Don't the republicans have anything more pressing, important, and more useful to do besides pondering a compliment from a woman, who had resigned and was leaving, to another woman. Ooh, boy, is that a shattering issue or what?
3
This is an un-necessary burden post on the US Government, and can damage US international relations and confidences. If Mrs. Clinton & the State Department had used proper procedures, todays expenses, and information releases could have been avoided. The information can and should be vetted by the Committees of Congress receiving them with a restrictive classification. Such classification would be reviewed and relaxed if in the public interest by the Executive branch with the Legislative branch concurring.
"The emails appear to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address."
Can you really write that with a straight face? Any assertions that relate to what is NOT contained in Hillary's e-mails need a rather large qualification or two or three, don't you think? As in, how and where Hillary did her e-mailing and how and with whom Hillary decided which of her e-mails got turned over and where are the rest of them.
Can you really write that with a straight face? Any assertions that relate to what is NOT contained in Hillary's e-mails need a rather large qualification or two or three, don't you think? As in, how and where Hillary did her e-mailing and how and with whom Hillary decided which of her e-mails got turned over and where are the rest of them.
2
After reading all the comments by supporters of Clinton and Republican bashing I was wondering if it was Condoleeza Rice that had a private server during her years at the White House would they be as supportive of Rice as they are of Clinton.
Why in the world would the author of this piece feel the need to focus on an irrelevant compliment? To minimize the impact of the fact that the emails show that the Susan Rice propagated movie demonstration scenario was a pure political lie intended to influence the outcome of the upcoming election?
Even if the President and his minions lying to us is not illegal it is still not acceptable.
Even if the President and his minions lying to us is not illegal it is still not acceptable.
1
They should. The fact is they knew the attack was coming 10 days before. They knew the next day who was responsible and yet she stood before the coffins at Andrews and said it was the video. 4 fallen heroes and she knowingly and willingly lie. That was a despicable act yet Democrats don't care. They obstructed the law on this from Day 1.
The emails? You don't think some the destroyed emails didn't implicate her ? She destroyed scores of emails, some her direct involvement, such as refusing Steve s repeated requests for help? What did Blume thal's emails say?
She kept that server at her home so she would have complete control. Department policy says you must use a department email account. Not Hillary.. Rules don't apply to her. Many believeîthat her server was hacked and sensitive information compromised. Democrats don't care
That Foundation. Is a joke. She took money from companies shel aided while at state. They took millions from countries like Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE , countries that oppress women dramatically. How does Hillary explain that hypocrisy?
None of this matters. Lying, deception have been part and parcel to the Clinton's for years They attack, mislead. distort, lie, a nothing goes. If you challenge her you're accused of being a sexist. The whole campaign is built on these imisreprentations, She will play the victim and Democrats will scream abuse and Bullying
The emails? You don't think some the destroyed emails didn't implicate her ? She destroyed scores of emails, some her direct involvement, such as refusing Steve s repeated requests for help? What did Blume thal's emails say?
She kept that server at her home so she would have complete control. Department policy says you must use a department email account. Not Hillary.. Rules don't apply to her. Many believeîthat her server was hacked and sensitive information compromised. Democrats don't care
That Foundation. Is a joke. She took money from companies shel aided while at state. They took millions from countries like Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE , countries that oppress women dramatically. How does Hillary explain that hypocrisy?
None of this matters. Lying, deception have been part and parcel to the Clinton's for years They attack, mislead. distort, lie, a nothing goes. If you challenge her you're accused of being a sexist. The whole campaign is built on these imisreprentations, She will play the victim and Democrats will scream abuse and Bullying
4
So your argument is that you didn't find the smoking gun you wanted, which proves that Those Evil Clintons must have destroyed it? It couldn't be the case that there were no such messages. Nice circular logic.
9
After the Wikileaks debacle with diplomatic cables, I am not surprised that Mrs. Clinton used a private server for some communications. And since Mr. Blumenthal had no official capacity, they were somewhat "private" even though they discussed important issues.
