Hillary: How could you be so stupid?

Almost 8 years ago, I was elected to my town's school board -- pretty much the lowest level of public office that exists. Even at that level, our training addressed the fact that board-related emails are public records subject to an Open Public Records Act request. There was no prohibition against using a private email account, but it was made very clear that doing so was stupid. We would have to carefully archive relevant emails, and would be responsible for retrieval efforts and expenses. But if we used the school district's email system, archiving and retrieval would be taken care of for us.

I don't know what training Hillary received, but she is smart enough to know better than this.
 
NJlonghorn said:
Almost 8 years ago, I was elected to my town's school board -- pretty much the lowest level of public office that exists. Even at that level, our training addressed the fact that board-related emails are public records subject to an Open Public Records Act request. There was no prohibition against using a private email account, but it was made very clear that doing so was stupid. We would have to carefully archive relevant emails, and would be responsible for retrieval efforts and expenses. But if we used the school district's email system, archiving and retrieval would be taken care of for us.

I would think today most public officials would receive extensive orientation / training about email usage, risks, problems, etc. HRC knew exactly what she was doing. he is smart enough to know better than this.
Click to expand...

Of course she knew better, this was done to hide her activities. The Clinton's always have a plan / strategy to beat the rap / the scandals and go after their enemies that brought it about. In this case, Ms. Clinton may have bitten off far more than she can chew.... we will see.
 
Once again, for security reasons it is absurd that things were done this way, but the feeding frenzy is unfair to Hillary C. The reports that I am seeing, and I have no idea whether they are true or not, are that Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell each used personal email before her. If we assume that Hillary is "hiding something" we must assume the same of Rice and Powell. My suspicion is that Cohen, Gates, Rumsfeld, Gates, Panetta and Hagel are keeping their mouths shut right now for a reason. These people do not understand internet security, and until very recently security issues seem to have received insufficient attention. Pretty horrifying, but true.
 
Did Rice and Powell have 55,000 pages of e-mails?

The OPSEC cybersecurity enviornment was markedly different in 2000 then it was in 2008.
 
That someone is actually trying to defend this insane ***** is beyond me.

She is unfit for public office, and anybody that says she is intelligent is the dumbest person in the world!!!
 
If I didn't read the poster defending Hillary by suggesting Powell or Rice were "hiding " something too I wouldn't have believed anyone would try such a silly deflections from what Hillary did.
Here is an NBC article that might help people realizer what she did is beyond anything done before.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ele...mail-use-differed-other-top-officials-n316611

And really? Do you think there is merit in using the ol " but but they did it too" excuse?
I want to remember that excuse.
 
Interesting article. Powell used private email. "He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State." The Condi portion is carefully worded to avoid the minefield: "she did not 'routinely' use her personal email to contact staffers." So it was not routine, but it was done. It also says that she "did not use her personal e-mail for official communication as Secretary." What is official? What is not? Was Condi only using emailing ex cathedra? How do we know that this former staffer even knows? Will you take their word for it if Clinton staffers come forth and say that none of the emails were "official communications?"

So the difference between Condi and Clinton is that Clinton did it "routinely", Condi less often. That distinction may matter to you, probably for partisan reasons.

What about Eric Holder? The article says: "Attorney General Eric Holder regularly uses his government account." Did you notice that he too failed to say that he "always" used the government account? Looks like he is dancing in the minefield too.

The "they did it too" excuse is nothing of the kind. You insist on assigning nefarious motive to Clinton, when you don't for Condi or Powell. "They did it to" demonstrates that this was not uncommon among people of good will in government, then. That doesn't mean it was smart. I can envision your argument if the shoe were on the other foot: "My guy did it routinely, your guy only did it when she wanted to hide the email."

Think about the number of people that received emails from her and sent emails to the address. They all knew she was using the private account. There was no effort to hide the fact, it was ignorance. I don't think Condi was doing anything underhanded, nor was Powell, nor Holder, nor was Clinton; it was cyber ignorance, by all these people. Hopefully the next generation of politicians will have more savvy. That is one of the reasons that I will likely not support Hillary in her presidential run - we need a new generation of leaders. If she gets the nomination, I might vote Republican in the general election, but not because of this "scandal" or the BENGHAZI!! nonsense.

