General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Does anyone really believe the whole email thing won't be long forgotten by the primaries?
Do we really think this primary is going to be decided by Hillary Clinton's choice of email account?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)It will keep coming back up. Let's play a game. How many Clinton scandals can you name in thirty seconds? The sad part is that any number you name is potentially accurate.
So yes the emails will be an issue. Especially if any emails should have been searched or turned over for a FOIA request. It will continue the image of the entitled rules don't apply that the majority has. The big reason this isn't getting more media attention is not because of lack of truth or applicable laws or policies or directives. It's simply put too tame for a Clinton scandal. There isn't any sex yet.
But one thing to consider. This early in the campaign and the Republicans have had years to gather dirt. If they're leading with this, they have more, potentially a lot more in a drawer waiting.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)yet?
LMAO
You are too much!
It's not a scandal. This whole thing is so stupid.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I can probably a dozen so called Clinton scandals yet Bill Clinton remains America's most popular living president:
and Hilary is one of the most admired women in the world:
and she leads all her Republican rivals in the polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html
This is why she's got to address it directly, openly, and definitively, as soon as possible.
ffr
(22,668 posts)wear the same shoe pair color and on some mornings when she awakens, her hair is a mess.
How unfit to be president is that?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)What is she hiding? 
Divernan
(15,480 posts)The incident may not be decisive, but it can have a varying degree of impact, depending upon the content of the emails sent and received. Very detailed discussion of the topic this weekend on the Diane Rehm show on PBS. It was pointed out that the 55,000 emails were self-selected by HRC's staff, raising questions about the standard used to select what to release and what to hide. It was said the only way to put the issue to rest is for HRC to turn over her server to the state department or a trusted 3rd party for review. It was agreed it may take months for the State Dept. to review the voluminous number of emails already released.
That reminded me of a popular ploy of corporations dragged into court and having their records supoenaed by prosecutors or plaintiffs looking for smoking guns. The corporate lawyers would bury incriminating records in mountains of documents, called burying them in paper. Literally, they would broadly construe requests for discovery and deliver truckfuls of boxes of documents.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)He's the one who turned over zero emails because he'd already dumped them.
But he says he's happy to answer any questions.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Aren't you similarly convinced that Powell has no political future?
That's the problem with the them first meme. None of them are running for the Presidency. In fact some called for impeachment for the RNC email server scandal. I'm sure you'll agree that best case scenario with the them first plan is we look just as corrupt which means another election where our selling point is we suck, but they suck worse.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)And like Hillary, he's turned them over. Why aren't you calling for a forensic investigation of his, too?
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Search to your hearts content. I have not called for forensic anything for anyone. I point out the perception that the average voter will see. I call on our side to be better and not settle for the we suck less than them mentality.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)for a forensic investigation of Hillary's computers.
You ignored the initial post that had prompted me to write what I did.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I pointed out the folly of your argument. The truthful point that W, Powell, and Rumsfeld, doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because they aren't running for President. The average voter, even the average person isn't going to see that argument as even slightly convincing. Best case they decide both parties are overflowing with corruption. Worst case they decide that the ones who did it first were wrong. The ones who did it second were really wrong.
Either way the argument does not get us more voters. Voters we desperately need not just for the White House but the Senate.
That was, and is my point. Using the we suck but they suck more argument that has rarely worked is asinine. Starting out with it this early is worse than asinine. Surely you see that. Or have you forgotten the horrific losses we suffered in 2014 when our plan was to pray that the Republicans obligingly committed suicide as they did in 2012 with the incredibly stupid real rape quote. Something like that is similar to winning the lottery. It might happen once, but you can't base your whole plan on it.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)They're only asking for the 50000 emails so they can go on yet another fishing expedition. It's what they do.
