Dear Hillary supporters, a completely honest question...

[Barack_America]

There is perhaps no topic for which Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters aren't even speaking the same language than this whole email server investigation thing.

I have tried and I simply can't understand your point of view.

And so I ask, honestly, and with the true intention of trying to see this issue the way you do...

Do you truly believe Hillary did nothing wrong with hosting her govt. emails on a private server at her home -OR- are you just completely convinced no one would dare charge her with a crime (even if she possibly did commit one).

Either way, could you please answer honestly, and explain your position a bit.

(It's probably not obvious, but this is the closest I can get to a "unity post" right now)

[FarPoint]

1. Nothing wrong...

Nothing, not a thing... nothing wrong....

[Barack_America]

17. So, you would disagree even with the State Dept. IG report then?

Or interpret it perhaps differently than the general consensus? Perhaps saw it more as a condemnation of department practices?

[FarPoint]

20. Hillary did nothing wrong...

Definitely nothing illegal regarding email scam hype....

[Scuba]

50. Yet when Bush did it, Hillary called it "shredding the Constitution."

https://amp.twimg.com/v/f43f6b57-89b2-4f58-b503-96370d4f3673

[FarPoint]

51. Get over it... Realize...

Hillary did nothing wrong.

[Scuba]

52. According to the State Department report she did something wrong. According to her own words ...

... she shredded the Constitution.




If one of us has to realize something, it's you. Take off the blinders. Your candidate of choice is corrupt, dishonest and not worthy of your support.

[firebrand80]

2. Yes, what she did was wrong

No, as far as I can tell, it was not a crime

[StayFrosty]

3. It was poor judgement on her part

Is it a crime? That's up to the FBI to decide. But the fact that they have taken this long with the investigation leads me to believe that they really don't have a case against her.

[w4rma]

7. It could mean that the FBI understands the political nature of the prosecution and are, therefore,

dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't'. They are making sure that every tiny duck is in place and in a row before taking each step.

[Barack_America]

10. And that possibility, is why I'm petrified for Sanders to leave the race.

Oh, I accept 100% that he didn't win. I don't accept 100% that it was fair, but whatever, a majority of Dems didn't vote for him. Fine.

But, my God, what if the FBI does recommend indictment and Sanders is already out? What the hell happens then? And what if they don't, but her poll numbers still tank due to accusations of "cover up"?

It doesn't have to be Bernie, but I need to know Dems have a plan B.

[creeksneakers2]

13. Sanders could come back

Nobody drops out anymore. They "suspend" their campaign. If Hillary got charged Sanders could just come back.

[brooklynite]

29. I see - so, we should delay the Convention? Just in case?

Maybe wait until October?

[PatrickforO]

4. It was poor judgement but even if a crime, she probably will not be prosecuted.

The unfortunate thing I'm watching for is the indictment over the appearance of impropriety around countries who donated substantially to the Clinton Foundation, and then shortly thereafter had a weapons deal with the USA signed, sealed and delivered.

That worries me because it has tremendous potential as an 'October surprise.'

Let's hope not, but Clinton is a pretty weak candidate.

[creeksneakers2]

18. The donation /weapons deal accusation is wrong

They got that from an International Business Times story that was full of holes.

First we have that Saudi Arabia did not donate while Hillary was secretary. They did before but no quid pro quo was possible because it wasn't known that she'd be secretary.

Arms deals are extremely complex and take up to seven years to complete. Most of the work is carried out under the Pentagon, not the State Department. You couldn't just sell one.

The Saudi Arms deal was a major initiative of the entire administration. It started under Bush but was expanded under Obama for two major reasons. First, it was expected to produce 50,000 or 75,000 jobs. This was at a time when the 2008 crash left the country with high unemployment and the arms jobs were among the few that could be produced. The administration also wanted to build a barrier to Iran. The Saudi deal was the largest arms sale ever. It was inconceivable that Hillary wouldn't approve it. Tying the approval to donations to a foundation the Clintons got no direct compensation from is far fetched. Its like a whole city being flooded by a hurricane and somebody saying the flood was caused by someone letting their faucet drip.

IBT found that countries that did not donate also saw an 80% increase in arms sales. That was because we needed the jobs. IBT shows a chart with donors getting bigger increases. But all those countries with the huge increases were all Saudi allies from the Gulf Cooperation Council. They were part of the same initiative to build the wall against Iran. What IBT tries to make look like a pattern is just a single initiative, that went all the way to the top, above Hillary.

The fact that Hillary criticized those countries shows she wasn't bought off, not that she approved the arms deal for any other reason than policy.