Despite that, Mrs. Clinton relayed that information to the State Department and there are records of that in the emails released and all of which are stored in the State Dept. emails (at least according to this article).
In a way, I blame Ambassador Stevens for leaving the safety of Tripoli and travelling to Benghazi on September 11th. Had I been in his shoes, I would have stayed put - especially since he knew about the possibility of attacks (also related in this article).
Despite that, Mrs. Clinton relayed that information to the State Department and there are records of that in the emails released and all of which are stored in the State Dept. emails (at least according to this article).
In a way, I blame Ambassador Stevens for leaving the safety of Tripoli and travelling to Benghazi on September 11th. Had I been in his shoes, I would have stayed put - especially since he knew about the possibility of attacks (also related in this article).
3
I'd say the Republicans set this up by cutting security funds to the embassies. Stevens was a dedicated professional and romantic who knew the risks but insisted on taking them. Sad to see a good man like him go down. Blood on Republican hands. The subsequent hearings and finger pointings are like Macbeth hand washing blood stains that won't fade from the Republican togas.
8
Shows even in one email she didn't delete, that the Benghazi "movie story" was a crock used for political cover. imagine what she deleted?
1
I cannot believe ANYONE would consider Hillary as a leader for the United States. There has not been a candidate running with so much baggage. This women is unethical and is not good for this country! If she ran for candidacy years ago, she would of been crucified and gone home, yet she continues as if wearing rose colored glasses. Basically saying through her actions that she does not care what we think of her. Well this is what i think, if voted in, she will continue this downward spiral. God help us.
2
An e-mail goes TO someone. Once sent, the sender has no control over what happens to it. It could be copied and sent to others, it could be posted on the Internet. Nobody with any sense in the public eye would take the risk of sending a compromising e-mail, and Hillary Clinton has plenty of sense. The right wing is surely hoping that some recipient of a Clinton e-mail will come forward with some dirt, but folks, that is not going to happen because that e-mail does not exist. Two other points. First, why was it so bad that she had her own server? Think Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning. Second, if she had had two accounts, public and private, and deleted the private, what would stop the right wing from howling that she probably used the private system for classified purposes. (And one more point--she had some other devices for classified communications. She did not rely on e-mail for those.)
Dry hole. Sad sad right wingers.
Dry hole. Sad sad right wingers.
2
Who in their right mind could ever believe the Hag of Benghazi?
1
Will the NYT share emails of Ms Clinton for its readers to review and help find juicy details as they hoped with Ms Palin's? ...and whatever did result from that witch hunt?
Hillary Clinton keeps saying there was no wrongdoing, then evidence is revealed supporting her contention but then the investigation continues like a Kafkaesque nightmare. Enough is enough already.
1
It's a slap in the face that she turned over paper copies vs. the electronic copies. She knew it would slow down the process because now all are being digitized for ease of use. She can't be trusted. She rationalizes and justifies her shady activity to fit what is best for her. Her decision to have her own server, in her home shows a serious lack of good judgement. I'll take Bernie Sanders over her any day.
3
Tim -- be careful what you wish for...
Does anyone remember "The Twilight Zone" TV series from the 1960s?We now have it in real life with Hillary's quest for the White House.She uses a private email server,destroys it,decides to only release half her emails in hardcopy,etc.She avoids the press and stages counterfeit sessions with handpicked attendees.But the voters are supposed to hand her the presidency on a silver platter.Then lets factor in the Clinton Foundation and its daily reports of financial reporting errors.I just cannot vote for someone who is ethically,morally and financially corrupt.The woman lacks any semblance of integrity.
4
Bud, I knew Rod Serling and he found people like yourself and the other trolls knocking around about here like the planet of ugly people dedicated to disfiguring others to be as ugly as they to level the playing field.
