patrick.net

I think the bigger scandal is that Hillary literally accepted 10's of millions in donations to her foundation from foreign governments like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait,,,,,while serving as Secretary of State.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/03/03/390504044/clinton-foundation-funding-woes-touch-hillary-too

She was flying around the world on tax-payer funded jets and shaking down foreign rulers to donate to her foundation........all the while having her emails and communication routed through her own server at her house.

Yah - nothing fishy at all! Rules and laws are for the little people.

Even without all of these scandals, can anyone name a single accomplishment Hillary achieved while serving as Secretary of State? Libya? Pulling all troops out of Iraq? Russia/Ukraine? Israeli/Palestinian peace process? China? North Korea? Yemen? Iran?

This would be equivalent to say, allowing the tyrants of the world an open book to how to create havoc on the world due to understand the thoughts and movements of the agency designed to maintain global diplomacy.

This is beyond high treason - open emails if read by Putin, Ping, give a schematic towards undermining the US in every way!

There is just something very dishonest about this couple. Yes, there are other dishonest politicians out there, too... but this pair seems to be especially allergic to honestly. They epitomize all the worst qualities of lawyers. The way they like to play word games and demonstrate how they can outsmart you and the system. They don't even pretend. Naked hubris, short and simple.

turtledove says

There is just something very dishonest about this couple.

I always enjoy the part where libertoonian dipshits tut-tut harder over Democrat swine than Republican swine.

There are so few actual libertarians. Maybe 10% of those calling themselves such really hew to the tenets. The rest are just pseudo-intellectual parrots repeating the Republican talking points du jour, while adopting a fashionable label.

"Something very dishonest ... especially allergic ... play word games ... pretend they can outsmart you (i.e. "think they're better'n me) ... Naked hubris."

You are one dim bulb.

1993 called - they want their cliches back.

Call it Crazy says

Clinton Private Server Listed Under Mysterious, Untraceable Name

Respect

Call it Crazy says

socal2 says

Even without all of these scandals, can anyone name a single accomplishment Hillary achieved while serving as Secretary of State?

Can you name 4 big accomplishments of secretaries of state in the past 60 years ?

By definition their accomplishments (often diplomacy) aren't big news. Improving relations with other governments. Avoiding big problems. Advising the President regarding tricky situations. Representing our government in high level, important, international and yet not super newsworthy meetings.

Hillary actually was a very successful secretary of state. That's the reason for the big Benghazi push and it's also the reason for this story. Anything to tarnish her image.

turtledove says

They don't even pretend. Naked hubris, short and simple.

Yeah. With their level of transparency, they haven't even hardly earned the name scumbag.

It's much better when politicians act holier than thou, while secretly molesting children, or funding off shore accounts with bribes. As
long as they appear honest and clean, and maybe even a little simple minded, that's what matters the most.

I like it when they seem super honest, but also less intelligent than I am. When they're clearly more intelligent than I, it makes me really nervous.

turtledove says

There is just something everything very dishonest about this couple. Yes, there are other dishonest politicians out there, too... but this pair seems to be especially allergic to honestly. They epitomize all the worst qualities of lawyers. The way they like to play word games and demonstrate how they can outsmart you and the system. They don't even pretend. Naked hubris, short and simple.

Fixed it for you, they are a textbook example of sociopaths and the treason that wreaks from them is beyond maddening.

humanity says

I like it when they seem super honest, but also less intelligent than I am. When they're clearly more intelligent than I, it makes me really nervous.

More intelligent than you? Is that possible?

I don't think that they are more intelligent. They are clever. They are good at finding little loopholes that enable them to circumvent the law. They revel in word games (remember, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." Everyone else understood the spirit of the question... But not slick Willy. He was too busy playing word games and figuring out how he could technically be right while still DOING wrong.)

I think it's a very sad state when people who devote their cleverness to skirting the law are lauded as "intelligent." You are a smart guy, Humanity. Don't you find it a little insulting that they are constantly trying to out-clever you by diverting your attention to some insignificant detail rather than the matter at hand? Perhaps you can just sit back and say, "well played." But, YOU aren't supposed to be the enemy that they are outsmarting!!!!!!

Call it Crazy says

humanity says

Hillary actually was a very successful secretary of state.

Why, because YOU said so.... Well, I guess that settles it!!!

