New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

So the Democrats on this board are an anomaly? Because the vast majority of you can't admit, like Mitchell did, that this report busted Clintons explanations.

Clinton continues to lie. She never had permission, no one ever had their own server and she didn't turn all the business related e-mails.

 

Trump

 

[Premium Post]
Hillary's candidacy is finished. She is a ZOMBIE CANDIDATE at this point. Bad energy, not likable, no record of accomplishment, dishonest, rule-breaker, corrupt = Hillaroid. The firewall for her horrible campaign has always been positive mainstream media support and now that has been irreparably damaged. Expect Joe Biden to slowly start to be profiled more in the public spotlight in anticipation of playing the role of white knight to save the DNC from their primary voters' awful decision making.

Spoiler

GOOD DAY

 

As an admitted Clinton supporter I will say that this does look very bad for her. To me what is new is that she might not have actually sought a legal opinion regarding using private server as she had claimed. That definitely undercuts the argument that there was tacit approval from the State Dept. for this.

Besides that though I don't think there is much new to this. As far as criminal charges I think all of that still hinges on whether there was willful intent to share classified info and from the articles I've seen that is still a basis for charges. At the minimum though I think it is clear that her actions went against the spirit of State Dept. policies even if there is murkiness on the legality.

 

I do love seeing the "if you're not for us, you're against us" atttitude.

 

Wow...unexpected. Kudos! And a good analysis...I do think that might be the one thing that is new. The rest just corroborated what any objective analysis would have concluded long ago.

Yes, definitely against the spirit. The intent of the government policies was to keep governmental emails on governmental systems, both for security, and for retrievability. It was the latter that Clinton wanted to avoid.

As to criminality, classified documents is what it will hinge on. Legal analysts say it is difficult to prove intent (ie, did she know these were classified,etc.). I find this ridiculous. She was SoS...of course she knew what was classified and what wasn't. It was her job, in fact, to make such determinations. THAT might be her 'out' on this. She might be able to do a Nixon, and simply say they weren't classified because she decided they weren't classified. I bring up the Nixon comparison because there is a fairly universal opinion that when he did it, that was wrong.

 

Thanks but I don't think I deserve Kudos. The report is pretty clear and I don't think there is much ambiguity regarding what it states. One of the principal arguments by Clinton is that this was accepted practice. The report does point out that there were others who did the same thing but is very clear that while using non-dept. email might've been done it wasn't accepted and went against dept. policy. If Clinton was following what her predecessors did before she was as wrong as they were and while perhaps not a willful error was certainly an error in not setting a better standard.

Except that most of the classification has been done since she left the State Dept. so the classification wasn't done by her or with her approval. Whether she should've known this material was going to be classified or should've been classified is a slightly different question. I'm willing to concede that she probably should've known better but as the report shows her predecessors did the same thing so she's no worse than them but certainly not better. One would expect someone coming in new would put in best practices and as above it was an error in not setting a better standard.

I still think all of this is issues of judgement and not yet criminal malfeasance.

 

rj wavering, nice.... i like it. it's much funner on the other side rj. come on over no worries, we'll make room.

 

1998? 1999? I can't find any evidence of Clinton having "passed up opportunities to capture or kill OBL". Have you any?

 

Then you weren't looking. Try the 9/11 report....hell try Clinton's own words when he admitted "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn't do it."

He was talking about one of the several opportunities he passed up this specific one in December of 1998 and is blaming his inaction on potential collateral damage but the vast majority of those weren't really women and children but when you pass up an opportunity to stop the single worst terrorist attack in US history you have to say something.

For those that don't know, Kandahar Province is considered the spiritual birthplace of the Taliban and over 550 soldiers and countless civilians have died as a result of the US response to 9/11 including the most recent 2 friendly deaths in Afghanistan just 20 days ago.

By any estimate it was a mistake to repeatedly pass up opportunities to capture or kill someone you know is plotting to attack the US. Let's all just admit that and move on.

 

Nice revisionism here.

