Hillary Clinton Used Private Email

Hillary Clinton Conducted All State Business from Private Email Account

Just wow.

(Hope the link works - using my smartphone.)

“Examining the registry information for “clintonemail.com” reveals that the domain was first created on January 13, 2009 – one week before President Obama was sworn into office, and the same day that Clinton’s confirmation hearings began before the Senate.”

Not really surprising, it’s not like she stands to get in any actual trouble. No one is ever held accountable

This is the least of her transgressions. Besides, it is not a law that she do so but only a “requirement”. I’m sure she will just spin it that way.

She is definitely an unscrupulous hack though, and it shouldn’t be too hard for the NSA to get her communications.

Unbelievable. Talk about a serious lack of judgement!! Government accounts are there for a reason, not just for historical records keeping but also to generate a secure and encrypted connection for sensitive information. This is the most important function of government communication: to keep the information strictly to those intended to receive it.

The fact that she operated a private, hackable and completely unsecured connection for national diplomatic purposes is outrageous. It puts all our information at risk, because you can bet that even if she did somehow add a security function to the account all private email is lightyears away from the kind of encryption needed to be impregnable from China, Russia, or any other government’s information gathering apparatus.

Aragorn, completely agreed. Setting the politics of 2016 aside, the much larger issue is that secretary of state put our national security at risk for…years. It’s unbelievable. I don’t think the gravity of it has set in yet.

It is a great talking point for the election - how can we elect someone who was so foolish about national security, the most important responsibility of the President? - but I am more worried about the real harm done.

Am I wrong in feeling that something like this would have sank a presidential bid as short as 20 years ago, let along in the mid & late 20th century or before. (Obviously accounting for email not being used in the mid 20th.)

I mean, when this ends up ignored by the MSM or explained away, and we’re worse off for it, is there comfort in the thought that prior to Rock Star presidents this would have not been acceptable, by either side? Have we ever had integrity?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Am I wrong in feeling that something like this would have sank a presidential bid as short as 20 years ago, let along in the mid & late 20th century or before. (Obviously accounting for email not being used in the mid 20th.)

I mean, when this ends up ignored by the MSM or explained away, and we’re worse off for it, is there comfort in the thought that prior to Rock Star presidents this would have not been acceptable, by either side? Have we ever had integrity?[/quote]

I see you point, and you may well be right - but interestingly, it’s the New York Times that broke this story and the Washington Post is adding to it. So, mainstream outlets are taking an interest.

Her team will come up with an attempted spin - but this touches on so many things: renewed interest in Bengali (maybe), but additional questions about fundraising through the foundation. Was she talking with foreign donors via this private email in connection with all these sketchy donations to the Clinton Foundation that are raising conflict of interest issues?

Does this raise the chances of a Democrat challenging Hillary in the primary? It should.

The WSJ is running a piece on it too.

Hell even CNN is running with the Times report.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

I see you point, and you may well be right - but interestingly, it’s the New York Times that broke this story and the Washington Post is adding to it. So, mainstream outlets are taking an interest.

[/quote]

Good point. Maybe I’m wrong and journalists will do their job… The likes of Salon (yes, this isn’t a more left wing Onion, I’ve been told it’s actually a “real” news site) Huffington etc will somehow white wash the shit out of this, but if the Times is running it, it might get the legs it needs.

Well, there goes any chance of her being president.

[quote]magick wrote:
Well, there goes any chance of her being president.[/quote]

Oh God… It’s going to be Liz Warren then.

fml.

^Not necessarily.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Oh God… It’s going to be Liz Warren then.

fml. [/quote]

No one outside of MA knows who Liz Warren is.

A female unknown is NOT winning the presidency imo.

It’ll be some random male Democrat that few of the general public heard about. Much like Obama and Clinton.

I’ll be surprised if it’s still in the news next week

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Not necessarily.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-state-department-officials-explain-152110637.html[/quote]

Two anonymous sources?

Great.

Not a smidgen of corruption.

Trey Gowdy is gonna have a field day with this.