IBT tried to make the deal suspicious because the sales were made to Saudi despite their horrible human rights record. We've been making arms deals with Saudi for decades despite their record. They are our best customer.

IBT also tried to question the deal because they said Israel opposed it. That was misleading at best and a lie at worst. While Israel at first made tactical objections to the deal, the weapons systems they were most concerned about were eliminated from the deal. Israel was then promised weapons that were more sophisticated than the ones the Saudis got. Israel's objections were dropped before the deal was even announced and sent to Congress.

IBT also tried to cast suspicion by saying that a defense contractor made a large donation just before the deal was finalized. But the deal was already sent to Congress with Hillary's backing a year before that. Hillary couldn't have possibly approved because of the donation because she'd already backed the deal.

The idea that the foundation is corrupt originates with the right wing. It makes no sense, because the Clintons got no income from the foundation. In fact, $15 million that they raised giving speeches was turned over to the foundation. Why would they commit crimes when there was nothing in it for them?

People who hate the Clintons just can't stand the truth, that the Clintons did something wonderful for the world based on their own benevolence. They are great people, not the monsters the Clinton haters pretend they are.

[PatrickforO]

23. I hear what you're saying, but according to Mother Jones, hardly a right wing journal,

there is a definite appearance of impropriety. Here is the link.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

[creeksneakers2]

28. The Mother Jones article

is based almost entirely on the International Business Times article, which I've addressed.

[madamesilverspurs]

5. No.

That horse has been dead for quite some time, only the flies are still messing with it.

[Feathery Scout]

6. Yes wrong.

Not devious and underhanded. A mistake and misjudgment.

Certainly not a reason to disqualify her from being president.

[LLStarks]

8. I work in IT, it's indefensible

She still doesn't understand the difference between private email and a private server

[Hoyt]

27. But she doesn't work in IT, nor is she a phsician, mechanic, etc.

Big deal if she doesn't do everything like some expert in another field. Other than politics, I don't get blasting her on this. Heck, her data was probably safer than on government's system.

[qdouble]

9. I. DON'T. GIVE. A. FUCK. ABOUT. THOSE. DAMN. EMAILS.

Posting about the emails 30 times a day is not going to make me start giving a fuck about them. Do Bernie die-hards think we haven't heard about it before? No amount of screaming on the hilltops is going to make me base who I vote for president based on which email server they used. It's fucking stupid.

[onecaliberal]

15. Maybe you should give a fuck that names of agents were in those emails that were hacked.

And if you don't you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Those people risk their lives for the likes of you. Sad and pathetic.

[qdouble]

22. Well I'm guessing it's a good thing that my voting rights aren't based on me giving a fuck about

your right-wing scandals. You are sad and pathetic if you think I need to base who I vote for on email protocol.

[onecaliberal]

47. You're voting for a liar who endangers people's lives who are serving overseas to protect

This Country but you can't be bothered to care because it's not you. I bet you were howling when Cheney did it. #Blocked

[qdouble]

48. I've never given a fuck about what email server anybody has used, neither has 99% of the population

before this fake scandal.

[TwilightZone]

26. Hacked?

Source, please. And your posterior doesn't count.

[Chan790]

36. Ze's referring to the claims by hacker Marcel Lazăr Lehel (Guccifer) that he accessed her emails. nt

[TwilightZone]

38. "Claims" is, of course, the operative term.

He's claimed a lot of things.

[FarPoint]

30. Well said.

Right approach to bring others back into reality.

[floppyboo]

11. What if Hillary herself says her mistake is shredding the constitution?

AND, that doesn't even carry the additional question of private server

[metroins]

12. Nothing wrong, honestly

There's nothing abnormal about having a personal email account. There's nothing abnormal about having a home server either (I have one) and in the tech field, I know others that have them.

She had a SCIF for classified information and she kept her emails for Record Keeping.

I don't see anything illegal, but it does seem suspicious. The email server itself is fine to me, depending on the contents of the emails is where she could get in trouble. I'm not worried about the "classified" information on her server, but if there were emails pertaining to a scandal similar to Christie, then there's a problem.

It's one thing to share information with a reporter you're sleeping with, it's another to use the information for normal work use. I'd assume every high level employee takes work home at some point when they're not supposed to.

I also read Colin Powells book which shows how outdated States IT is.

[brush]

14. If there were written directives not to do it, then it would have been wrong, . . .

but since previous SOSs had done similar things, no, nothing wrong, certainly not criminal.

And remember, something everyone seems to forget, not consider, or overlook, she was head of the state department. What she wanted to make her job easier, she got.

