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

"Benghazi BS"? I guess if you call our ambassador's dead body drug through the streets as "BS", then you're right.

Lose the partisan blinders, dood

 

Do you think all of you could? Maybe ya'll could pick up some hobbies or something.

 

uhmm he posts between the hot women & big money deals he makes the entire day.

mana from heaven

 

On the 'nobody cares about the emails': If you deny enough, will it go away? I care about the emails. I wasn't likely to support Clinton but I'm no Republican. But I see her as a spineless little manipulator who does everything she does with a transparent goal of putting her own interest in winning the presidency over the interests of everybody else. She provides no leadership, she doesn't make her teammates better, she's interested only in self-preservation and self-aggrandizement. And that she'd set up her own server to conduct the people's business and then refuse to show them to the FBI and delete half the emails fits perfectly in that narrative and confirms the impression I already have of her. She only set up the server to protect herself from anyone reproaching her for illegal or immoral things she does in office, real or imagined, over the obvious institutional interest in having everything on the record and properly secured. She's not interested in doing the right thing, she's not interested in making her country better; she's interested in defeating her enemies and conquering the country. I'd sooner take Bush, Walker, or Rubio over her (though if the alternative is Trump or Cruz, I've got a problem).

On 'Bush/Rove/Powell did it too!': Yeah, and they were probably as crooked about it as Clinton. So is this our standard now? All our high offices should be crooked? No. Let's make this stop.

On 'it wasn't illegal at the time': OK, maybe we can't get a conviction. But, Clinton and Powell or anyone else doing this crap are putting their own interests over the interests of the country. So, let's not make them president. It won't go well.

On 'it's not as bad as Bush lying us into a war': Maybe so but it doesn't matter. It's still bad by itself and doesn't need to be bad by comparison. I'm not going to accept being less evil than the last guy as a justification. There's no point in comparing.

(And also as an aside, I think the American citizenry should be ashamed of their complicity in starting the Iraq war instead of shifting the blame on Bush (or denying there was ever a problem). Yes, Bush led us to that war, and he threw out there a bunch of justifications for why we should that were not reliable (whether faulty, insufficient, cherry-picked, or misleading). But I knew way back then it was bull**** and everyone else should have known too. Public opinion was strong enough that it gave Bush enough slack to do it anyway. I blame Bush for leading us into a bad war, but I don't blame him for misleading us -- I blame us for falling for it. We should be embarrassed. But, as the Bushism goes 'a fooled man can't get fooled again.' Let's be more careful about what adventures we'll give presidents license to pursue.)

 

This point wasn't brought up to justify Hillary's actions, it was brought up because the same people here who bicker and post every single update on this scandal either turn a blind eye or just plainly refuse to acknowledge the thousands of emails that it has been proven that the Bush administration deleted. I'm nowhere close to being a Hillary supporter but it's plainly obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that the people who are trying to bring her down are not doing so in an effort to clean up the dirtiness of our politicians (and lord knows there's a lot of it to clean up) but are instead doing so solely in an effort to take down someone that they despise on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

 

I got to be honest, I didn't even know 'Bush lied' people still existed. I'm amazed.

 

You say this as though you can't both despise her positions AND despise her dirtyness. It is possible that both are in play ya know.

Oh and the biggest difference I see between any previous "Bush scandal" and this particular "Hillary email scandal" is composed of a simple phrase.

F.B.I. investigation.

 

So.... you were not going to vote for her anyway, so it doesn't really change anything.

As far as the American people being complicit? The American people were lied to by the then President. Also the American people didn't give Bush license to do anything. What did you want the American people to do? Suddenly rise up and overthrow the President even though the economy was fairly stable at the time?

 

Yes they are. Here in the bbs, and out in the press, and in DC. But the kneejerk reaction than for the Democrat is to say 'hey, they're trying to take out one of our crooks, and that crook was going to be very useful to us to save [Obamacare/abortion/nuclear agreements/immigration policy/whatever].' She's a crook. I have no allegiance to her or to the Democratic Party even if I'm concerned about what a Republican might do as president. Crooks are worse, so let them be destroyed. The party faithful closing their eyes and pretending they didn't see isn't going to help the country or the party. If you really think Clinton is on the up-and-up (somehow), then so be it and go ahead and debate and vote your conscience. But it sounds more like people only defend her because she is an enemy to their enemies. This isn't healthy.

 

Nothing that I said in my post implied this.

So when the FBI got involved is when the critics suddenly cared about this scandal? Wrong.

 

For me personally, maybe not, though by the general election you're trying to guess the least bad option -- do I go with the self-serving liar or the psychopath? And the primary is like a prisoner's dilemma: if my party decides not to go with a good person instead of the self-serving liar, we might lose to the other party if they pick the psychopath. Since I'd rather suffer under the liar from my party than suffer under the psychopath from the other party, I shouldn't pick the guy who would actually be good as president. So it potentially changes things only insofar as the psychopath looks incrementally better than the liar than he had before.

Though, I do appreciate the implication that since I'm not on the team, no argument I could make would have any credibility at all.

I hesitated to bother, and put it in a parenthetical besides, to avoid the side track, so I'll be brief about it. Had the public opinion polls been worse, Bush would not have started the war. We put a lot of trust in him on that war that was not well considered or warranted. It's not that there'd be a revolution, but if public sentiment was more reserved, we wouldn't have gone. I blame Bush for being unwise in his leadership, but I see too often from Democrats too much readiness to heap all the blame on him, even though many Democrats at the time supported him in it, even people in the know like Hillary Clinton.

 

Might want to read it again. Even if that wasn't your intention, it sure reads that way to me.

In many cases, yes. Not all of course. In the meantime, it pretty much directly correlates with her poll numbers which means it's when the public at large started to care which is the only thing that matters in the end. And that was my point. Sorry for not making that clearer earlier.

 

You should get out more.


"Do you think the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or not?"

3/15-17/13

Deliberately misled 54%

Did not deliberately mislead 44 %

Unsure 2%


Democrats 76 23 1
Independents 54 42 3
Republicans 23 75 1

12/16-18/11 57 41 2
3/9-11/07 54 40 7

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

 

Once again, the old Communist axiom applies: If you tell a lie long enough and vigorously enough, people begin to believe it -- compounded by the fact that polls can be manipulated to get the results desired.

 

Wake me up when they find out Hilary's server had a classified email showing that she gave a stand-down order for Benghazi.

 

Good god, the ego.

Nobody cares jv.

 

Benghazi morphs into servergate.

Sounds eerily more and more like an old "let's keep looking until we find a scandal" Ken Starr investigation.

 

Hopefully emails reveal true cause of Socks' death.

 

Clearly a "vast right wing conspiracy" hatched by the Obama DOJ......brilliant take.