From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer
invite response
2016 Jul 3, 3:15pm 30,409 views 130 comments
« First « Previous Comments 10 - 49 of 130 Next » Last » Search these comments
marcus
2016 Jul 3, 9:12pm
She's either the most targeted politician in the history of politics or there is some fire to the smoke.
Look at Obama. He is ridiculously clean, but they still tried to say he wasn't born in the U.S., that he's a Muslim, reverend Wright, and so on. Anything they can find. Anything they can make up that might stick. And they like him personally.
I have an older brother that's a republican. The extreme hate against Hillary started when she was put in charge of health care policy under Clinton. A woman, given such a leadership role in helping him form his health care policy ? ! That's unheard of. Doesn't she know ? The first lady is supposed to be choosing drapes and China. THey hated her all along.
I don't know if it's payback for Nixon or what (of course by today's standards he's an extreme liberal - but he was hated by democrats back then) ?
You won't see a democrat President embraced by republicans, or even worked with in any meaningful way. Democrats can not be allowed to perceived as successful leaders. This is the highest objective of republicans. Because that might lead to higher taxes paid by the Koch brothers and corporations.
there is some fire to the smoke
She's been ambitious and very busy. She's done a lot. So there's a lot to work with if you're looking for lies to build a story around.
You can't see how laughable the list is, because you're a republican, and you want there to be fire there.
State Department Emails
Benghazi
Conflicts of Interest
Private Server
Sidney Blumenthal
Paid Speeches
The Clinton Foundation
The Bad Old Days
Reasonable analysis. The only one it says is "serious," is the email question, of Clinton receiving classified emails on her personal server. Is this an example of corruption or lack of ethics ? Those are the attributes many want to attribute to Clinton. Or is it simply an error ? An error in judgement ? The magnitude in my opinion would be in dependent a few things, including:
1) Was the server well secured ? That is, did she hire competent people to make it as secure as possible ?
2) How calssified were these emails ? They say that a lot of information which is not necessary to be classified is. IF there was important classified info in some of the emails, then this needs to be evaluated by people with the right kind of clearance, but also without a partisan bias.
THese technologies are still fairly young, and mistakes such as these go a long way towards bringing about rules that will be have to be followed in the future. THat's a good thing.
I would argue it is a mistake but no where near the level of a major policy blunder.
Damn it's hard to see the forest with all those trees in the way. The problem is not security, the problem is hillary set up the server to sidestep the federal records act and the freedom of information act. All correspondence in any form related to the execution of her duties must be archived on a government server that is search able for FOI requests. Setting up the private server was carefully planned to avoid this requirement while not actually breaking any laws. At the time (this has been fixed) there was no limit on time to get records archived and after 5 years hillary was still working on it. If she hadn't gotten caught she would have been working on it forever.
So while what she did is technically legal it was a deliberate and carefully planned gross breach of her responsibilities as secretary of state. This shows a level of arrogance and contempt for the responsibilities of public office that makes her totally unfit for the office of president.
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Jul 3, 10:14pm
There has to be questionable activity to START an investigation... If they weren't involved in questionable business or personal activities, there would be zero reason to start an investigation.
Here we go again, the famous Clinton "no need for investigation... because there is no solid evidence of wrongdoing" solipsistic runaround.
The purpose of the investigation is to look at suspicious activity and see if there is evidence.
indigenous
2016 Jul 3, 10:31pm
his shows a level of arrogance and contempt for the responsibilities
Yup and very typical with people with sketchy backgrounds.
Ceffer
2016 Jul 3, 11:07pm
It'll all go poof and disappear once she's elected. If she doesn't pull any major shit after being elected, she'll be fine.
Kennedy's assassination made Lyndon Johnson's pending indictments go poof when Johnson stepped into the Oval Office. Sometimes, you think they want to get elected so they DON'T get indicted.
indigenous
2016 Jul 3, 11:16pm
Trouble is that old habits die hard.
LBJ was one of the worst presidents we ever had.
marcus
2016 Jul 3, 11:19pm
So while what she did is technically legal it was a deliberate and carefully planned gross breach of her responsibilities as secretary of state. This shows a level of arrogance and contempt for the responsibilities of public office that makes her totally unfit for the office of president.
I understand you completely and I disagree. I'm guessing you're an accountant or bookkeeper of some kind ? In your job having good records and detailed documentation of every single thing that you do is paramount to all else ?
Newsflash: Everyone is not just like you. People bring different kinds of skill sets to the table.