7
"The emails appear to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address." So one is left to conclude that she received classified information and queries from--and in turn responded to--the State Department by Pony Express or Pigeon Mail, so no one could in theory "break" into her private server!
I recognize most of us voters adhere to uncritical ovine mindset in supporting their politicians from POTUS down, but even this jejune explanation doesn't pass the smell test and gives the notion of "following the sheep" a bad rap.
I recognize most of us voters adhere to uncritical ovine mindset in supporting their politicians from POTUS down, but even this jejune explanation doesn't pass the smell test and gives the notion of "following the sheep" a bad rap.
1
How can you possibly assert "The emails apear to back up Mrs. Clinton's previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address" when you know that Clinton's underlings went through each email to decide whether or not to turn it over? I stopped reading the story at that moment, realizing there would be no useful information resulting from a writer either clueless or performing Clinton whitewashing.
3
We are already not interested in 30.000-page memoirs of Hillary Clinton. Has has already shown us her transparency. Of course, officially nobody will find components of crime or corpus delicti as lawyers say. But Hillary has lost credibility since her Benghazi treachery.
3
I would also put blame on squarely on the shoulders of Obama, after all he did say and tried to make the public think it was because of some video on You Tube when he knew all along it wasn't. There is enough blame to go around on this one.
2
All of you are fixated and rehashing a few days post-incident, after the death of Stevens resulting from cardiac arrest and smoke inhalation, where everyone was busy figuring out whether this was a protest that got out of hand, or an attack by terrorists under its cover, or a combination. This was 3 years ago. Findings were made - the blame for the attack is clearly on the heads of the terrorists. As for the inadequate security personnel voted by budget fiat by House Republicans, and the failed opportunistic attempt to have that hysteria influence the voters in the last presidential election, well, as Clint Eastwood might put it to his imaginary ventriloquist dummy during the last Republican Ho-Down, 'Is that all you got?
7
After reading the comments, many seem to be part of a wave of trolls sponsored by the usual Republican billionaires. It seems that "flawed" is the characterization of Mrs. Clinton settled upon by the right without examining any of their own candidates or past use of private servers by Jeb Bush or by Bush White House officials (with that server set up by the RNC, and 5 million emails lost). All human beings are flawed, and the lack of concern about previous secretaries of state such as Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell who also used private communication is fairly typical.
Emails are between two people, and the second half of the equation is not the focus of this witch hunt.
This desperate attempt to distract from the Republican clown car won't work. The great majority of normal Americans understand that private correspondence is not really any one else's concern, and that a filtering process for both security and privacy reasons is necessary. There must be some bigger scandal brewing on the Republican side to justify this particular focus.
In the meantime, Republicans in Congress should prioritize fixing the country's badly deteriorating and dangerous infrastructure instead of investigating fake scandals that are sleazy political hatchet jobs.
Emails are between two people, and the second half of the equation is not the focus of this witch hunt.
This desperate attempt to distract from the Republican clown car won't work. The great majority of normal Americans understand that private correspondence is not really any one else's concern, and that a filtering process for both security and privacy reasons is necessary. There must be some bigger scandal brewing on the Republican side to justify this particular focus.
In the meantime, Republicans in Congress should prioritize fixing the country's badly deteriorating and dangerous infrastructure instead of investigating fake scandals that are sleazy political hatchet jobs.
10
Funny how the left automatically think that anyone espousing other points of views that differ from theirs are trolls, how sweet. Face it there are many here includign myself who are not affiliated with any party. So where would you label me SMB?
Here's a tip for you, stick to the point and stay away from your stereotypes no matter how off the mark they may be and lay off the name calling perhaps then others will take your comments seriously. It's an ongoing problem the Left has on these threads.....when in doubt call someone a disparaging name that'll reflect so well on you.
Here's a tip for you, stick to the point and stay away from your stereotypes no matter how off the mark they may be and lay off the name calling perhaps then others will take your comments seriously. It's an ongoing problem the Left has on these threads.....when in doubt call someone a disparaging name that'll reflect so well on you.