But just for the record, you keep ignoring the fact that Jeb Bush has the same email issue. The Rethugs won't be able to make a huge deal of this once he's the candidate.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)It will be Walker or Rand. Slight advantage to Walker, but Rand has a lot of populist issues that could well garner turnout in the early primaries. Oh, and the Kentucky GOP has decided to go with a Caucus this one time instead of a primary election so Rand can be on the ballot for the Senate, but still get the delegates for the Presidential nomination.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)only 10% of the public ones he received. It would be nice to really see all that Jeb wrote, including the napkins in restaurants. (If you don't get that, then you aren't from Florida).
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Honest question, I don't know the answer. Anyone who does that exercises poor judgment.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Numerous govt officials have been rightfully prosecuted for the same offense.
Personally, I agree with many of Hillary's supporters here that she is WAY too smart to be caught committing a felony based on a security breach - as SoS no less! - and no presidential candidate could reasonably expect the American public to overlook such a foolish blunder. So I wouldn't expect anything to come of the whole email kerfuffle and it should blow over, absolutely.
Like you say, however, more substantive issues, like Hillary's IWR vote and her strong propensity too cosy up to Wall Street fatcats, is not so easily disregarded.
- There's a lot of screaming. A lot of make-up. Enemies are dispatched, the victor is deified and later worshiped to propitiate the anger of this new god.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)things will be interesting
for a long time
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)'can' release. So expect this to be 'back' several months down the road, even if it fades in between.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)How do you think we know what Chelsea's email alias was, or what President Clinton's email was, or that there were emails about Chelsea's wedding.
There's nothing there. It's over. The most that can be said now is "maybe" some are missing. Something that will never be able to be disproved to tin-foil hat types.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Either someone there is saying something stupid, or your assertion is somehow incomplete or wrong.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)They are vetting again, to now determine what the public can/should see.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)What is most interesting, is that NONE of Hillary's emails to or from anyone else with a "scandal" attached have surfaced over the last 6 years. Why not? Maybe folks don't think wedding cake recipes are related to Benghazi!
Out of 55,000 emails surely that must be ONE that someone received on sent to Hillary that is just awful.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Sancho
(9,067 posts)As I understand it, those are both what she sent and received - not pages. No exact count has been published that I've seen.
None was classified or secret - all was routine business. Secret material was not sent over regular email.
Email was archived by both Google and McAffee a few years ago.
Email was turned over to the Senate committees last summer - almost a year ago. They don't need to ask for it again, because they already have what they asked for previously.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Sancho
(9,067 posts)So there is nothing there. Her staff reported a long time ago that secret stuff went a different route. Should text messages, audio recordings also be released to the public? What's the difference? Has there been a single email released from anyone who received or sent an email to Hillary leaked? At this point, there is nothing to waste time on...
Response to Sancho (Reply #62)
InAbLuEsTaTe This message was self-deleted by its author.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)On what basis are you making that assertion? Please refrain, unless you have facts to back it up, which you don't.
Try to be fair; Hillary certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt, at least until the facts suggest otherwise.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)it will still come back again in the general election, in the form of attack ads.
Wella
(1,827 posts).
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)IF Hillary gets the nomination.
I fully expect her primary opponents to hammer her on this and for damn sure the Republicans will IF Hillary gets the nomination and expect this to stick with the average voter.
Vinca
(50,255 posts)Every other word during the campaign will be "email" . . . interchanged with "Benghazi." I have a totally insane fantasy that involves Clinton doing this all on purpose and planting long, heartfelt speeches about love of country and similar things in her email. (Fantasy, I said.) Can you imagine the look on Trey Gowdy's puss if he finally obtained the "lost emails" and they turned out to be a patriotic screed of epic proportions?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)will be people who are not going to vote for her anyway.
Unless there is some dramatic revelation, this is a non-issue.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)information gatekeeper and be trusted to provide the government and people what they will, huh?
Love the fuck transparency and accountability, let the TeaPubliKlan criminals continue to hide and manipulate so we can too platform.