I hear she's got the global warming scientists working up some scientific models that prove her success.

socal2 says

and shaking down foreign rulers to donate to her foundation

She didn't shakedown. She delivered the goods and got her payment :)

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

When Rosie O'Donnell is sitting on your face, do you really need email to communicate?

ah, refreshing! we're so glad you're back, apocalypsefuck.

The thing that really sucks is that Buffet and a few others say she is a shoe in. The zombies have officially taken over...

turtledove says

Call it Crazy says

humanity says

Hillary actually was a very successful secretary of state.

Why, because YOU said so.... Well, I guess that settles it!!!

I've heard both republican and democrat pundits complimenting her term as secretary of state. Then there's also polling data.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/hillary-clintons-popularity-reaches-near-record-high/2011/03/31/AFJWTXAC_blog.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/17/wsjnbc-poll-hillary-clinton-exits-with-69-approval-rating/

Then I guess the WSJ is to liberal for you to pay any attention to it.

An eye-popping 69% of Americans approve of the job she has done as the country’s top diplomat, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, with a scant 25% disapproving of her performance.

Pretty impressive, considering the fact that about 35% (or maybe 40%)of the electorate hate her.

If Hillary gets in the White House, will Rosie O'Donnell give her a blow job? Maybe Monica can give husband and wife a couples' blowjob??

turtledove says

They revel in word games (remember, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." Everyone else understood the spirit of the question... But not slick Willy. He was too busy playing word games and figuring out how he could technically be right while still DOING wrong.)

Only a republican could have that kind of a take on it.

My take was that his sexual afairs were none of our fucking business. And since he was cornered on the issue by a full time special prosecutor whose sole purpose was to find something he could nail Clinton on, he behaved exactly as one would expect.

What the hell do you expect ?

Was he supposed to go into lurid detail about fooling around with (but not fucking) an intern ? What you intellectually dishonest folks refuse to acknowledge is this:

Many of us might judge him for the behavior (fooling around with an intern), even though we don't know the status of his marriage at the time, but only republicans fail to comprehend that it's none of our business. And if it's none of our business, how can you judge him for private behavior that you shouldn't even know about ?

And how can you blame him for telling white lies (not even) about it, actually playing lawyer word games as you say, trying to avoid people knowing what is none of their business. Trying to avoid not only unnecessary diminishment of his reputation for his private behavior, but also reflecting poorly on the office of President ?

Maybe being dishonest with oneself is simply a prerequisite to being a republican.

You know it's none of our business, but you're okay with going after him for it, because it's hurting the enemy, a democrat. And then when he reacts to people going after him for his private behavior, you call him slimy for trying to avoid having the public know about personal affairs he'd rather keep to himself (and that he should be able to keep to himself)

Maybe republicans got what they wanted with the impeachment of Clinton.. But in time I think history will make it obvious that the republicans in this era are a total joke. The big historical debate will be over what they lacked more, honesty and integrity, or intelligence. I have to admit, I don't know the answer to that. Both were (and still are) shockingly low.

It takes a right winger as stupid as CIC to conflate my thinking that ones sexual behavior is none of my business, with my approving of their behavior.

IS that what we're doing in this country now ? Monitoring everyone's sexual behavior (between consenting adults) and deciding which behaviors we approve of and which ones we don't. ?

Thanks for weighing in as a representative moron CIC. IT saves me the trouble of expanding on my point of view further. AS I said, in time history will show this, and idiots such as yourself for what you are. Nice try though. I'm sure there are people out there that are retarded enough to buy your nonsense. Why am I not surprised that even 18 years later (or whatever it is) you still don't get it.

Call it Crazy says

Do you want a guy this this low level of moral character to be a role model for future generations?

Better question is, do you want that ?

After all it's only because assholes like you that wanted to take him down that future generations will know about his private behavior..

I know you can comprehend this. And yet itwon't even scratch the surface of your bubble.

marcus says

thinking that ones sexual behavior is none of my business, to my approving of their behavior.

Yup you have a blind spot on this. If he is willing to violate his contract with his wife what makes you think he wouldn't do the same to the American people? He was the one who repealed Gramm Steagall and jacked up the CRA and would have passed some sort of healthcare and and only balanced the budget because of a Republican Congress, etc etc etc

Call it Crazy says

It IS our business, as it goes against the moral character of the guy who leads the most powerful country on the planet. He gets held to a higher standard, like it or not! It also plays into the "Lead by Example"... Do you want a guy this this low level of moral character to be a role model for future generations?