Your assumption is that she had some motives to hide what she was doing. That's nonsense. Some people are goofd at saving all their reciepts and every record of every thing they do. Others, not so much.
Too many assumptions in your take on this.
The problem is not security
I didn't say it was a problem. But if she made a diligent effort to have a secure email server, then there is less credence to the claim that she was carelessly leaking classified state secrets.
I believe she may have been paranoid about people misconstruing her actions thus preferring when at all possible to keep private correspondence private. I believe she probably knew too much, from when she was first lady, about the others that would have access to all of her emails. It may have been mostly about keeping private emails private. Arrogant versus just smart (using what she knew to her advantage - and at the same time being confident that she's a good person and not harming anything).
Arrogant ? MAybe you can call it that. But not in a way that in my view is a proof of dishonesty, bad ethics, immorality or corruption. None of those words apply. I'm okay with that kind of arrogance.
marcus
2016 Jul 3, 11:24pm
Damn it's hard to see the forest with all those trees in the way
It's called having a different take on it than you.
I see you know a lot about arrogance.
I understand you completely and I disagree. I'm guessing you're an accountant or bookkeeper of some kind ? In your job having good records and detailed documentation of every single thing that you do is paramount to all else ?
Newsflash: Everyone is not just like you. People bring different kinds of skill sets to the table.
Newsflash, the federal records act is totally clear and unequivocal. If correspondence is in an official capacity it must be archived with the federal government and available to the public. You are telling me someone who was first lady, a senator, and secretary of state HONESTLY wasn't aware of this? OR are you saying that 7 years after she started as secretary of state she was HONESTLY still working on getting her correspondence, any of her correspondence at all, over to the state department to archive OR are you saying her skill set was so poor she couldn't couldn't manage to get one single official email to the state department to be archived? Really? Seriously?? Come on, that's ridiculous even for you. We aren't talking finding receipts for lunch at the airport stuffed in your wallet, it's email. Unless you erase it it's there.
When exactly do you think she was planning to hand over all of her job related emails if no one had found out about her private server? Come on, seriously, take a stab at it. When did you think it was going to happen if she didn't get caught?
Even more lame is her saying that she sent her email to people who would have had the records archived so she didn't have to archive hers. That is the most ridiculous thing ever said on two fronts. First the records act says both sides of the correspondence must be archived separately. Secondly that means as secretary of state somehow she sent no emails to anyone who wasn't a US federal government employee Hillary knows perfectly well it's total bullshit. She can't not know, she's a lawyer and she's been in government her whole life. She is absolutely standing there lying. Yet somehow you and the rest of the Hillary apologists are buying this?
I believe she may have been paranoid about people misconstruing her actions thus preferring when at all possible to keep private correspondence private.
WTF. Let's type really slowly. Any and all correspondence having to to with execution of her duties as secretary of state is PUBLIC. That's the law. Period. Are you clear on that point now or would you like me to use smaller words?
Are you actually trying to tell me hillary somehow wasn't aware she could have her server set up with 2 email accounts, one for official emails and one for her private emails? OR use her .gov account for official business only and a private server for private emails. In the year 2009? If so then she really, really shouldn't be president.
I'm okay with that kind of arrogance.
That kind of arrogance is the belief that the rules don't apply to her and actively circumventing them. There is absolutely no other explanation why 7 years after she started as secretary of state all of her official emails were still squirrelled away on a private server that no one knew about. You may be ok with that but I'm not. If she didn't want to be in the public eye she should not have taken a public position. It's part of the job.
Damn it's hard to see the forest with all those trees in the way
It's called having a different take on it than you.
I see you know a lot about arrogance.
Then why in your take are you focused on secondary or irrelevant issues like server security and private emails rather than why she didn't do her duty as secretary of state if you are looking at the big picture?
marcus
2016 Jul 4, 2:21am
7 years after she started as secretary of state all of her official emails were still squirrelled away on a private server that no one knew about.
It was after she left the state department that the department of archives recommended that official business not be done through private email accounts. And yes any emails she sent to people on .gov accounts would indeed be archived elsewhere.
why she didn't do her duty as secretary of state
Give me a fucking break.
The Secretary's office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the State Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types.
A separate, closed email system was used by the State Department for the purpose of handling classified communications, which was designed to prevent such information from being transmitted anywhere other than within that system.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
She had a private email account that was in addition to this. With all the emails stored. How can your head be this far up your ass on this issue ?