I just wish folks could circle the wagons without taking a dump on the whole concepts of data integrity, transparency, and accountability and the very validity of laws passed toward such aims since Clinton stepped down but instead seem hell bent on destroying the very concepts in order to avoid any semblance of color of impropriety for this one politician and transfer that trust that she hasn't manipulated data to any an all now and forever it seems to me.
Apparently it wasn't illegal at the time but was less than desirable and appropriate is a bridge too far for many so now it is back to the wild west.
You are hilarious! Are you pushing the Benghazi scandal too?
alc
(1,151 posts)Voters won't remember specific issues and won't even care if they were true, made up, over-hyped, or some mix.
At this point it's not so much voters as donors that matter. How much do they want to give if they aren't sure what else may come up - possibly during the primaries or general? And, can they trust that they'll get what they paid for if they do donate big? Will other things come up during her term to keep her from getting things done? will repub hatred be so big that they fight everything she tries like with Obama? Or has she already promised the opposite to another big donor?
It's going to cost A LOT to become the next president. Big donors need to have the email account forgotten or adequately explained to them very soon.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...with assurances that Clinton's e-mail account passed Executive muster, or an admission that it was ignored. I think the expiration of this story could come before the election, but Clinton and the White House have left it in a holding pattern.
Their responses so far have been half-assed. There's little the can do to silence the Right, but they're not doing it.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The White House doesn't want any part of this. They're saying it's her problem, and seem annoyed that she's screwing around more with the President's claims about 'transparency'.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)The president's already claimed to have issued guidance, but whether or not State ever complied and what the White House did about it are clearly things they don't want to discuss. That will never do a goddamned thing to lay the matter to rest. Do Clinton and the White House believe that the Right will just give up? No; they're praying that most voters will get bored and forget about the key questions.
That's half-assing.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)for what it's worth, here's the President's comment.
"the fact that she is putting them forward will allow us to make sure that people have the information they need."
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Sure he can. Did State respond as required? Certifying compliance or not? Was any further action taken? Why or why not?
This could have been made a lot clearer well before now.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)The guidelines mentioned specify 30-day and 120-day requirements. If the White House says State complied, Sec. Clinton is largely exonerated. If State didn't, and if the White House failed to follow up to ensure compliance, blame is murkier, and further questions should be asked.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)The requirements came after she had left office.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4530138/state-department-spokesman-marie-harf-hillary-clinton-emails
Orsino
(37,428 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)directing them to draft a plan to improve record keeping and record management.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Were these guidelines followed? Did the Executive Branch ever folliow up?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)new guidelines, I believe in August or September of 2014. And the President signed the new act in the fall of 2014.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)During Clinton's tenure as SecState, there were 30-day and 120-day requirements for certifying methods. If those guidelines were followed, no doubt the back-and-forth could have contributed to the new policy last November.
I want to know what the Executive Branch thought about what was discovered in the 2011-2013 period. Was The White House ultimately satisfied by methods in use at State?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)complied with the time frame directed in the memo.
You could also ask the White House if they were satisfied. I can't answer for them, but I imagine they were pleased with updating guidelines to include modern means of communication.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)The White House could be assuring us that the methods were known. Instead, we get the president saying he didn't know that his cabinet chief was using private e-mail, years after this all should have been hammered out.
RKP5637
(67,102 posts)was once a gray area is now less gray. The republicans are using it as a tactic, poisoning the well, the primacy principle, etc. ... keep saying something long enough, right/wrong, indifferent, and eventually the masses will believe it as a detractor from real issues and to discredit the individual it is aimed at. The republicans are experts in psychological warfare to undermine and discredit candidates. Often MSM enjoys it too, and the profits from the game.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I think the folks who decided 'now was the time' to break things are shooting to try and prevent her from even announcing she'll run.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)if Hillary decides to run.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)nominate her and there will be nothing but discussion of her long history, any issue you may actually care about you can forget it
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)people won't remember individual events, but they will remember some sort of vague impression that Clinton was sketchy when she ran the State Department.
