Honest question for Clinton supporters: why is the e-mail scandal not a big deal?

[democrattotheend]

I want to state at the outset of this post that I am NOT hoping for Clinton to be indicted or further embroiled in scandal. Maybe some of my fellow Bernie supporters are, but I am not, and I know many others are not as well.

While I am not hoping for it to happen, I am concerned that it could happen. While I think indictment is somewhat unlikely, I am concerned about more damaging e-mails coming out that hurt her chances if she is the nominee. I also feel that her decision to use the private server and delete e-mails makes her appear less trustworthy because it creates the appearance that she had something to hide, whether or not she did.

The e-mail scandal was not the driving force behind my decision to support Bernie, but it is something I am concerned about, both in terms of her leadership style and her electability.

So I am curious, for those who are supporting her, why do you think the e-mail controversy is overblown? Why are you not concerned about indictment or a bigger scandal? Why should we not be worried about it hurting her in November if she is the nominee?

I really hope to elicit some honest answers here rather than starting a war. Like I have said many times, I do not hate Hillary, I do not want her to be indicted, and I will support her if she is the nominee. I just want to know what I should say if she is the nominee and an undecided voter expresses concern about the e-mails.

[SharonAnn]

1. Because it's not a scandal. It's a manufactured "outrage" by the right-wing.

[democrattotheend]

5. I don't see it that way

I will be the first to say that there have been many manufactured controversies against the Clintons in the past 25 years. However, I don't see this as one of them. From what I understand, she knowingly violated her obligations to keep her communications as public records, and knowingly utilized technology that she was told had the potential to compromise national security. If that is incorrect, tell me why. It's not enough to just brush it off as "manufactured outrage".

[Loudestlib]

6. Yep

Those dirty right-wing FBI

[Lucinda]

7. +1

And not just the rw any more...

[Chemisse]

13. I totally agree - and I am a Bernie supporter.

We should all be disgusted by it. Nobody cared when Colin Powell destroyed all his old emails. It's Whitewater turning into Monica Lewinski all over again. If she wins, they'll probably appoint her her own personal prosecutor.

What's ridiculous is that people think it's so awful if they don't like Hillary, and not such a big deal if they do like her. It's either one or the other or something in between, regardless of whether you support her. Politics should not be like sports, where the umpire is always right when he calls for your side, and always wrong when he rules against you.

[ibegurpard]

19. This is the kind of response

that just keeps it going.

[Chasstev365]

2. I've been wondering the exact same thing.

Prehaps they think it's just Benghazi which IS BS, but will not admit possible "pay to play" which is NOT BS.

[insta8er]

3. Look >>>>>>a squirrel, nothing will phase them...one has to wonder how some can support someone

so morally corrupt. My guess is that if you don't have high standards of yourself you don't hold those you admire to it either.

[Dem2]

8. What does an email server have to do with morality?

[insta8er]

9. It has to do with standing above it all, not being held accountable to anything or anybody. Her

whole live she has lived on the edge on what was permissible, being fast and loose with the truth. Yes this is someone who we want for president of this country. And all of the corruption she brings into the system of which the majority of this country agrees that it is detrimental to our democracy.

[Dem2]

10. So basically nothing

and you "hate her".

I get it. Conversation over.

[insta8er]

11. I hate everything she stands for...yes.

[grasswire]

4. please pardon this intrusion

It is not an "email" scandal. That's what the Republicans called it.

It is much deeper, broader, bigger than that. It could be called a "server" scandal but that, too, would not adequately describe the investigations.

[AgerolanAmerican]

16. it's a corruption scandal is what it is

Clinton Inc. is all about leveraging political office and influence into cold hard spendable cash - and in that sense, that operation is the best of the best and has a track record to prove it.

Her client list is a virtual index of enemies foreign and domestic - Wall Street banks, mischievous Persian Gulf monarchies, military contractors and drug companies.

You don't need but a 90 IQ to put two and two together here.

[geek tragedy]

12. The question is whether it will get worse or whether it will fizzle nt

[leveymg]

14. It's not fizzling, so it's only getting worse for the Dem Party until

she finally releases her hostages, er, delegates.

[geek tragedy]

15. .

[AgerolanAmerican]

17. This is HRC we're talking about

if this one fizzles out she'll have another one queued up for you shortly

[ibegurpard]

18. I'm not a Clinton supporter

And it's not a big deal to me... I've read all the analysis and there doesn't appear to be anything there she can be prosecuted for. Pretending that it's not a big deal to other people when it's in the news almost every day, however, is just fucking stupid. It hurts her and if it doesn't go away soon it's going to hurt her badly.

[Onlooker]

20. I can think of 8 reasons why it's not a big deal

(1) Politicians struggle to separate the personal and political from the official, so the law was in place because of that dilemma. I have little doubt Hillary and others chose to use their private email accounts so they wouldn't have to constantly be figuring out what's what. I have little doubt that if we demanded all Congresspeople release all their emails, as Hillary has had to do, we would find many "violations" of the law.

(2) Even at worst, Hillary has only a handful of emails that are possible violations out of tens of thousands. Now really, how many times does the average person send out something by mistake? Why wouldn't that happen even if she used government email?

(3) Julien Assange and Edward Snowden proved that the government isn't exactly secure, so why is the right suddenly so upset that Hillary used a private email service?

(4) Since when is the left so concerned about government email security?

(5) There's a logical inconsistency in the argument: Hillary violated the law (which she didn't) by not keeping her emails properly secure, so therefore let's make them all public.

(6) The email scandal proves that the government can be far more transparent without risk, so the net effect of Hillary's decision has been to strengthen the argument for greater transparency.

(7) Hillary was allowed to use private email for official business, but since that issue alone didn't get any traction the right and let went on a fishing expedition looking for possible violations. That's why they are combing through her emails.

(8) Others have used private email as well, and no one seems to particularly care, so it's pretty clear Hillary is a target because she's the likely Democratic nominee. If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I am 100% certain this "scandal" will disappear.

[madville]

21. I predict she is not indicted but several of her aides are

Huma, Mills and Sullivan seem particularly vulnerable, it all really depends how they were getting the classified information from other agencies that they were then passing to Hillary through her private server. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Blumenthal catch a charge also depending on how he was getting the classified information he was passing to Hillary from his AOL account to her private email account.

They all will likely strike a plea deal for a misdemeanor and lose their ability to hold a security clearance but Hillary probably survives without an indictment herself.

Another thing to watch out for since it came out today that the FBI is in contact with all their attorneys to arrange interviews is the possibility of obstruction and making false statement charges (that's what got Martha Stewart). It depends what kind of corner they are painted in since they have testimony on record in front of Congress, public statements, won't know what evidence the FBI has acquired, and what the IT guy that now has immunity has spilled.