Clinton emails

[Saunders]

 

 

 

Basically, if she wasn't Hillary Clinton, she'd have been nailed for it.

Or if she was Colin Powell.

 

Or Condoleezza Rice.

"But he did it too" is a poor defense for what happened.

 

Besides, those aren't apples to apples comparison's, but I'd be fine with going after them too.

Most republicans aren't fine with it. Otherwisw they'd be going after them too.

 

Well, Rice never did anything, so going after her is pointless.

 

Conversation about the email controversy often pivots around statements that “other secretaries of state” regularly used private email for official business and kept poor records of those emails.

 

But this report says that only two secretaries of state fall into those categories: Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell.

 

The inspector general looked at all five secretaries of state in the digital age.

It found that email was rarely employed at the agency under Secretary Madeleine Albright (1997-2001) and that she herself never used it. As for Secretary Condoleezza Rice (2005-2009), the inspector general concluded she did not use either personal or department email accounts for State Department business.

 

Did Rice send classified emails on a private account? No. Did she conduct business on a personal account? Also, no, according to the report. The State Department said in February that some aides to Rice received classified information on email, but those were aides, not Rice, and the emails were received by, not sent from, private accounts.

 

Current Secretary John Kerry, the report says, uses an agency account for State Department business with infrequent use of personal email when someone contacts him using that account.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/5-things-you-might-have-missed-in-the-clinton-email-report/

 

[Saunders]

 

 

 

Basically, if she wasn't Hillary Clinton, she'd have been nailed for it.

Or if she was Colin Powell.

 

Or Condoleezza Rice.

 

"But he did it too" is a poor defense for what happened.

 

Besides, those aren't apples to apples comparison's, but I'd be fine with going after them too.

 

That wasn't a defense. You said if it wasn't Hillary Clinton, she'd have been nailed for it. But Colin Powell isn't Hillary Clinton, nor is Condi Rice. Neither have so much as been called to Capitol Hill about their use of private email.

 

I'm with you - I think Clinton knew what she was doing and it's shady as hell - possibly criminal. But she isn't going to be prosecuted for this like Joe Schmoe because politicians - like Clinton, like Powell, like Rice - are allowed to skate by on a different set of rules than you and me.

 

Rice never did anything wrong with email, see the link above. As for Powell, I'm sure he did break a bunch of protocols, and while infosec was way different and less secure 15 years ago, it's still no excuse.

 

BUT, neither of those are running for President either.

[knapplc]

Rice's staffers did.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice-aides-powell-also-got-classified-info-personal-emails-n511181

[TGHusker]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/fbi-probing-new-clinton-emails.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews

 

It is hitting the fan now. FBI reopens investigation. I wonder what prompted this - maybe the $500k 'donation- bribe' to the fbi deputy's wife as revealed in wikileaks.

Maybe the FBI has a mutiny brewing over the directors handling and it is time to come clean. Who knows. But this is a bombshell 10 days or so before the election.

[knapplc]

When is Colin Powell's hearing? Or is it OK to only investigate Secs of State who violate those protocols if they later run for president?

[knapplc]

But this is a bombshell 10 days or so before the election.

Maybe wait for the actual emails to come out before declaring it a "bombshell."

 

[Saunders]

No idea what's going on with Powell. If they've got a case, go for it. I'm sure Hillary would pardon him anyway since he's backing her. They're all part of the same machine anyway.

[knapplc]

No idea what's going on with Powell. If they've got a case, go for it. I'm sure Hillary would pardon him anyway since he's backing her.

And as I've said all along, Obama will pardon Clinton so guilty or not, she'll never see a penalty for this. They operate under different rules than us.

 

Trump, while not the solution to America's problems, is indicative of the growing schism between those in power and the rest of us. Trump's run shows that people are tired of these separate sets of rules. It'll come to a head sooner or later.

[Moiraine]

 

No idea what's going on with Powell. If they've got a case, go for it. I'm sure Hillary would pardon him anyway since he's backing her.

And as I've said all along, Obama will pardon Clinton so guilty or not, she'll never see a penalty for this. They operate under different rules than us.