2
Here is a hint Laura Hunt - opinions that state faceless, baseless slanders, from posters like 'Joe - Texas' or 'Michael - Penn.' - tend to fit the description of 'troll' - why the sensitivity on the part of the bloggers here seeking to impart their opinion from, 'here there and everywhere' - Perhaps because few but trolls would even know what a 'server message block' is let alone it's abbreviation, ''SMB'' - I appreciate the existence of Google, which enabled an older gent, like myself, to figure out what in the world you were referring to. Damned by your own words and abbreviations it would seem. Have a nice day.
6
Why do we make such big deals out of non-issues. Is it because the press can make non-issues into an issue if they repeat it often enough. The Republicans know the game and play it for all it's worth. On the other hand, if one of their guys gaffs out, just ignore it and it will go away. That also works.
2
They have 21 guys, and one gal who ruined HP and got a $30M parachute to go away - her greatest accomplishment. They are like the used up gunfighter having the same dream every night where they have one bullet left in their gun and they keep pulling the trigger, but it's a dud.
7
State Department rules and régulations stipulate that communications are to be conducted within Department channels. Either Clinton knew this and thought she could get away with using "public" emailing, or she wasn't properly briefed (hard to imagine). At any rate, others within the Department surely knew about her practice and are probably doing exactly the same thing themselves. I'm sure there will be a scapegoat to take the hit for her.
1
I want to see the emails that were Deleted. Everything else we see is staged by her and her sycophants ! Time to get the truth !!
4
This is startling - no wonder she doesn't trust her relationship with the Press or public. No matter what you think of her politics - who would want all the e-meals they have sent over a period of years reviewed and analyzed by not only the Press and GOP, but even the public? Would you - God forbid the woman wrote one where she thinks a certain dress makes her look fat for her daughter's wedding. Has anyone else ever sent a stupid or embarrassing e-mail. Ok, no comment on this e-mail please.
5
If Mrs. Clinton's e-mails are anything like the great wisdom in her Iraq War vote speech in which she strongly cautions against going to war and proposes a well thought out alternative, I am sure her enemies will rue the day they made these an issue. She is a wise woman who has had disagreements with both President Bush and President Obama on foreign policy and we would have been wise to follow her advice. Maybe someday she can finally call the shots.
3
How many emails concerning Benghazi will be turned over and how many were destroyed?
Can anyone show me the State Department which allowed to keep work related emails at home?
Isn't it true on her last she was required to turn over all emails to the State Department?
Why did she ignore the directive that she must have a government email account?
Why did she fail to turn over copies of the email's to the National Archives?
If se was so concerned about Libya why did she ignore repeated pleas for help from Amb Stevens?
Democrats will obstruct like Fast and Furious, IRS and Benghazi. Anything to get the queen to her coronation
Can anyone show me the State Department which allowed to keep work related emails at home?
Isn't it true on her last she was required to turn over all emails to the State Department?
Why did she ignore the directive that she must have a government email account?
Why did she fail to turn over copies of the email's to the National Archives?
If se was so concerned about Libya why did she ignore repeated pleas for help from Amb Stevens?
Democrats will obstruct like Fast and Furious, IRS and Benghazi. Anything to get the queen to her coronation
2
I would say 'god' has a lot of healing to do in your case. Poor cognitive skills at least. Did you review the findings of the first hearing? Apparently not. Stevens was a friend. His murder was indirectly the result of cuts to embassy detail security funds that Republican budgeting caused across the board. The blood is on the Republican hands and heads by any objective assessment. The emails in question here were state department and are being released by them. Don't you people read or absorb an iota of what is before you or are your minds so impermeable it doesn't matter?
