dagblog - Comments for "Hillary's E-Mail Dilemma"

It wasn't stupid, as Doc

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 27 May 2016 17:15:23 +0000

It wasn't stupid, as Doc Cleveland noted. It was a choice. She could have had her Benghazi and federal lawsuits over any personal mails done on public property or whatever other double-standards they would use to broil her, or she could have walled things off and had some control while she did her job. Note that it worked for the duration of her stint at SoS, and it only came up last summer, 2 1/2 years after she'd finished.

Susan Rice went on national TV the day after Benghazi and said something like "we think it was a protest over an anti-Muslim video that got hijacked by an extremist mob, but we're still investigating what happened" or "that's the best we know at the moment", and they roasted her over the coals for the next year proclaiming she lied and hid stuff when there were recordings and transcripts. Let me lay that out, because Chris Wallace still says she lied and said it wasn't Al Qaeda. And this is the bullshit that every Democrat has to deal with, but especially Hillary, and there's no fair and balanced press nor politicians who are going to vigorously vet and rebut wrong statements cause they can't even be bothered to debunk the continual stream of lies Trump puts out - they just give up. Give these fuckers access to Hillary's data? screw 'em. Here it is:

MS. RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

Full transcript.

CBS’s “Face the Nation”

MS. RICE: So we’ll want to see the results of that [FBI] investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

MR. SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with [the previous guest, the president of Libya’s general national congress] that al Qaeda had some part in this?

MS. RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.

So yes, we should try to

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 27 May 2016 15:23:00 +0000

In reply to I do genuinely believe that

So yes, we should try to understand why Hillary made this choice, and yes, we should criticize spurious Republican attacks like Benghazi and Vince Foster. But it doesn't follow that we should refrain from criticism or second-guessing. The email server was not just ethically wrong, it was politically stupid and has caused far more damage than the threat of campaign-related emails from government accounts.

And unfortunately, this is a pattern with the Clintons. Bill had good reason to perjure himself, but that choice ultimately caused much more political damage than if he had been honest. It was wrong, and it was stupid. As usual, the cover up was worse than the crime.

Moreover, there were numerous unforced errors during the Clinton administration--errors that the GOP blew out of proportion but still errors of judgment: whitewater, travelgate, filegate, dubious pardons, Lincoln's bedroom fundraising, etc. Compare Bill Clinton's presidency with Obama's. The right wing also broke the rules to attack Obama, yet Obama has led one of the most scandal-free administrations in recent history, while Clinton's was one of the most scandal-plagued.

In short, I think you've got it backwards. The Clintons never had high regard for playing by rules. Republican attacks have just made them more self-righteous about it.

"I didn't love Bill's perjury

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 27 May 2016 15:02:49 +0000

In reply to I do genuinely believe that

"I didn't love Bill's perjury. That was a clear violation of the law." - actually no - it wasnt germane to the investigation, so he was under no legal obligation to answer truthfully. In a real court of law rather than that kangeroo court, he would have been under no obligation to sacrifice his rights. Even the debarment was over what standards lawyers should maintain, which in this case was laughable - no lawyers had affairs and kept them hush hush? Even Bill Cosby's been able to keep much more draconian non-consenting stuff at bay for decades. And Ken Starr's angle was "have you ever had sex with anyone?" - what a travesty.

I do genuinely believe that

Doctor Cleveland — Fri, 27 May 2016 13:38:37 +0000

In reply to Doc, I'm not playing any game

I do genuinely believe that whatever Clinton chooses, she will be attacked. That seems to me exactly how things operate. But I didn't mean to dismiss you out of hand, and by "game" I generally mean the standard media spin.

I don't love the private server. But then, I didn't love Bill's perjury. That was a clear violation of the law. These are objectively bad Clinton behaviors that they rightly or wrongly (or perhaps both rightly AND wrongly) see themselves as being pushed into.

I think the larger point is that since the rules never apply when you're going after the Clintons, they have to choose between playing by the rules and getting punished for it, or trying to escape punishment by breaking rules. I don't applaud their choice, but I also think we need to ask who else contributes to this behavior.

Crooks & Liars weighs in (you

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 27 May 2016 11:31:57 +0000

In reply to Hillary's E-Mail Dilemma

turned into a post: http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/youve-got-mail-20719

And was she a better

Flavius — Fri, 27 May 2016 03:40:16 +0000

In reply to I'd so love to let this lie.

And was she a better secretary of state as a result,I wonder.

So John Kerry uses private

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 27 May 2016 02:52:35 +0000

In reply to I'd so love to let this lie.

So John Kerry uses private email "non-exclusively", including the occassional classified email from hos iPad.

Considering all the supermodels had their nude pics hacked off Apple cloud, maybe he'd be better off using Hillary's private server.

I'd so love to let this lie.

HSG — Fri, 27 May 2016 01:25:08 +0000

In reply to I realize that Doc´ s real

I'd so love to let this lie. But it seems that Clinton and her supporters can't simply admit she's in the wrong and move on. So here we go again.

Without citation, Flavius writes: "When the most senior people in the government routinely violate a supposedly important regulation the intelligent response is to change the regulation."

In fact, the most senior people in the government did not routinely violate the pertinent regulation which was finalized after Condi Rice left office and required Clinton to maintain her government emails at the State Department. Yes Powell and Rice also used private email addresses but they were not covered by the CFR section that Clinton violated and, in any case, their practices were not identical to Clinton's.

Per Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post, "Clinton is the first secretary of state to ever use a private email address exclusively to conduct her business. Period. That was and is unprecedented."

I realize that Doc´ s real

Flavius — Fri, 27 May 2016 01:04:57 +0000

In reply to Hillary's E-Mail Dilemma

I realize that Doc´ s real subject was the permanent anti Hillary campaign.

I have no direct knowledge but my guess is that the IG thinks his job is to make sure there´s a red check mark in every red box and a black check in every black one. As a friend often says : ¨if we wanted someone to think for himself, we wouldn´t have hired you.¨

When the most senior people in the government routinely violate a supposedly important regulation the intelligent response is to change the regulation.

Thanks for this, Doc.

Oxy Mora — Thu, 26 May 2016 23:35:48 +0000

In reply to Hillary's E-Mail Dilemma

Thanks for this, Doc.

For Progressives, nothing concentrates the mind like the prospect of an immediate hanging. Before they pull the floor bolts, may I reiterate my objections to the ethical practices of Hil--a----