Consider Al Gore in 2000 - despite a life long perception of being a straight shooter, all of a sudden the media and the republican noise machine declared him a serial liar. Each individual story was debunked, but the weight of all these stories created the false impression that he was a serial liar. In a way the fact that this story is coming out so early is a boon for this attack; people will forget the details, but will simply remember she did something shady with e-mail.
That's the point to this kind of story. I'm not Hillary Clinton's biggest fan, and will probably vote against her in the primary, but, we do need to be aware of this kind of gamesmanship from the media and the Republicanoids.
Bryant
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)NAH, not at all. I'm sure Republicans will give Hillary a pass, don't they always just let it go when it comes to Hillary ? After all, Bengazi didn't hardly seem to make the news at all.
her e-mail account is not the issue, the issue is keeping the private server at her house, while she has one of the highest clearance. The white house has come out and said they didn't know she had a private server, tweeting short quip responses rather than coming out and explaining the whole mess isn't helping.
hasn't Hillary already been ordained as the Democratic Party primary winner already ? Hillary was unbeatable, until Barack beat her, I'm sure she is equally unbeatable in 2016. Whats the worst that could happen? ........ just a republican House, Senate AND president.
better to "tweet this problem out", I'm sure the republicans will just let her off the hook, they usually do right ?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)This "game" of getting elected has grown tired and old. Someone telling the whole story, truthfully telling the WHOLE Story would have been so refreshing. I'm sick of "the end justifies the means" being applied as a political strategy, elections are won, and the people get screwed, both ways by both parties.
if she has been keeping a private sever to capture her level of clearance e-mail, then she should be forced the fuck out.
if she hasn't, then whomever is saying she is, should be forced the fuck out.
honesty isn't even expected by most anymore, just the perception of honesty is enough to satisfy some. I'm sick of it, the truth is the truth, half a truth is full on bullshit.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)The idealists bemoan that Candidate X is compromising on too many positions; for the sake of pragmatism (i.e., getting elected or, once elected, getting something done), we criticize them for "caving in" and "betraying us."
It's not that I necessarily disagree or feel that we shouldn't put our politicians' feet to the fire, but let's not pretend that a new generation of hardliners is finally finding its voice and drawing a line in the sand.
Been there, done that.
rock
(13,218 posts)
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)have anything to say about it, it will be front and center for 2 years.
It likely wont be, however.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The Gowdy crew have very little to hold on to.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Liberal Democrats More Likely to Track Ferguson Report
Two stories drew far more interest from Republicans than Democrats: 34% of Republicans followed reports about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address as secretary of state very closely, compared with just 16% of Democrats. Similarly, about twice as many Republicans (34%) as Democrats (18%) closely followed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress last Tuesday.
... there are substantial age differences in news interest, with adults 50 and older paying more attention than those under 30 to the week’s stories. But young people expressed especially low interest in stories about Netanyahu and Clinton’s emails: Just 3% followed news about Netanyahu’s address to C0ngress very closely, while just 4% said the same regarding news about Clinton’s emails as secretary of state. Among those 50 and older, 29% followed news on Netanyahu’s speech very closely and 22% tracked Clinton’s emails very closely.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/03/09/far-more-interest-among-republicans-than-democrats-in-clinton-emails-netanyahu/
GoCubsGo
(32,078 posts)Just like they still can't let go of the blue dress, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Benghaziiiiiiiii... They're counting on the fact that most people are not paying attention now, and won't realize that there's no there there.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Will the anti-Clinton crowd (on the left and right) still bring it up? It will be the new version of asking to see President Obama's birth certificate.
When all they have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It's the most flavorful poo this week to fling at the wall. In April, an entirely brand new, shiny non-issue will be flicked when this one slowly slithers down to the floor moldings.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)so much.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... the insane right still are convinced Obama is not a US citizen.
So, it will be discussed by the ignorant and the obsessive (including some DUers) until the end of time.