This newest feeding frenzy will continue to feed your over-the-top rage, however. Enjoy it.
 
towersniper said:
Interesting article. Powell used private email. "He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State." The Condi portion is carefully worded to avoid the minefield: "she did not 'routinely' use her personal email to contact staffers." So it was not routine, but it was done. It also says that she "did not use her personal e-mail for official communication as Secretary." What is official? What is not? Was Condi only using emailing ex cathedra? How do we know that this former staffer even knows? Will you take their word for it if Clinton staffers come forth and say that none of the emails were "official communications?"

So the difference between Condi and Clinton is that Clinton did it "routinely", Condi less often. That distinction may matter to you, probably for partisan reasons.

What about Eric Holder? The article says: "Attorney General Eric Holder regularly uses his government account." Did you notice that he too failed to say that he "always" used the government account? Looks like he is dancing in the minefield too.

The "they did it too" excuse is nothing of the kind. You insist on assigning nefarious motive to Clinton, when you don't for Condi or Powell. "They did it to" demonstrates that this was not uncommon among people of good will in government, then. That doesn't mean it was smart. I can envision your argument if the shoe were on the other foot: "My guy did it routinely, your guy only did it when she wanted to hide the email."

Think about the number of people that received emails from her and sent emails to the address. They all knew she was using the private account. There was no effort to hide the fact, it was ignorance. I don't think Condi was doing anything underhanded, nor was Powell, nor Holder, nor was Clinton; it was cyber ignorance, by all these people. Hopefully the next generation of politicians will have more savvy. That is one of the reasons that I will likely not support Hillary in her presidential run - we need a new generation of leaders. If she gets the nomination, I might vote Republican in the general election, but not because of this "scandal" or the BENGHAZI!! nonsense.

This newest feeding frenzy will continue to feed your over-the-top rage, however. Enjoy it.
Click to expand...
I guess it also depends on what the meaning of the word "is" means.
 
Exactly. Condi, Hillary, Powell, and Holder are all lying sacks of excrement! Seriously, though. Get used to it. Condi is a politician, Holder is a politician, they are carefully parsing their words through their spokes models.
 
Glass houses, folks

ATLANTA — Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to catch heat for her extensive use of a private email account to conduct official business while she was secretary of state. But the Democrats’ 2016 presidential favorite isn’t the only White House hopeful whose transparency has come into question.

Several current and former governors who are considering a presidential run have found ways to delay or prevent public scrutiny of their communications while in office. That includes Republicans who have criticized their potential Democratic rival.

-snip-

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, both Republicans, also criticized Clinton, even though they each used private emails when they held the post as their state’s top executive.

A “patchwork” of federal and state public information laws was written “for the era of paper records” that now “aren’t serving us well” in the digital age, said Charles Davis, journalism and communications dean at the University of Georgia and an expert on public information laws.

-snip-

Here’s a closer look at how some of the potential 2016 candidates have handled access issues:

JEB BUSH

The former Florida governor, a Republican, made a splash recently by releasing thousands of emails from his two terms, a move that was required under Florida law. Bush also used a private email account, although not exclusively, and he acknowledged that while in office. Like the former first lady, Bush owned the server. And, just as with Clinton, there are questions over the methods he and his associates used to decide which emails to disclose.

-snip-

BOBBY JINDAL

The Republican governor, who campaigned on a platform of providing more transparency in government, uses a private email account to communicate with immediate staff. Those conversations are exempt from public disclosure under a sweeping public records exemption granted to the governor’s office under state law.

In 2012, top Jindal aides and some cabinet agency officials used private emails to craft a public relations strategy for imposing $523 million in Medicaid cuts, but the communications did not turn up in an Associated Press records request. Instead, an administration official revealed them anonymously.

-snip-

MARTIN O’MALLEY

The Democratic former governor of Maryland used private emails and his personal cellphone to conduct state business. But his administration also turned over related documents as part of public records requests, sometimes leading to criticism.

-snip-

RICK PERRY

In 2013, amid the then-Texas governor’s feud over leadership at the University of Texas system, a Democratic lawmaker’s request of university records turned up emails Perry sent from a previously unknown account identified as “R P.” In one exchange, the governor used the account to blast as “charlatans and peacocks” critics of his appointees to the university system’s governing board.