You say she thought she was above the rules, but we're talking about email rules that didn't exist yet.
My bottom line: I think she probably had reasons for wanting privacy with her emails (some of her emails). Whether she should have been entitled to that ? I don't know, but I know there were no existing rules at that time she broke. If that privacy made her more comfortable for whatever reason, it may have helped her rather than hindered her from doing her duty as well as possible.
If you think following some specific protocols for the way her private (some containing work & unclassified or least classified info) emails are stored is a significant part of a U.S Secretary of State's duty, then I have to ask you again, are you an accountant or something along those lines ? You must realize that she had a staff that was handling a majority of communications anyway, all on state department servers
neplusultra57
2016 Jul 4, 5:51am
Note to Republicans and conservatives: There are non-Republicans and liberals here discussing the sins of Clinton (gasp) without need to mention the other guy. Republicans and conservatives should try it sometime when their guy is on the slab. It's yet to happen. Doubt it ever will.
indigenous
2016 Jul 4, 6:57am
DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says
The CLINTFUCKS are fucking equivocating scum who get attacked for the wrong shit.
What is the right shit?
HydroCabron
2016 Jul 4, 9:28am
How can Hillary be in the slammer? My impression is that Trump will deputize her (on a pile of money) thereby exposing her as the sheriff-loving traitor she is.
marcus
2016 Jul 4, 9:56am
What part of ALL correspondence in an official capacity emails or otherwise MUST be archived AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT do you not get?
What part of Clinton finished being being secretary of state in 2012 do you not get ?
OH wait you do get it.
Technically she didn't violate the law.
Wait, but you said she didn't do her duty.
Your level of indignation and outrage has more to do with what you would like this to be than what it is. MY belief is that if this was even intentional on her part it has only to do with one thing. And that is whether others in government can track her emails immediately after they are sent or received versus the requirement that they eventually can, if need be (paranoia ? perhaps).
I can not imagine other reasons for it. Motives or reasons for behavior matter.
Her emails were required to be stored so that in the future if need be, there is a record of all communications. And they were.
You don't imply unethical or corrupt reasons for it, and I don't think you see those as existing. And yet you are outraged that she supposedly doesn't think some rules apply to her, and then you turn around and add that technically she did not break the rules.
You have outrage and indignation and that's it. Otherwise you're just making a fool out of yourself.
What part of ALL correspondence in an official capacity emails or otherwise MUST be archived AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT do you not get?
What part of Clinton finished being being secretary of state in 2012 do you not get ?
OH wait you do get it.
The national records and archive act is from 1954. The freedom of information act is from 1966. The federal records act is from 1981. The 2014 amendment to the federal records act simply closes the loophole hillary used to dodge compliance. It's an amendment to an existing law, not a new law. Existing laws hillary was subject to the entire time she was sec of state.
Wait, but you said she didn't do her duty.
Your level of indignation and outrage has more to do with what you would like this to be than what it is. MY belief is that if this was even intentional on her part it has only to do with one thing. And that is whether others in government can track her emails immediately after they are sent or received versus the requirement that they eventually can, if need be (paranoia ? perhaps).
I can not imagine other reasons for it. Motives or reasons for behavior matter.
Her emails were required to be stored so that in the future if need be, there is a record of all communications. And they were.
No completely wrong. Her emails are required to be in government archives available for public searches under the freedom of information act. Not stored so that there is a future record of communications. Do you know anything about the laws of the land? Didn't you take a semester of US government in college to learn how this all works? It was a requirement where I went.
Again you dodged out. When do you think she would have turned over her official correspondence if no one had found out about her server? Simple question that you keep ignoring. Go ahead take a shot at it. Hint, the answer is never. She didn't do her duty. What happened is that after be exposed she very reluctantly complied with the intent of the law under heavy political pressure. If you can't comprehend the difference then that is pathetic. Like you said motives matter. They matter a lot.
Why should hillary be paranoid about public records that until hillary was sec of state traditionally were turned over promptly? What part of public records do you not grasp? They aren't her private correspondence until hillary says they are not. If they have to do with the execution of her post then they are public as soon as they are written. Even classified documents are public. The classification level and handling (redacted or not released) of sensitive documents would determined by a classification authority, not the author of the document. Hillary is supposed to have no say whatsoever in when, where, and how documents, unclassified or classified, are made public. She doesn't have that right under the law, even though she managed to take it upon herself through being clever at the law. This really isn't a hard concept.
yet you are outraged that she supposedly doesn't think some rules apply to her, and then you turn around and add that technically she did not break the rules.
