A few weeks after leaving office, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have breathed a sigh of relief and reassurance when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper denied reports of the National Security Agency eavesdropping on Americans. After all, Clinton had been handling official business at the State Department like many Americans do with their personal business, on an unsecured server.
HRC is no doubt guilty as sin, but I would argue Obama is protecting her until he thinks she will become president and if that happens, forget it, because one way or another HRC knows she will be exonerated or at the very least pardon herself!
What I wonder is why Clinton set up a private server to start with. What was she trying to hide?
The links between donations to the Clinton Foundation and foreign policy/arms deals come to mind, but who knows?
This article fails to mention that Clinton, as Sec of State, may have been trying to avoid Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests which she would not be able to do on federal servers but could do on her own private servers ...except that would be illegal. No mention is made of Clinton destroying 30,000 documents before she went to give testimony. There is no excusing her doing things one way or the other. Many of those documents related to her job as Sec of State and her discussing classified information with people such as family and aides who were not cleared for that level of classified data. Nevertheless she destroyed documents which makes one wonder just what is the basis of justice that sends people to jail for street level crimes but is excused compliance for crimes which are of a far greater magnitude than shoplifting three times.
This woman wants to be our president but would be one who doesn't respect our laws. Look at it! It is real.
The Washington Post had a good article on that a month or so ago. In part, Clinton was just being her usual paranoid self. But, in part she was also being arrogant and selfish. She didn't want to use an actual computer to read and write emails. She wanted to use a Blackberry, i.e. a non-secure device. She was told no, she couldn't do that. You might recall Obama had the same issue initially. It was resolved for him by the NSA coming up with a new, expensive to maintain secure Blackberry. Clinton in her arrogance demanded the same thing for herself. The NSA told her no. She already had this email server set up. She connected her Blackberry to it so she could continue using it instead of a computer.
In other words, following the rules was inconvenient for her so she decided that she was above them. Because she's Hillary Clinton and of course she did.
"Andrew Napolitano"--that's enough to call into question McGovern's thesis, no matter how much I dislike Hillary Clinton.
Of course she shouldn't have used a private server, and of course she did it to avoid transparency.
But one can't use Napolitano as a source.
Keep in mind that that is the rationale but there is an underlying reality which is that she could not prevent discussions over the fallout from Benghazi or anything else in her tenure as Sec of State if she used a government server but she could avoid having to comply with FOI Requests if she used a private server. All fine and dandy but illegal and certainly very suspicious behavior for someone who wants to be president. She actually and knowingly committed illegal behavior. That arrogance makes a mockery of democracy.
The Washington Post has been anti-Sanders/pro-Clinton from day one. Remember the "16 anti-Sanders articles in 16 hours" incident?
They favor Neocon wars so they favor Hillary.
Do you really think they're going to come out and say Clinton did it to hide what she was doing from any government oversight or, as Wereflea said, FOIA requests?
No, they'll happily put forth habit and inconvenience as the reasons.
MSM: The more you see it, the more they fuck with your brain.
Whether Hillary's actions were illegal or not (and it looks to me like they were), and whatever the reason she had for doing them, this is yet another example of her bad judgment. Someone as reckless as she is should not be president.
Eh. That particular WashPost article wasn't pro-Clinton and it did mention her possibly not wanting to respond to FOIA requests. It was particularly damning int that it stated she violated government archive laws. In any event, breaking the law because you find it inconvenient doesn't make you look good.
I know we are all supposed to always hate the MSM, but sometimes they actually do put out a good piece.
As a Clinton supporter I cannot tell you how freaky it is to see progressives posting and referring to right-wing blogs, literally rooting and praying that the Benghazi farce and the email ridiculousness will somehow take HRC out in the final hour. Progressives have allowed themselves to BELIEVE this right wing tripe that has specifically been floated by the GOP anti-Clinton think tanks for this very purpose! To divide the party with conspiracy theories and misinformation, create mistrust for Hillary so that Sanders voters will stay home.
I know what it's like to have the candidate you support with all your heart and soul come so close to the nomination. I don't begrudge you at all for being extremely frustrated and I'm not suggesting you give up and support Clinton. That's your decision.
I am strongly suggesting you take off your blinders about your sources. Allowing GOP madness into your minds is like making a deal with the devil.
