Those who used RNC email addresses arguably did a lot worse, as RNC servers apparently deleted messages after 30 days.
Anyway, I’m not sure what the controversy is about: using unsecure communications or failing to turn everything over. If it’s about the latter, then I think that pretty much no one has complied with requests to turn over all communication.
We kinda should. Don’t you see? This non-issue about the emails is going to do nothing but distract from the non-issue that is Benghazi. Wait, though. It’s all connected! It was Benghazi all along!
I’m not sure if matters if most rank and file democrats are ready for change… the leadership isn’t, and much like the republicans, the leadership has a strangle hold on the whole process. That’s the problem, that Nader was talking about for the past couple of decades - there isn’t much difference between the two parties (except on social issues) and that they control the vetting process, and that’s why 3rd parties aren’t effective.
The email server flap and the Benghazi flap are connected. They are both about people being able to find out what HRC and other top gov’t people knew and when they knew it. (Note: this is not an endorsement of vengeful partisan hysteria-mongering, only an observation about government record retention.)
Hang on there.
Consider the long game she -might be- playing. She knew that those folks had done the same-ish thing -with less transparency- and I really think she set them up to make exactly these accusations, as the conservative mindset cannot help but accuse when they see someone else who can get pilloried for that which they also do.
Why would the republicans assume shenanigans, if they were not well aware of what they had got away with already?
I’m not decided, and this whole ‘debacle’ is bringing one point closer to Clinton '16.
I wager two quatloo that when the review of her usage is complete, it will be nearly to entirely unimpeachable, and there will have been a petard hoisting or two along the way.
Conspiracy by induction?
I’m required to only use my work email when I’m doing work, I certainly don’t see why top politicians should be held to a lesser standard than a lowly engineer. The reason we should care is that the current administration, despite their promises, hasn’t exhibited any better attitude towards transparency than the last one, and something like this would seem to indicate that, should she be elected, it won’t be a priority for the next one either. (Not to say that it’s likely to be a priority for any of the candidates, unless Jill Stein or Elizabeth Warren gets elected, but it is a serious issue that we should be bringing everyone in power in government to task over.)
The reason people can’t figure out what is supposedly at the heart of the Benghazi “scandal” is the theory that there was a live video feed of the event and that Hillary watched the ambassador being ass raped by the mob. The is based on the GOP’s eternal obsession with ass rape - hot, dripping, male flesh slapping on male flesh, ass rape oh god oh god oh god oh god.
Go ahead just google “ambassador stevens was raped” to see what the Tea Party faps to
if we can get all the previous ones prosecuted too, then fine. but to focus on her is just because it’s HER, and that’s what i have a problem with.
Howdy, you must be new to American style politics.
I was only speculating that all this might be related to Benghazi.
Shit, I just realized that Benghazi is from 2012!
I was just speculating on the possible coincidence, but…well…nah?
Therefore, why keep the law if no one can be bothered to enforce/obey it?
One could argue that when you don’t enforce a law, you are essentially creating a new law.
I don’t know if chasing after old cases would be worth it (it’s disheartening to let them get away), but you definitely have to start enforcing it some time or it will just get worse.
What law are you talking about?
Federal Records Act
And howdy back, not sure what you’re on about.
being in charge of Congress and doing actual governance and oversight
In the US, this^^ is debatable as to whether it’s actually part of the job description for the government, especially Congress.
.
It’s unclear whether this was violated, given her commitment to release all relevant work-related emails.
I’m talking about the general attitude by those in higher positions of power, not just HRC. We definitely have a trend now. So, do we ask the government to be active or passive in enforcement?
Law enforcement has pretty much always been discretionary, both on the part of the complainants, the part of the police and/or the part of prosecutors.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