3
Look folks, the media has spent millions on the Clintons, when anyone here in the states hears the word Hillary, everyone focus on Hillary Clinton, no matter how crocked she is, no matter how much she lies, they are going to give her a pass. We have NO choice in the matter, our media is dead set on bringing us into a Fascist Marxist NWO and have been since the inception of the Industrial Revolution when the bankers started bankrolling the governments.
Just remember that the goal of the right wing machine and even some media is not to hold Mrs. Clinton accountable or even champion transparency of government. The singular goal is to sow enough doubt, disgust and disillusionment among her supporters and would=be supporters that they don't even show up at the polls to vote. The GOP cannot win a fair fight a the ballot box. They must put their finger on the scale.
4
And *now* the Times is waking up to the corruption within this administration? Awesome. This would have been better if it was taken seriously when Fox was saying it in 2012 directly after the attack. Oh wait; this is all another faux right wing scandal. Remember?
I hope enough lefties wake up before the 2016 elections. And I hope the left runs an honest candidate.
I hope enough lefties wake up before the 2016 elections. And I hope the left runs an honest candidate.
4
Let's review: Vice-President Dick Cheney, in order to block efforts by the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office to conduct a mandatory on-site inspection of his White House office, declared that the Vice-Presidency was "not fully part of the Bush administration." For part of that period of time, Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff was under investigation for charges that later landed him in prison. But ironically, Vice-President Cheney simultaneously invoked executive privilege to keep his energy policy meetings secret; to have executive privilege, of course, you have to be part of the administration. Those meeting were attended (we think) by Kenneth Lay, whose corporate abuse and accounting fraud later brought down the energy-trading company Enron.
Republicans dig for malfeasance when they want power, and hide malfeasance when they are in power. I have a powerful feeling that much more malfeasance took place in the Republican administration of 2001-2008 than will ever be found against any Democratic administration, very particularly so as compared with anything against Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Rogers of Mr Rogers' Neighborhood used to ask if children could spell a word to help them understand it. Republicans definitely cannot spell hypocrisy.
Republicans dig for malfeasance when they want power, and hide malfeasance when they are in power. I have a powerful feeling that much more malfeasance took place in the Republican administration of 2001-2008 than will ever be found against any Democratic administration, very particularly so as compared with anything against Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Rogers of Mr Rogers' Neighborhood used to ask if children could spell a word to help them understand it. Republicans definitely cannot spell hypocrisy.
4
Hillary is not the devil, but.. I distrust anyone who tries so hard to 'manage' their public perception. Have we not had enough of false transparency and narcissistic self-promotion in the oval Office? Please, put some decent Democratic candidates up for consideration.
1
So I guess you don't vote, don't watch TV, don't go to movies, don't listen to music, don't watch sports, and spend a lot of time at the zoo.
None of the supposed Hillary "scandals" have amounted to a hill of beans. Let's face it - a lot of people harbor a visceral hatred for her and will do or say almost anything to "get" her. They regard everything about her in the most negative light possible, without regard to veracity or facts. Laura Bush got a pass for actually killing someone when she ran a stop sign in 1963. Just imagine if Hillary had done such a thing.
5
I am not necessarily a huge Hillary fan, but I believe the public exposure of her private correspondence is unwarranted, and, for lack of a better word, sleazy. It says far more about those Republicans who have insisted on this than it does about her. If only they could see that.
7
Have previous secretaries of state not had conversations from their home telephone about diplomacy and other related issues? That does not sound likely; surely their job demands that they are "on the job 24/7." And if a personal phone happens to be handy, I suppose they use it and have used it. I realize e-mails are different, but it is hard to imagine that Kissinger or any Secretary of State in both Republican and Democratic administrations did not have "diplomatic conversations on personal devices." And if American interests were served by those conversations, so be it. "Diplomacy" requires the use of some private channels. Find me one senior diplomat who disagrees with that.