While Clinton may or may not have had a single chance to kill Bin Laden prior to 9/11 (your quote above comes from an interview - not from the 911 report which primarily put the blame on the Bush team's indifference and a lack of communication between security institutions), you fail to mention that the Bush team was left an explicit memo warning them of the danger of Al-Qaeda and were additionally warned about the use of airplanes as weapons. Bin Laden was a bad guy, but he didn't hijack those planes himself. Even if Clinton had made a successful strike (against the recommendation of the Joint Chief of Staffs, btw), there's no reason to believe Al Qaeda would have ceased to exist or suspended their plans to attack the US.

However, had the Bush team had heeded the warnings from the Clinton team, 911 could more likely have been averted. 911 was mostly due to Bush and his team of incompetents (who had such a boner for invading Iraq that they ignored the warning signs and then invaded the wrong countries twice).

 

Can we move on against the tiresome finger pointing? Leaders **** up, and in this case neither side could've predicted that black swan event as well as 99% of the other people.

This is another idiotic waste of time like arguing over the Vietnam war from the last wasted generation.

 

It's really not, I'm just accurately describing events that happened and have been ignored or forgotten.

That's an attempt at revision, we know for a fact that Clinton had multiple chances to kill or capture Bin Laden prior to 9/11. I mean, it's documented fact, just accept it. You are kind of proving exactly what I was saying all along about how liberals can't assign blame to their own even when it is 100% undeniable. Spin, ignore, attack

My quote came directly from Clinton himself and is backed up by things in the 9/11 report....yet you are still trying to spin, ignore, and attack. I really do have you guys in a box here.

The whole point of this conversation was that if Clinton was so worried about Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, why did he decide not to take care of it? If the guy behind Al-Qaeda was killed prior to planning 9/11 it absolutely would have disrupted those plans, I mean, that's just logic.

So....you are going to blame Clinton's inaction on Bush? Gotcha. Spin, ignore, attack.

I mean you guys are just incapable of admitting it and that was my whole point all along. Thank you for going out of your way to prove me right.

 

Nope, thank you for proving once again that conservatives believe they're entitled to their own facts - I provided real facts while you provided spin. There is nothing in the 911 report that indicates multiple chances - it mentions one legit incidence which I've referenced above. The quote from Clinton refers to that incident and was actually not referenced in the 911 report (though it's verified). So that makes one incident which may or may not have affected Al Qaedas plans to attack the US.

What the 911 report does mention is the Bush failure to review the memo left by the Clinton team and act upon it. Again, Bin Laden didn't fly those planes but the memo warned that his followers might. Bin Laden had bank rolled Al Qaeda but the logistics and actual flying was done by others. Bush instead actively chose to ignore that warning. The failure is on him.

I should charge you for the education I've just provided but consider this on the house.

 

I'll mark this down as ignorance, but it could also just be more of the same spin, ignore, attack tactics that I've been talking about all along. Anyway kiddo, you have some reading to do because it seems you don't actually know what is in the 9/11 report.

I do find it funny that you take exception to a quote by Bill Clinton confirming exactly what I said and call it "spin". You guys are funny.

 

Meanwhile back at the email server... Hilary is still incompetent...

 

It's a shame Bernie and his supporters can't lie their way into a win over this supposed incompetent women eh.

 

Actually most of the liberals on this board have criticized her about this, you just filter it out.

 

True. And when that equates to 'murder, torture, obstruction of justice' then Cometswin might not be fabricating a story out of thin air. But unless you are willing to say they do, my point remains.

[quotepHillary isn't scheduled to go to trial for anything as of yet.[/QUOTE]

Also true, and something that would be relevant in her campaign. Although I doubt she really wants to dwell on it, given all the things we know she did wrong already, trial or not.

And what will your stance be (and those of like minded Dems) if she is indeed indicted? That is still TBD, I know, and she may not be...but would like to hear your thoughts on the what if..

 

It'll be "But....Trump" or "Colin Powell did the same thing" or "It's a vast right wing conspiracy"

They'll stand by their man Hillary and blame her crimes on others.