The Texas attorney general has determined that emails from private accounts are public if they concern state business.

The Perry administration, meanwhile, scrubbed the state email servers every seven days. Perry’s successor, Greg Abbott, took office in January and has since widened that frequency to every 30 days.

SCOTT WALKER

Kukowsi, the spokeswoman for Wisconsin’s Republican governor, touted the state’s “strong open records laws” and her boss’s “very specific policies in place in his office” to ensure compliance.

But Walker previously ran Milwaukee County as chief executive using a private email system, which Walker and aides used to discuss government business, campaign fundraising and politics. Two of the aides were eventually convicted for campaigning on government time as part of an investigation that resulted in disclosure of thousands of emails generated on the initially secret system.
​
https://www.centralmaine.com/2015/03/07/beyond-clinton-many-2016-hopefuls-have-used-private-email/

As suggested by the linked article, the laws need to catch up with modern communications technology.
 
Jones, you must be a real believer.

The Russians or Chinese don't care about Jindal or Perry. And sending e-mails to advisors on non-official business...who cares. By OCC regulations all my bank e-mails are archived, but I'll e-mail my colleague from my phone if they want to grab a beer or about dog sitting.

55,000 pages and used exclusively to conduct foreign policy. It's not right, neither is "everyone else is doing it too." I know politicians will be politicians, but if you think this is par for the course I got some SOLY stock to sell you.
 
Last edited:
texas_ex2000 said:
The Russians or Chinese don't care about Jindal or Perry.
Click to expand...

I agree with the fundamental criticism or your post but do think they care about those two. Influence and regulations at the State level are often more important for their businesses than the national level. In the same vein, the Russians and Chinese care about what's going on with American business leaders.
 
Oh nooz, Obama lied again!

After claiming he learned about Hillary's email shenanigans from the news, the WH is now reporting:

But White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that Obama had personally exchanged emails with Clinton on her private account — [email protected] — and was therefore familiar with the address.
Click to expand...

Then Josh goes on to cover BO's butt as best he can. Media gobbles it all right down, I'm sure.

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-obama-traded-email-private-clinton-account-180116859--politics.html[/URL]
 
The most interesting aspect of this story is that the left wing NYT broke it. Seems that liberals are waking up to the fact that Hillary will be a weak candidate.
 
If Gowdy is correct and there are large gaps in the email traffic, they can find out who she sent emails to during that time and subpoena those, even the POTUS I suppose. All the deflection to other people is a typical response, but normally I only see that in my class full of teenagers, not the adults in the room.
 
Yesterday she had some of her butt buddies like Carville & Lanny Davis use the usual Clinton playbook responses about the emails to the media, namely blame: the vast right-wing conspiracy, George Bush, point at Sr. Gov. officials and say they had personal email accounts too, EVERYONE does it, no laws were broken, etc.

I only read a few sentences of a news crawler but evidently Hillary Rotten Clinton said during the press conference today that "no laws were broken", she used a personal email account "for convenience" and she intended to keep the server "private".

In other words I did nothing wrong, EVERYONE else does it, trust me and if you don't, then lawyer up, get a court order and come after the servers and emails I didn't turn over. Example of Fed government in secret.

BHO, come on you cannot blame him, he didn't know about it until we did, oops that was dispelled today.

So much for Obama regime transparency.
 
Last edited:
Well genius Howard Dean stated today that it was easier for the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans to hack into the State Department than a private server. Even the liberal hacks on MSNBC a laughed at that one. The Clintons are frothing at the mouth to get back into the White House after watching what Obama has gotten away with.
 
"The most interesting aspect of this story is that the left wing NYT broke it. Seems that liberals are waking up to the fact that Hillary will be a weak candidate."