She was the boss.

Kerry's state department can put out stuff about what was wrong but Kerry didn't run her state department. Clinton did.

[Zynx]

16. I think she may have violated the letter of procedure, but there's a difference between that

and criminal activity. I haven't been remotely convinced that what she did rises to the level of criminal activity. I'm a government worker myself and deal with confidential information that I'm sure I haven't always guarded as carefully as I should have. I have probably from time to time (a fraction of a percent of the time) not fully followed all of the rules.

[MFM008]

19. a goof

Obama made them to, im not going to hold this against her. I believe she will be cleared,
then they can go back to complaining about her hair or something.

[creeksneakers2]

21. I believe she was shockingly careless

She probably didn't break the law but I'll have to wait and see. I'm sticking with her because the Clintons have always had trouble coming from the right wing. This isn't the first time its gone to a law enforcement investigation.The Clintons survived all that, so I'm guessing they'll survive this too.

If she did break the law, she'll be charged. Believing she wouldn't be is another of the crazy conspiracy theories of the Clinton enemies.

[Blaukraut]

24. Not a HRC supporter (or Bernie supporter), however:

Being somewhat familiar with SIPRNet and having witnessed 20 years of HRC's experience with not having her privacy respected, I'd say she went overboard with trying to protect herself, and likely broke some rules. Do I think it disqualifies her for the presidency? No.

[Barack_America]

32. I completely understand your position...

...and even agree with it, to some point.

Would it make a difference to you if her server had been hacked?

I really think it would for me.

[Blaukraut]

37. Hard to say, again - because of my knowledge of SIPRnet

I can't say anymore about it because I don't want to get certain people in trouble for telling me stuff they shouldn't, but it's not all that safe. So I completely understand HRC's reasoning, albeit a bit shortsighted. For me, it comes down to intent. Did she intend to deceive or did she just go overboard in her paranoia. Neither is reassuring, but the latter at least is understandable.

Disqualifying? Still, I'd have to say no. Perhaps I'm too kind, but I try to understand motive. I have a hard time assigning nefarious motives to Hillary, all things considered. Is she ambitious? Of course, or she wouldn't be where she is. But is she duplicitous and ready to sell us out to the closest bidder? No. I do believe that she has overall our best interests at heart.

I just don't put all that much weight on the private server issue, I'm sorry to say. I grant her mitigating circumstances.

[Sparkly]

46. What does SIPRnet have to do with it?

She used her server for emails that otherwise would have gone to a "dot gov" account. Neither of those would be appropriate for classified material.

She handled classified communications appropriately. That's not been disputed.

[Blaukraut]

49. I'm not disputing it in the least

SIPRNet is the US Gov server, and it's not all that secure, which is why I understand HRC's motives for wanting to have her own private server and have better control over it.

[MyNameGoesHere]

25. The dishonesty of this completely honest question

Is an example. But don't worry I an couple days it will be Glorious, just Glorious. Then you too will understand.

[Tarc]

31. Emailgate, like Benghazi, was a political football

Both Bernie and Trump tried to kick it, but Hillary Lucy'ed it away.

[PJMcK]

33. Your question asks for an opinion of an ongoing legal process

There is no one in the general public who should be making any determination on the issue of Secretary Clinton's use of her private email server. None of us know the details, also known as facts, of the investigation. Accordingly, all of the postings and opinion pieces are insignificant as to the determination of the legality of her actions. Importantly, they have absolutely no impact on the outcome of the FBI's investigation.

Additionally and respectfully, too many commenters opine as if they know the law; often, their opinions tend to be a reflection of which Democratic candidate they support. The legal process works fairly simply: the FBI investigates using evidence, interviews and forensics. After analysis of the facts discovered, the FBI makes a recommendation to the Department of Justice if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute any crimes committed. The DOJ, represented by the US Attorney General, then decides whether or not to prosecute any allegations.

If I were disrespectful to you, I would suggest that the premise of your question creates a straw man argument in that you proposed an exclusively binary proposal. Specifically, was Secretary Clinton innocent or is the DOJ afraid of her. That's not an honest either/or proposal as there are many different possible outcomes of the FBI's investigation.

In response to your "honest question," please answer this: If the FBI determines that there was no crime committed, will you accept that determination?

More importantly, will you vote a straight Democratic ticket in November. We need to oust as many Republicans as possible.

[Barack_America]

34. Thanks for your response. Respectfully...

...in the absence of the FBI's conclusions, millions of Democratic voters have been left to their "best guess" regarding the legality and consequences of Hillary's server.