They did the same thing in 2008, filling Clinton supporters heads with birther conspiracy theories about Obama, he had a gay lover "silenced" in Chicago, ACORN was behind voter fraud nationwide, Obama was selected by the Bilderberg group, Hillary had several close friends die under "mysterious" circumstances during the primaries, Obama had big money behind him, he'd paid off Nancy Pelosi and other Super Delegates and so on and so forth... until nearly half were convinced Obama had stolen the election and there was NO WAY we would ever consider the corrupt fraud!
Sound familiar? I submit to you, before you make your final judgement, at least make sure you're 100% certain your opinion is based on facts. Go look at Clinton's actual record at ontheissues dot org, go read her 1969 Wellesley commencement speech if you don't think she's a progressive. You'll see her world view at 22 years old. The truth is: Clinton was ranked the 11th most liberal Senator based on her VOTES (not her husband's, not Obama's... HERS). Bernie was ranked #1 but Obama was #23 and Biden #33 so that should tell you where HRC leans on the scale. Remember a year ago when Sanders said he respected her and considered her a friend? Nothing changed but the GOP doing it's best to pollute the waters during election season! In 2013, Elizabeth Warren signed a letter drafting HRC to run in 2016. This was AFTER she left SOS and long after all her votes were cast in the Senate. Was Warren's judgement so far off?
If you are objective, you may come to the horrible realization that HRC is not the big bad corrupt warmonger you think her to be. Even if you don't, dig down deep and consider the scenario that the GOP is playing you and passing around the anti-Clinton crack they feed you might have dire consequences in the long run. It took me until 2012 to vote for Obama and I do regret refusing to vote in 2008 because I was clinging to GOP planted information that I now know was anything but the truth.
She is not going to be charged and she knows that. Any chance of that occurring was gone months ago and she knew it. Her arrogance or historic and always has been. She considers herself above the law, rules and boundaries, protocols. She broke a lot of laws as SoS and the first one was having an unsecured server and then wiping the hard drive. She should have been charged right then and there. What has occurred with each President since Reagan ( in particular) is each has broken laws (international and national) and never been held accountable. As that has occurred, the next one moved the line farther, more criminal conduct, etc. Now Obama has erased the line for all of them--Wall Street, Big Banking, the MIC, SIC, weapons merchants. The next President will indeed by a dictator who will answer to no one. And this one will have the backing of the military (Hillary), the moneyed, the 1/10 Percenters. She has groomed herself for that role her entire life and like the vampire she has become, she needs her fix.
You may be stating that as irony, but I believe there is more truth to that than most realize. Great photo and we all know how they love their selfies. Hillary looks like the hag and drone she really is. In all seriousness, I'm surprised some aspect of her being lesbian hasn't surfaced over the years. It would make perfect sense when you consider her life with Bill, his womanizing, her ignoring it, her masculine clothing, cackle, voice (hardly feminine), one child, what her life was like growing up (Bill's was even worse). Guess we'll never know for if it is true, that is one tightly kept secret.
"Asked if Clinton 'intentionally endangered US international security by being so careless with her email,' Snowden said it was not his place to say."
Of course it isn't Snowden's place to say what Clinton's intentions were. But the word "intentionally" diverts attention from the actual problem. At the very least, the emails demonstrate Clinton's dangerous recklessness and lack of judgment. How does anyone look past that in a presidential candidate?
Where in the world did this picture come from? Wow, it sure looks strange.
Don't need to dig down very deeply to find her truth. The Republicans didn't make her make the decisions she has regarding the emails, war, her deep entitlement attitude and many other things she has done.
You're probably a troll but even you should know the Democrats and Clinton hide behind the old "Republicans did it" mantra. The reality is Clinton has made herself into a person we don't like, want or need. She's reckless, dangerous and disingenuous. I will never vote for her. She should be indicted, the Republicans didn't make her use a private server.
Good article from someone I trust. Bernie has to stay in the race to the end. He may win, and he certainly wants to be there if they indict her. Besides, Anonymous or some other leaker might just release the information on her illegal behavior or her speeches. We know she should never be given the levers of power and should be exposed for the neocon she is. Where are the leakers? We need them now. Before this nightmare goes any further.
Beside all the other reasons we should never, ever vote for her, is she's a drunk. She shows up at some of these talks looking like she's been on a bender. The one she did with CNN, or was it MSNBC, they both love her but that day she looked hung over. I'm a woman I know what it looks like.
How does one post a comment in this comment section? I just activated my account, came to the comment section, and ALL I can find are comments already posted. I can locate NO procedure for posting a comment of my own, just this procedure for replying to posted comments.
...and this Democrat decided, only months after the assassination of President Kennedy, to support Barry Goldwater.