Not really. I know the lovers of right wing media excuse the fact that the underlying theme of every story on Fox News and Talk Radio is "conservative smart, liberal dumb" and the aim of each broadcast it to cover the partisan conservative talking points of the day because of perceived bias in the "lamestream" or "liberal" media won't let them get their message out.
But serious media accused of left wing bias, NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, don't operate the same way. They follow professional standards, attributing opinions to quoted experts and playing it straight down the middle with the narrative. The New York Times does serious journalism that at least pays lip service to the axiom "without fear or favor." Certainly I think it true that the reporters have, for the most part but not exclusively, a liberal bias and it probably shows in their choice of stories and experts. But every good reporter loves things like sex and scandal and the ones at the New York Times are more competent than most at uncovering. Conservative media has the budget for serious reporting and could have ambitious, curious, well-educated reporters digging up facts. Instead it spends its big bucks on peroxide blondes, blowhards and conservative celebrities all hired to give us the most conservative spin on the facts every new junkie knew yesterday or last week.
 
Credible media have uncovered facts damaging the presidential aspirations of one many have considered the Democratic Heir Apparent. I don't find this surprising and I don't think it's part of any broad conspiracy. Just good journalists following facts and reporting what they find. Someone seemed amazed, and I assert it is because they are used to media that faithfully delivers the Party Line.

Do you think Fox is about uncovering news or spinning news? I think it's almost exclusively the latter. How many important investigative stories has that resource-rich organization investigated to bring facts to the limelight?
 
I learned about the story on the ultra right wing station MSNBC. Howard Dean was on with that other conservative reporter Eugene Washington. Washington just laughed about it as did every other person at the table.

The irony is that you are already on board with blaming the vast right wing conspiracy on Fox. The other DNC narrative is that Jeb did the same thing - not mentioning that he was Governor of Florida and not Sec of State.

They all spin the news. That is why I listen and judge based upon many news sources. You stick with the notion NPR is not left leaning if it makes you feel smarter.
 
By the way, I started this thread criticizing Hillary. I think I was wrong to criticize her for being "stupid" about it, since later facts have shown the move carefully calculated. I'm still very critical about the lack of transparency.
 
MSNBC is Fox of the left, not worth my time. Going from FOX to MSNBC is like interviewing a police informant willing to lie to keep his own hiney out of jail and balancing it by interviewing the defendant's best friend perhaps willing to lie to keep his buddy out of jail. You maybe have hear "two sides" to a story, but I fear we still haven't heard the truth.
 
zork said:
ahem:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...national-news-channel-and-its-not-that-close/
Click to expand...

I've seen these polls, and there's a pretty significant problem with them. Specifically, there's really only one conservative news outlet, and virtually every conservative goes to it. That's going to inflate the numbers for Fox quite a bit. Liberals have a lot of options, so their trust is dispersed a lot more.

Basically, you have "media gerrymandering."

Nevertheless, I think Crockett is being a bit too generous with the New York Times. Yes, they're going to follow professional standards, and yes, conservative media uses the mainstream media's bias as a big talking point. However, it's an effective talking point, because there's a lot of truth to it. The New York Times, NPR, and Washington Post aren't going to quote bogus "experts" (at least not intentionally). However, they aren't necessarily going to follow a narrative "straight down the middle." I also don't lump those sources together. Specifically, I think the Washington Post is a lot fairer than the New York Times. They still give Democrats the benefit of the doubt, but the Times is pretty partisan. You don't have to read many articles in the Times to know whose side they're on.
 
Without even getting into their obviously biased news coverage, the NYTs has not endorsed a Republican for president in nearly 60 years. How can they be described as anything other than having a left wing bias?
 
I agree with Deez on the validity of those polls. CNN, MSNBC and the three networks all split the liberal vote. Unfortunately, these organizations are all biased to one side or the other even if so slightly. What scares me are people that listen to any one news outlet and take it as gospel.

For the record, Hillary is not stupid, she is calculating. She knew it was wrong, but also knew she is above the law and scrutiny of the American public. The media has anointed her as next POTUS for several years and she believes it.
 
UTChE96 said:
Without even getting into their obviously biased news coverage, the NYTs has not endorsed a Republican for president in nearly 60 years. How can they be described as anything other than having a left wing bias?
Click to expand...

About the closest they ever came was in 1988, when they at least acknowledged that it was a close call and did manage to say a few non-hateful things about George Bush. In fact, they described both he and Dukakis as "good men," which I think is a reasonably accurate description. Dukakis was a decent guy. He was just too liberal to be president but of course, not too liberal for the Times.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/timeline/dukakis-1988.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top