 

Trump, while not the solution to America's problems, is indicative of the growing schism between those in power and the rest of us. Trump's run shows that people are tired of these separate sets of rules. It'll come to a head sooner or later.

 

I'm all for it coming to a head. With a leader who's not amoral.

[Saunders]

 

No idea what's going on with Powell. If they've got a case, go for it. I'm sure Hillary would pardon him anyway since he's backing her.

And as I've said all along, Obama will pardon Clinton so guilty or not, she'll never see a penalty for this. They operate under different rules than us.

 

Trump, while not the solution to America's problems, is indicative of the growing schism between those in power and the rest of us. Trump's run shows that people are tired of these separate sets of rules. It'll come to a head sooner or later.

 

Agreed 100%. It's the same "good ol' boy" network that's been in existence forever. Sure, I'm jaded, but it blew my mind when people buy into political rhetoric ala "hope and change" and think it's real.

[Saunders]

 

 

No idea what's going on with Powell. If they've got a case, go for it. I'm sure Hillary would pardon him anyway since he's backing her.

And as I've said all along, Obama will pardon Clinton so guilty or not, she'll never see a penalty for this. They operate under different rules than us.

 

Trump, while not the solution to America's problems, is indicative of the growing schism between those in power and the rest of us. Trump's run shows that people are tired of these separate sets of rules. It'll come to a head sooner or later.

 

I'm all for it coming to a head. With a leader who's not amoral.

 

Well, you're gonna have to wait at least 4 years for that. We've got one who lacks moral code, and the other who bases theirs on popular polling.

[knapplc]

Sure, I'm jaded, but it blew my mind when people buy into political rhetoric ala "hope and change" and think it's real.

"Hope and Change" isn't materially different from "Make America Great Again." People have felt like the system is broken for generations, and have voted for change for generations. Obama had his hippy trippy poster and Trump has his hat.

[Saunders]

 

Sure, I'm jaded, but it blew my mind when people buy into political rhetoric ala "hope and change" and think it's real.

"Hope and Change" isn't materially different from "Make America Great Again." People have felt like the system is broken for generations, and have voted for change for generations. Obama had his hippy trippy poster and Trump has his hat.

 

Yup, and unfortunately people believe it. I posted on Facebook about the California reserve guys being sued by the government to get their enlistment bonuses back, and had family members replying saying that Trump would fix it since he cares about veterans. The same guy who doesn't pay his employees and contractors.

 

[zoogs]

I'm OK with incremental change. It's frustrating, slow, and imperfect, but we've also come a long way as a nation over the course of our history. Every generation will fight its battles that later ones look back on and think, "it took how long to get there?"

 

Obama has been fairly remarkable in his aspirations. He's also a product of, and works within, a system that by design is resistant to change. He's both barreled ahead and come up short, in different areas and depending on whom you ask. We as a country are also changing. Remember in 2012, when Obama was still supposedly undergoing a gradual "evolution" on his views on gay marriage? When Biden came out in support and then had his team try to walk it back as not a break with the White House -- ultimately forcing Obama's hand later that week?

 

I didn't. Sitting here in 2016, a world where that was possible seems so far gone.

 

All things considered, I'd rather have incremental change with leaders we all know are imperfect but at least decent and trying, and a populace that continues to scrutinize and hold them accountable (and this is really key), than the empowerment of reactionary backwash. Stumbling forward is a slow, awkward process. Tumbling backwards is something that happens at lightning speed.

[TGHusker]

 

Sure, I'm jaded, but it blew my mind when people buy into political rhetoric ala "hope and change" and think it's real.

"Hope and Change" isn't materially different from "Make America Great Again." People have felt like the system is broken for generations, and have voted for change for generations. Obama had his hippy trippy poster and Trump has his hat.

 

I'm afraid a Trump presidency will bring far more than incremental change. He could take us downward on the corkscrew real fast - esp foreign relation wise. His mouth could get us into big trouble. Domestically, if he gets his way with tariffs we could be stepping into the elevator shaft wtout the elevator.