You have outrage and indignation and that's it.
Absolutely, although I have to have admiration for someone who was able to so carefully and successfully plan to end run the entire intent of 4 different federal acts. That has to be a record of some kind. I find it hard to believe that anyone could fail to grasp that not breaking the law isn't the same as complying with the intent of the law. The first duty of any public official is to comply with the intent of the law. On the other hand Hillary has apparently found millions of people like you who don't grasp this.
No way, no how she had all of this occur by casual happenstance. As you say give me a fucking break. She is far too smart, too well trained as a lawyer, and has far to much experience in politics for 40 years for that to happen. She knew exactly what she was doing and why. I find anyone that worked that hard to violate the spirit of the law to be completely unfit for the responsibilities of public office. If you and the rest of the hillary apologists don't then it is very likely you will eventually end up with the government you deserve.
marcus
2016 Jul 4, 12:02pm
You can write an entire book. It doesn't make you look any less silly, if people simply consider the accepted fact that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to not use a private email account for at least some of his or her official (State Department) business done by email.
Your emotions just control you don't they.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2016 Jul 4, 1:53pm
If Hillary were really trying to hide these emails, why didn't she just delete them years ago? The evil plot hypothesis doesn't really make sense.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2016 Jul 4, 2:05pm
She HAS deleted 30,000 emails...
Why wouldn't she have deleted all of them, or at least ask of the problematic ones? Also, if it were so egregious, why didn't anyone speak up at the time? Why did they wait 6 years or so?
You can write an entire book. It doesn't make you look any less silly, if people simply consider the accepted fact that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to not use a private email account for at least some of his or her official (State Department) business done by email.
Your emotions just control you don't they.
Irrelevant once again. You are having a lot of trouble sorting out the concept of medium vs content. The content of the message must be archived, regardless of the medium. The medium is totally and completely irrelevant. Did the other sec of state using private emails hide them on a private server? No, they used a commercial email service and sent their emails to be archived like they were supposed to be. John Kerry is the first sec of state to not use a private email? Thomas Jefferson would certainly be shocked to know that.
If plainly stating the facts, legal issues, and political issues makes me look silly then what would you call your endless recitation of irrelevant bullshit and total refusal to address any of the questions I have put to you?
Blind devotion to hillary just controls you doesn't it.
zzyzzx
2016 Jul 4, 5:48pm
I would argue it is a mistake but no where near the level of a major policy blunder.
Some of us think that someone who could be president should be able to handle 2 email accounts.
If Hillary were really trying to hide these emails, why didn't she just delete them years ago? The evil plot hypothesis doesn't really make sense.
Jesus doesn't anyone know the laws they live under. Just frigging amazing. Destroying federal records would be a felony. Simply not turning them over was technically not illegal until 2014. You were supposed to turn them over, but there was nothing in the statute that set a deadline to do it. Obviously hillary was still working on turning them over 6 years later.
I never said there is any evil plot. She just didn't want to be held accountable for her actions and decisions by the public even though it is required by law. She almost got away with it. On a certain level one has to admire that kind of conceit and clever deception. But not in a presidential candidate.
Why wouldn't she have deleted all of them, or at least ask of the problematic ones? Also, if it were so egregious, why didn't anyone speak up at the time? Why did they wait 6 years or so?
It's a felony plain and simple. I really don't believe she would be foolish to actually try to delete any actual official records no matter how much she wanted to keep them out of the public eye. The billary twins are masters at twisting the law into pretzels, but they are also the masters of not crossing the line into actual crime.
How would anyone know she wasn't turning over her correspondence to be archived? Everyone would assume the sec of state would follow the law. No one realized that she wasn't until she got caught with her private server 6 years later.
HydroCabron
2016 Jul 4, 5:57pm
until she got caught with her private server 6 years later.
You are on a soapbox of indignation and dudgeon about an email server.
Proud?
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2016 Jul 4, 6:08pm
She wasn't running for President 6 years ago and the voting public didn't have to decide if she's honest and trustworthy. Duh...
Well, at least you agree it is not about criminal behavior, and that it is about politics and the election.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2016 Jul 4, 6:17pm
Jesus doesn't anyone know the laws they live under.
Of course not. That's what lawyers are for.bob2356 says
Simply not turning them over was technically not illegal until 2014. You were supposed to turn them over, but there was nothing in the statute that set a deadline to do it.
