Ok, I agree with Bernie Sanders. I’m completely tired of news about Hillary Clinton’s private (but secured) email server. Latest “news” is that they found a whole 22 emails that contained some top secret information. Interestingly, Clinton was not the sender of those emails, they came from the CIA.
But that hasn’t stopped the GOP scandal machine from trying to make it sound like Clinton did something unusual. We have known for a year that both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice had private email servers, and they too received classified emails on their personal email accounts.
I’m also tired of liberals who are buying into this scandal. Are you really that stupid that you can fall for this crap?
7 Comments
All along, I’ve felt that if Christie could somehow win the nomination, I could sit back and relax, not caring who won. Christie is a RINO
While I think Clinton’s emails are a non-story, particularly in light of no one losing sleep over GOP cabinet members who have done the same, I’m inclined to think that all public servants, particularly senior ones, ought to be on government servers. But again, this is not something that should come into play in the election. It’s another Benghazi without any of the import of Benghazi.
EBDOUG, with Christie’s let’s say, aggressive, foreign policy proposals… do you still feel that way?
I for one think it is relevant. It falls into the category of trustworthiness of Hillary and the Clintons overall. Not specifically about whether there was classified information at risk, but more about accountability and disclosure. Government officials should be on government servers that are subject to security, backup and eventually full disclosure subject to the Request for Information Act. The emails that are being discussed are only the ones the she decided to hand over after deleting all the other emails she did want to release by saying they were personal. But who is to say that is correct? There was no oversight over that.
Sure, because no government servers have ever been hacked….
Mark, I don’t think we can pick a candidate based on “trustworthiness”. Virtually none of them are trustworthy on either side, with the possible exception of Sanders. All we can do is find the policies that they are advocating that come closest to what we would like to see happen and keep our fingers crossed. So far, nothing about Clinton’s emails, appears to be too earth shattering, so until something more relevant occurs, I can’t get too kerfluffled about it. The GOP has to keep their base in a constant state of outrage, so this will never end until the base tells them to give it a rest.
Is it “stupid” to worry whether the email “scandal” might impact HRC’s electability?
The email scandal is just the opening salvo to relitigating the WJC White House years and scandals. For example, did anyone else see this little tidbit: “The National Archives is fighting a lawsuit trying to force disclosure of several draft indictments of Hillary Clinton prepared by a Whitewater prosecutor in the 1990s.” http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/02/feds-fight-disclosure-of-hillary-clinton-whitewater-indictment-drafts-218681
No, the email scandal, however bogus it may be, tries to suggest character issues and there’s a lot of history that can be used in the same way by a Republican opponent to an HRC candidacy.
I’m not so sure that HRC is the clear winner over Bernie on the electability scale.
When Hillary ran the first time, all I could think of was Whitewater. Karl Rove is salivating over Whitewater if Hillary is nominated.