Let's not forget that he is Commander in Chief. He is in supreme command of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, it is not unreasonable that he be held to the same standards as any officer in the military. Just look at how the military feels about adultery among its officers. If caught, there are consequences. Why wouldn't the Commander in Chief be held to the same standard?

And, whether anyone feels that it's none of anyone's business what he does in his personal life... that's not an excuse to lie under oath. Sorry, those are the rules. When you are under oath, you have to tell the truth. A lawyer, of all people, should know that. You don't get to lie because you don't like the question.

Believe it or not, I agree that his adultery is none of anyone's business. I thought the whole thing was ridiculous and an issue that should have only been between him and his wife. I absolutely thought it was the "right" using his adultery to stir-up a lynching. But once he was under oath, he, especially as an officer of the court, had a duty to tell the truth, however distasteful I might have found the questioning.

This goes to character. Irrespective of the line of questioning, he is not empowered with the right to decide which questions are worth answering, truthfully... Just as Hillary isn't empowered with the right to decide which laws are worth following.

oh crap, that is definitely a bug. sorry, will fix today.

ok, now you can have ! in links and linkification will still work. example:

http://patrick.net/misc/And+that+was+THAT!

for the person whose hand we all grant the capability of creating an Extinction Level Event on demand, it is all about trust.
if he had gotten written permission from hillary granting him porking rights with monica, the trust pact with the american public would not have been shattered.

indigenous says

Yup you have a blind spot on this. If he is willing to violate his contract with his wife what makes you think he wouldn't do the same to the American people?

Him having sex with interns is on no consequence-two consenting adults. For all you know, maybe Hillary had a threesome. Him coming on camera and lying to the whole country-now that is a piece of work. Him signing NAFTA, repealing Glass-Steagall and then claiming to be a middle class hero and against globalization-that takes the cake.

Hillary is the same. Her saying after the Presidency, she was worried about mortgages and regular people things-yeah right.

The most shocking thing here is that the red team cheerleaders are enraged over the democrats' actions, while the blue team cheerleaders know it was Bushs' fault, you stupid right wingers

errc says

the red team cheerleaders ... while the blue team cheerleaders

And the false equivalence preachers chant "both sides are the same" while masturbating in front of a full-length mirror and feeling superior to everyone.

The fluffy bunnies are in the meadow, God's in His heaven, and all's right with the world!

marcus says

It's not a witch hunt. The federal records act is clear. Hillary broke the law

Before you get too excited about this, you might want to realize that the law you're talking about went in to effect way after she left the state department.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/03/hillary-email-scandal-not-so-fast.htmlbob2356 says

I note this idiot can't come up with the law and rules involved. I'll help him and you. The federal records act was passed in 1950. It clearly states that any records, including ALL correspondence, that relate to official duties must be archived REGARDLESS OF FORM. Emails were specifically included under president clinton ironically. The state departments own handbook explicitly included emails in 1995. The guidelines are very specific. If you use a private email you must print it out and have it preserved or forward it to an official email account.

Is there any part of this that's to complicated for you to understand? I'll be glad to go back and type more slowly.

Hillary is sleazy but she's not stupid, This was carefully thought out. Hillary used private email to avoid having any of her email subject to searches under the freedom of information act. The odds of actually getting all the emails from her in the public record are exactly zero.

She's unfit for office.

The difference between Democrats and wingnuts is that they'll actually admit that someone on their team is a turd.

That's one reason why a lot of people dislike Democrats: if they won't lie (as hard as conservatives) for their own team, how can we expect them to fight for our country?

Look at Bush: Strong 'n' Wrong - Never Apologize. That tickles certain neurons in the lizard brain.

Can you show me one instance in the history of time where any democrat was ever critical of one of their own?

No, i didnt think so. I get it, you love your futbol and hate the other team. You feel better about yourself, because not only are you smarter than the stupid right wingers, but your also smarter than the politically agnostic because those idiots think both teams are the same. Cool story, bro

errc says

I get it, you love your futbol and hate the other team

You can vary your chanting, if you like.

For those who don't have the time or inclination to pay attention to anything, there are similar thought-terminating cliches one can use:

- "It is what it is"
- "Correlation does not imply causation"
- "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal"
- "They would say that, wouldn't they"
- "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

bob2356 says

Emails were specifically included under president clinton ironically. The state departments own handbook explicitly included emails in 1995. The guidelines are very specific. If you use a private email you must print it out and have it preserved or forward it to an official email account.

Is there any part of this that's to complicated for you to understand? I'll be glad to go back and type more slowly.