I would also presume that most Hillary supporters find this issue, "inconsequential". I presume the overall belief that would lead to this conclusion would be either; 1. No wrongdoing or 2. Wrongdoing that won't lead to punishment or consequence.

If the FBI does not recommend indictment, I will accept that no crime was committed.

If Hillary's server was hacked and compromised national security, I will not vote for her. If not, then there is a strong chance I will. I always vote Dem down ticket.

[grossproffit]

35. I believe in due process. I will wait until the investigation is complete.

[dsc]

39. From what I can tell State had a horrible email system

that pretty much no one wanted to use because it was horribly inefficient. This seems to have been the case since Albright's time in office which is when email started taking off. Given that, it seems that State had a culture of high ranking officials using personal email to do official business that dated back to the Albright era. Powell used personal email for all of his email at work for example and the highest ranking aids of every Secretary from Albright to Kerry did as well. It was only with Kerry taking over that a kibash was put on this. From what I have read, State apparently had difficulty keeping up with emails and keeping the emails they had secure. Clinton's server apparently did a better job of both of these than the government server. In retrospect I wish she hadn't used her own server but I don't think she did anything wrong.

[Demsrule86]

40. she did nothing wrong nt

[baldguy]

41. Do I care enough to let Donald Trump in the WH? **NO FUCKING WAY!!**

Is this really the issue you want to hang your excuses on when you let that fascist win in Nov?

[Barack_America]

42. If her server was hacked I won't vote for her...

...but if that happened, my vote won't matter a lick. It will be a landslide against her.

[sofa king]

43. Yes, I truly believe it.

I'll admit it's a belief, but not any more of one than those of you who believe the hilarious horse-shit that the anti-Clinton crowd has pitched into the media.

Seriously, this all began months ago when one dumbass CNN commentator said he thinks Hillary will be indicted. The rest of you chumps have continued to echo it for months. In the real world, nothing happened and it's not going to happen.

In the real world, Colin Powell had a private email server, and was not prosecuted. Condoleeza Rice had a private email server, and was not prosecuted. The Bush Administration "lost" 22 million emails because they conducted most of their business through a private email server, and they were not prosecuted for it.

NO, I am not defending Mrs. Clinton by saying the Bush scum got away with it. What I am pointing out is that something prevents such prosecutions from happening. Some secret tome among our laws permits diplomats to communicate privately, outside of the purview of the public. Imagine that, in our transparent society!

But even if it were illegal, Mrs. Clinton STILL would not be prosecuted for it because the Department of Justice is prevented by rule and precedent from interfering in ongoing federal elections. They would wait until after the election to begin proceedings. The public things they have leaked--which might cost an assistant attorney general's ass, but not Mrs. Clinton's--suggest that the offense is chickenshit. Complete, insignificant chicken shit. So chickenshit that the Republican Senate tried to make the imaginary charges actionable after the fact because they were chickenshit to start with.

And so, too, is all of the electrons wasted on this subject, all damned year long. You fools had nowhere to go after dissecting forty years of Mrs. Clinton's impeccable public service, so like flies converging on the only turd in the parking lot, you landed on this. It's crap, it's a waste of our time, it's been a waste of our time, and if you succeed in sinking Mrs. Clinton's boat you are furthering the destruction of the United States itself. I'm not asking you to stop because I know you won't.

Instead, I'm asking you to remember my finger of blame when we lose absolutely fucking everything.

(P.S.: For another few hours or days, I am still a Bernie Sanders supporter who is going to be a Hillary Clinton supporter.)

[cally]

44. Nothing wrong that other State Secretary

have not done. The state department has been hacked and she didn't trust anyone with leaks. After what happened to Clintons during his Presidency where secrets were "leaked" to hurt them, she chose to go with a server she could control. What I see is another right wing hit piece like travelgate, whitewater, Monica, secret service saying she hits Bill, etc., etc. Now same playbook--Benghazi, email, etc. Much hype at the Clintons but little facts yet.

I also see her attacked for things she was not in charge of. She served under Barack Obama and was married to Bill Clinton. It is unreasonable to blame her for all the mistakes of those administrations when she was not the President.

[BootinUp]

45. I don't get the consternation over it except to say its partisan politics

The emails have been produced. If there was something nefarious going on, surely something would have been found by now.

As to her choice of what email server to use, its pretty clear the State.gov system has its issues.

As to the claims of it being non-secure, those are just claims. I have yet to see anything substantiating it. Combine that with the reports that her system was not used for documents born confidential.

Partisan politics leads to all kinds of bullshit. Open thine eyes.