1. It was established during the Benghazi hearings that Clinton used personal email and did not have a government account. Perhaps the right was too busy saying "what difference does it make?" sarcastically to notice that fact. But of course, we all know how powerful the right's taking quotes out of context can be, just look at how "You didn't build that" helped Romney win the 2012 election and how "People cling to guns and religion" helped Clinton herself win the nomination in 2008 and McCain win in 2008, right? lol
2. The law at that time did not require her to use a government email account. Where Clinton may have actually run afoul of the law was NARA guidelines, enacted after members of the Bush Administration did pretty the exact same thing, only they went on to delete their personal emails, effectively stonewalling Congressional oversight of the executive branch, required personal emails used for government business to be backed up and preserved for record keeping purposes. You can speculate all you want she didn't do that, but she was able to turn over 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department to turn over to Congress during the Benghazi hearings (again, when this fact first came out) and at no time, has anyone claimed that Clinton lost, misplaced or deleted emails she was supposed to preserve.
3. Americans didn't care that much about Benghazi itself, they're going to care even less about this. Possibly not following NARA records-keeping guidelines? Whoopie.
How much you want to make a bet she discussed classified information in her emails...oh wait, we do not know. I do not think "its was not legally required" is an effective argument for someone in her position that has access to extremely sensitive information and corresponds with world and national leaders.
How much you want to make a bet she discussed classified information in her emails...oh wait, we do not know. I do not think "its was not legally required" is an effective argument for someone in her position.
Actually, if we're talking about the law, than not being legally required is an effective argument.
I'll reserve judgment until we know more about whether they were archived on government servers or not. If she sent and received them via a government network and not on a VPN or other private network, I would think they were.
Actually, if we're talking about the law, than not being legally required is an effective argument.
Thing is, you are the one talking about the law and now its almost impossible to know if she broke the law while in the commission of her duties as the head of the state department in her correspondence via email. I can not imagine any intelligent person would think its reasonable for the Sectary of State to use a personal email account to conduct the nations business. If she feels differently, I would seriously question her judgement and qualifications to be the Secretary of State.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