Ok then. You also agree it was not technically illegal. It was just tardy.
Did the other sec of state using private emails hide them on a private server? No, they used a commercial email service and sent their emails to be archived like they were supposed to be.
I'm not sure I get why a private server, commercial email service, or virtual server would be better. It all depends on the integrity and competence of the people running the machine/service.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2016 Jul 4, 6:57pm
You really are a fucking idiot if you can't tell the difference.
I know what the difference is, but the preference is not clear. Securely setting up an email server is not trivial, but privacy is not guaranteed on a commercial service. Clearly the preference is to use .gov accounts, and let the correct people deal with security issues. But that wasn't on the list.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2016 Jul 4, 6:59pm
Well, at least you agree Hillary has no integrity
True to form, your response has nothing to do with what you are quoting.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2016 Jul 4, 7:39pm
the list,
What list are you talking about? I'm talking about the list Bob provided, which is who and what I responding to.
Obviously a .gov account was offered to her and was a possibility for her to use.
As far as commercial servers go, I doubt they all retrain deleted emails indefinitely. That would be stupid.
until she got caught with her private server 6 years later.
You are on a soapbox of indignation and dudgeon about an email server.
Proud?
Irrelevant. Another clueless one comes out of the woodwork. The server is irrelevant. The emails on the server that were never turned over to be archived until hillary was caught hiding them is the issue. Hiding public records, no matter where or in what medium, from the public should be cause for indignation and dudgeon for every citizen of the country.
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Jul 4, 9:21pm
We only have Hillary's word they were personal. The volume of them, combined with her long-known poor grasp of technology, suggests that she either emails more than the most popular cheerleader in the 10th Grade, or that they weren't all personal.
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Jul 4, 9:22pm
Obviously a .gov account was offered to her and was a possibility for her to use.
Not a possibility, mandatory. To use non-government emails for State Department business, she was required by the Record Law and State Department Policy to ask permission, which she never did.
She's Hillary, the law doesn't apply, and if you think it does, you're a member of the Right Wing Conspiracy and a Misogynist.
I know what the difference is, but the preference is not clear. Securely setting up an email server is not trivial, but privacy is not guaranteed on a commercial service. Clearly the preference is to use .gov accounts, and let the correct people deal with security issues. But that wasn't on the list.
Irrelevant. Privacy/security on the email server is not the issue. Pop Quiz. Who do you think it would be easier for investigators to get a full set of records from. Choice a) commercial email servers like gmail, earthlink, yahoo, etc. Choice b) a private server hidden in the clintons house that no one ever knew about? That would be a server that once it was actually discovered after 6 years clinton herself personally decided which emails were relevant.
Tough choice. You can cheat and ask a friend if you need to.
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Jul 4, 9:27pm
Obama Admin hypocrisy - book thrown at lower level employees:
It turns out that at least two of the emails which traversed Hillary Clinton’s personal email account and server were “top secret,†according to the inspector general for the Intelligence Community as reported by McClatchy. To describe that as reckless is an understatement given that, as AP notes, “There is no evidence she used encryption to shield the emails or her personal server from foreign intelligence services or other potentially prying eyes.†The FBI has now taken possession of that server.
When it comes to low-level government employees with no power, the Obama administration has purposely prosecuted them as harshly as possible to the point of vindictiveness: It has notoriously prosecuted more individuals under the Espionage Act of 1917 for improperly handling classified information than all previous administrations combined.
NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ’s claims that he “mishandled†classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, “a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials†despite no “evidence he intended to distribute them.†Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.
In the light of these new Clinton revelations, the very same people who spent years justifying this obsessive assault are now scampering for reasons why a huge exception should be made for the Democratic Party front-runner. Fascinatingly, one of the most vocal defenders of this Obama DOJ record of persecution has been Hillary Clinton herself.
https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/
Unlike Hillary's several top secret emails sent on a private, unencyrpted, unsecured server in a bathroom, none of Manning's emails were Top Secret
Simply not turning them over was technically not illegal until 2014. You were supposed to turn them over, but there was nothing in the statute that set a deadline to do it.
Ok then. You also agree it was not technically illegal. It was just tardy.
Being 6 years tardy is pretty bad. Since marcus wealsed out and passed on the question repeatedly I'll give you a shot at it. When do you think she would have actually delivered her emails to be archived, as required by law, if her hidden email server was never discovered? No fair using geologic time scales.