"If you use a private email you must print it out and have it preserved or forward it to an official email account."

So, this makes it pretty much up to the individual to archive it. Right ?

It's great when someone makes the counter argument themself, proving their point of view is totally fucked up, and then finishes their rant (which they themself just proved was retarded) with:something like:

bob2356 says

Is there any part of this that's to complicated for you to understand? I'll be glad to go back and type more slowly.

HydroCabron says

admit that someone on their team is a turd.

You admit that you are a turd?

Call it Crazy says

On June 20, 2007, Hillary Clinton complained about Bush officials shredding the US Constitution by having secret email accounts.

So, she was smart enough to recognize the problem in 2007.

Call it Crazy says

Two years later, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a secret email account and secret servers in her basement for all of her official business.

In 2009, she isn't aware that this could be a problem.

Makes perfect sense.

It's so awesome we have the Benghazi committee looking into it.
They have such a great track record of producing....ummm....

Easy question to answer: How many previous Secretaries had their own email accounts? From what I've heard, Powell did not use the system, Condi did not use email at all, and only Kerry uses the assigned account.

I'm thinking that future political criminals on the right must be pretty torn about how much of a big deal they want to make about this. Watch for the result of this, because it's precendent for the future.

Are there laws about text messages ? Files can be attached to text messages.

marcus says

"If you use a private email you must print it out and have it preserved or forward it to an official email account."

So, this makes it pretty much up to the individual to archive it. Right ?

Which hillary didn't. Pretty hard to believe someone that claims to be an educator doesn't understand the meaning of the word MUST. The law is clear, I'm sorry your worship of a sleazebag like hillary means you can't understand it.

So when does this probe widen? Every public official who has used private email for anything possible related to government business, must be rounded up. Jeb Bush runs a private server, hosting accounts for family and friends. This could the tip of a very big iceberg. We'll need to build some more prisons.

bob2356 says

marcus says

"If you use a private email you must print it out and have it preserved or forward it to an official email account."

So, this makes it pretty much up to the individual to archive it. Right ?

Which hillary didn't. Pretty hard to believe someone that claims to be an educator doesn't understand the meaning of the word MUST.

I guess when you're making up your facts and you're only on here to insult people you don't know (and when your IQ is way below average) you just can't help yourself.

Like you, I've seen a few stories on this. But unlike you, I'm objective and don't have a huge hatred for the CLintons, so I actually don't know about how the law will eventually effect her on this. But here are some things that I think I do know, from the small amount I've read on this (infinitely more than you have gotten from Fox news, or the Drudge report).

1) The word 'must' archive has been used. But it doesn't say when.

2) Last fall when the records law was updated, Archived email records were requested from Hilary and other past secretaries that used their own email accounts. Hilary provided records at that time. She also provided Benghazi related emails back at the time of that oriinal investigation.

3) It's 2014/2015. People have hard drives and back ups of data such as emails. SO if a regulation says you must archive (with printed copies) but one instead archives on a hard drive,(able to print copies at any time) this does not seem like a big problem to me. Especially if the law does not explicitly state a time frame in which private emails must be printed.

Excerpt:

“In the process of updating our records management — this is something that’s sort of ongoing given technology and the changes — we reached out to all of the former secretaries of state to ask them to provide any records they have,” she said.

Clinton was the only former secretary to send back e-mail records in response to the department’s request, Harf said.

She also said that the department has “no indications” that Clinton used personal e-mail for classified information.

“She had multiple other ways of communicating in a classified manner, including assistants or staff members printing classified documents for her, secure phone calls, or secure videoconferences,” Harf said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-use-of-personal-e-mail-at-state-dept-violated-obama-directive/2015/03/03/454d7938-c1b9-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html

This may be bad for Clinton politically. But I doubt it will be that bad. If the end result is to tighten up rules about government emails, then maybe that's a good thing. But I think the typicla Fox news watcher has no idea what the state of the art is in communication of sensitive information. They're just on another one of their stupid witch hunts.

IS this the best dirt they're going to be able to trump up against Clinton ?

This why we should vote Republican, they have never even seen an email.

North Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is considering a 2016 White House run, but apparently won’t have to worry about his bid getting sidetracked with an email controversy like Hillary Clinton’s has.

Graham, a Republican, acknowledged Sunday that he has never sent an email, either on his congressional or private account.

“I don't email,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “You can have every email I have ever sent. I've never sent one.”