Here's how Hillary Clinton should respond to the email "scandal"

[Onlooker]

I don't believe she can keep ignoring the email "scandal" because there are zillions of emails out there, and the scandal won't go away. Republicans will continue to release emails in dribs and drabs to keep the issue alive until November, and thus keep alive the question of Hillary's competence and honesty. But, I think she can turn this issue on them, and in turn do a service for the American people.

I think she should hold a press conference fully aware that the media is going to harp on the email stories. The press conference will be very well covered given the fact that she hasn't had one in a long time. She should begin by declaring that over the past year she has gone from an email amateur to someone who has a very good understanding of the issue. She should acknowledge her mistakes, but point out that she and her staff never shared anything that harmed American security, and talk about how safe our nation has been under Obama.

Then she should say that she has learned that we must do more to protect our email, and call on Congress to invest in new computers and new technologies for the agencies it has so long ignored. She should point out that the IRS is using some technology from JFK's time and some agencies are still using Windows 3.1 and floppy disks.* She should talk about the dangers of this, and criticize Congress for failing to act despite it's overarching concern for her email.

Then, she should talk about how Congress regularly gets access to security briefings and documents, but has no rules for itself on email. She should talk about how top Congresspeople (including Chaffetz and Gowdy) use private email, even private email servers, and have no requirements to back up their emails or make them available to the public through Freedom of Information Requests. She should point out the potential risk of this and the potential harm that may have already been done. She should urge Congress to act now, not wait, given the importance they have put to the email issue, and urge them to employ an independent investigator to objectively determine what harm their current practices may have caused.


*http://www.pcworld.com/article/3075284/hardware/us-government-agencies-are-still-using-windows-31-floppy-disks-and-1970s-computers.html

*http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/03/pf/taxes/irs-budget-cuts/

[still_one]

1. This is a made up scandal. It has been addressed ad nausum. Time to move on

[pnwmom]

2. I think Mark Cuban, as her surrogate, should hold a press conference to explain

his recent statements on why, given the state of technology in 2008, her advisors were right to tell her a private email system would be more secure.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/30/mark-cuban-hillary-clinton-nothing-wrong-email.html

MARK CUBAN: ""No, I really don’t. I think she — look, if you’re not technical, which she obviously is not, she didn’t know how to get her e-mail on her P.C. What’s — and someone — you say, I want to do personal e-mail. Well, first of all, it’s 2008 and back then Gmail was still in beta, and it was in the clear meaning it wasn’t protected by default."

Cuban is right. Gmail went into beta in 2004 and while still in beta, became available to the public in 2007, and was not updated from beta status until mid-2009. He went on to explain . . . .

[ooky]

3. My opinion is she can't win this discussion no matter what she says. We've already seen that.

So she should avoid it directly and instead have her name endorsers call it out for the BS it is. I do think someone should be pushing back for the sake of true independent voters who are still trying to decide, although I'm skeptical that there are really that many that haven't already made up their minds. But the Trump campaign is going to keep turning up their rhetoric with the Bossie hire so some kind of defense is going to be needed.

[Onlooker]

4. Well, ignoring it hasn't helped

Maybe she can't win the discussion, but I don't think she can let the other side simply run with the ball without trying to stop them. I think she can make progress if she comes out strong and makes this issue not just about her, but about Congress as well.

[molova]

5. "She should acknowledge her mistakes" you said. She already did

Elsewhere, you are "concerned" about millennials and the elections, despite their overwhelming support toward Clinton. Who are you?

[Onlooker]

6. I'm a realist

Polls show Trump is competitive; some polls show him leading in the national vote. Hillary's approval rating is on the decline. DU participation is dropping, while FreeRepublic participation is increasing. I take these things seriously. This is a country that elected Reagan, don't forgot. You obviously chose to ignore my point completely, so in my opinion you're one of those Hillary supporters who is part of the problem. The email story is not going away, but maybe you missed the early coverage of the release of the FBI report on Friday, but you'll hear way too much about it this week.

Why do you want to allow Republicans to continue their attacks on Hillary without a response? Who are you with only 152 posts?

[molova]

7. "DU participation is dropping, while FreeRepublic participation is increasing."

What does that have to do with the elections?
Was DU participation increasing the days after Hillary increase her poll lead in the convention? Was FR increasing?
First you expess "concern" about millenials delivering the elections to Trump. I don't believe you were concerned.

Then you tout the traffic greatness of FreeRepublic.

Then you ask Hillary to admit mistakes that she already admitted to have made.

What are you doing and why?

[Onlooker]

8. Why do you choose to ignore my point?

You're new here, so it's natural to be suspicious that you have other motives than Hillary winning.

After all, my point is not really about her admitting her mistakes, it's about her turning the email issue around and demanding Congress address it's own email issues. My point is that rather than take all the hits, she should put her detractors on the defensive.

[molova]

9. That made no sense

Earlier, you expressed "concern" (I don't believe you were concerned though), regarding how millennials may help Trump win. I then stepped in and forced you to note that Millennials overwhelmingly support Hillary.

Now let's see who should be more of a target of suspicion regarding Trump-protection.

[Onlooker]

10. You obviously didn't read what I wrote

In my original, I said that millennials support Hillary 2.5 to 1 and Sanders supporters supported her 6:1. (I merely forgot to include the link for that info, but considering how few people include any links, I hardly think I should be blamed.) You seem to engage in selective reading. My point was that millennials don't vote in large numbers to begin with, that sexism is alive and well among the millennials, and that Republican millennials seem to have voted disproportionately in 2008 and 2012. Then I asked what we should do about it.

What are you up to? You're manipulating my words, and basically trying to spread the message, "Hey Hillary supporters, nothing at all to worry about." For a new member, that seems to be an odd message, or are you just extremely over confident?

[Demsrule86]

13. Anyone who talks about FR in a positive light is suspicious.

Bad advice too for Hillary too in my opinion and all that concern about millenials on the other thread? Hmmm.

[duncang]

11. This isn't what she can say in response. But I think needs to be said maybe by a surrogate.

The thing being brought up now is the "I don't recall" being said 39 times.
On that part does anyone here even what all of them were in reference to? We have heard a few cherry picked questions (3 Maybe out of the 39?) But if something like a question about a specific email sent 4+ years ago to anyone would get a I don't recall response from anyone. I have a feeling this is another nothing burger like previous "scandals". So what were the 39 I don't recalls in response to? Knowing how the repubs think they would do anything they can to make it sound as bad as possible by inflating the numbers and making it sound like all are the same.

Edit to add: One I don't recall response could be from when the fbi added the classified headers to 1 of her emails to see her response. I'm pretty sure she would say she didn't recall receiving one like that. Doing just a word search would show that as a don't recall statement. In other words it could be part of the nothing burger count.

Next on the small (c) that is not only used for confidential markings. It can also be used to denote sections. Not noticing and linking it to classified to me is not surprising. Anyone even with security clearance I think could miss the (c) on just a few emails out of thousands.

[Demsrule86]

12. There is nothing to talk about.

It was always bullshit and those who won't vote for her because of it won't voter for her under any circumstance. Why would you even think this is a good idea. No one who is not a partisan gives a damn, and she will never offer a good enough explanation for that crowd...put it behind her.