I've always agreed it was not technically illegal. Hillary spent a lot of time figuring it out how to circumvent the law while being not technically illegal.
So not technically illegal is the standard of integrity that you believe appropriate for the president of the country? That's certainly a high bar.
indigenous
2016 Jul 4, 9:59pm
Obama Admin hypocrisy - book thrown at lower level employees:
I can imagine this is the sort of thing that went down when Hitler was coming into power.
marcus
2016 Jul 4, 11:57pm
Since marcus wealsed out
I didn't weasle out. I rested my case, on this:
You can write an entire book. It doesn't make you look any less silly, if people simply consider the accepted fact that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to not use a private email account for at least some of his or her official (State Department) business done by email.
And on your disproportionate emotion over the way Hillary handled some of her email. The most pathetic aspect of this is that you can't see how much of your out of proportion emotion and arrogance about this is purely political bias.
I stand by my position that it was a mistake, but not nearly as significant as you make it out to be. It doesn't reflect bad ethics or corruption, and it is not nearly as bad as a policy blunder (that is, as a factor in my voting decision).
Is one of the sources of your out of proportion emotion on this that you are trying to muster up enough of a reason to vote for Trump ?
So not technically illegal is the standard of integrity that you believe appropriate for the president of the country?
With respect to how one handles emails ? Yes. It's just slightly worse than taking home office supplies. Actually, maybe not worse, because that is technically unethical, unless the supplies are only used for work that you take home.
Of course not. That's what lawyers are for
-----------
Oh dear
Are these people actually allowed to vote?
No wonder people say we're fucked
Since marcus wealsed out
I didn't weasle out.
Then answer the really simple question. You've had 4 chances already. When do you think hillary would have complied with the law if no one had discovered her secret email server? Another 6 years? 10 years? 20 years?
I stand by my position that it was a mistake
Pretty seriously proactive and carefully planned "mistake". I think the only mistake that happened was she got caught.
So not technically illegal is the standard of integrity that you believe appropriate for the president of the country?
With respect to how one handles emails ?
Irrelevant once again. Wow, the best tap dance I've seen since fred astaire. Damn, it's all those pesky trees again. There must be a forest here somewhere. No not with respect to how one handles emails. The standard of integrity with respect to how well one complies with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Actually not one law, 4 different federal laws. Pretty amazing you can't address or acknowledge what the overall issue is, never mind make any kind of meaningful argument about it.
Is one of the sources of your out of proportion emotion on this that you are trying to muster up enough of a reason to vote for Trump ?
Nice try at misdirection. If you can't defend your position impugn the other persons motives.
No I would never vote for trump, he is totally and completely temperamentally unsuited for any elected office of any kind. Hillary is ethically unsuited for elected office. I had decided that long before emailgate. My opinion was formed watching hillary totally inappropriately, although once again technically legally, (anyone see pattern here) mixing the clinton foundation business with being sec of state. FWIW I voted for hillary in her 2000 senate run. It's what she has done as a public servant since then that presents the problem for me now. Hillary serves hillary, not the people.
I'm going to be making a third party protest the system vote this election. There is no emotion involved in this decision at all. Unless having a firm belief in candidates possessing integrity and good character, at least as well as these terms can be applied to politicians, is an emotional issue. I take voting very seriously, throwing away my vote not a lightly taken choice. This choice is solely derived from my observations and analysis of the actions and history of both candidates. You are the one so emotionally involved in being a hillary apologist you refuse to address issue after issue. Instead you reply time and time again with irrelevant trivialities either through blind devotion to hillary or a complete inability to grasp the larger issues and why they matter.
marcus
2016 Jul 5, 6:36am
Hillary is ethically unsuited for elected office. I had decided that long before emailgate.
Really ? I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you. Who could have guessed that you weren't capable of looking at this email issue objectively.
« First « Previous Comments 10 - 49 of 130 Next » Last » Search these comments
With Hillary Clinton leading the field for the Democratic nomination for president, every Clinton scandal—from Whitewater to the State Department emails—will be under the microscope. (No other American politicians—even ones as corrupt as Richard Nixon, or as hated by partisans as George W. Bush—have fostered the creation of a permanent multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them.) Keeping track of each controversy, where it came from, and how serious it is, is no small task, so here’s a primer. We’ll update it as new information emerges.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/
A what, when, who, and how serious on the following:
State Department Emails
Benghazi
Conflicts of Interest
Private Server
Sidney Blumenthal
Paid Speeches
The Clinton Foundation
The Bad Old Days