5
This very paper published an article stating that the right was baiting the left to tear down Clinton's candidacy. So far, what I see is a concerted attempt to diminish her standing so that her challengers come within striking distance of beating her, instead of them standing on their own positions and letting the American people decide what they want. That's the position of someone who knows his/her stance on the issues doesn't resonant with voters.
5
Anybody in any job can create a private email account. Anybody can have private phone conversations. If someone wanted to do something illegal, there are numerous ways of doing those things without ever involving your job-related email account or a private email account that you also use for your job. Think of all the email accounts people in government have that are not on government servers. Think of their private mobile phone numbers. Think of meetings over lunch and dinner. There is no there there folks.
And no one at the State Department is using email to convey sensitive information. Read some Le Carre people!
And no one at the State Department is using email to convey sensitive information. Read some Le Carre people!
5
Then sectary Clinton is not just anybody and had to sign an agreement not to use private emails for State business. She was not just anybody or just some government worker
There is also the State Department's complicity. It never divulged that it did not actually have physical possession of the server used for her emails. For years, it kept this a secret.
10
This comment fails the sanity test. occurred in 2012. It is 2015. "for years it kept this a secret'' - That rather implies that for years the public has demanded Hillary's emails at State. Anyway - it underlines the premise of all this which is that the Republicans are grasping for straws.
2
If Hillary (or President Obama for that matter) came up with a cure for cancer, the Republicans would find a way to denigrate it. I'm sure John (where are the jobs) Boehner would say she's causing hospital staff to be let go.
The dirty little secret is that the issues have nothing with our politics. The exact same cohort that are in the Tea Party now used to scream about communists (like George Marshall) of some other stupid thing like flouride. There's a free-floating paranoia out there and the issues are just an excuse to spread ignorance and misery.
The dirty little secret is that the issues have nothing with our politics. The exact same cohort that are in the Tea Party now used to scream about communists (like George Marshall) of some other stupid thing like flouride. There's a free-floating paranoia out there and the issues are just an excuse to spread ignorance and misery.
10
George Marshall was a great man. Perhaps you mean Joeseph McCarthy?
I'm an independent and have serious issues with Mrs. Clinton's competence, candor and honesty.
But above all, I feel that she wants to be President, well, because she wants to be President. And that is simply not good enough.
She articulated her vision for the country the other week, but that was based on the results of focus groups.
It should be the other way around. It's called leadership not followership.
George Marshall, by the way, was a great leader. He and Truman sold the country on something it was not inclined to do. Rebuild Europe on our nickel. Our problems, which are many, can only be solved by this type of leadership -- making the unpopular popular.
I'm an independent and have serious issues with Mrs. Clinton's competence, candor and honesty.
But above all, I feel that she wants to be President, well, because she wants to be President. And that is simply not good enough.
She articulated her vision for the country the other week, but that was based on the results of focus groups.
It should be the other way around. It's called leadership not followership.
George Marshall, by the way, was a great leader. He and Truman sold the country on something it was not inclined to do. Rebuild Europe on our nickel. Our problems, which are many, can only be solved by this type of leadership -- making the unpopular popular.
11
So far I see neither smoke nor fire in these emails. Of course, that won't matter to the Republicans who hope to create an appearance of impropriety to damage Ms. Clinton. This is going to be Whitewater, Travelgate and Vince Foster all over again; lots of innuendo from the republicans but no evidence.
10
Do you actually think HRC deleted only her personal emails? Come on..
2
This is on par with the ten years the GuardianUK paper devoted to reveal the contents of private correspondence - Prince Charles' 'spidery' letters. Their trove proved nothing - but what were they looking for? To embarrass him or were there suspicions of wrong doing? In the Clinton case, Hillary has been on the public eye for more than a quarter century. She has been a devoted public servant. The cynicism in these political efforts to discredit her and to expose any incompetence - can be turned around to reveal the characters of those attacking hers. This is red meat for the GOP and the news media. One would think these were 'slow-news-days' - so intense is the concentration on Mrs. Clinton's past. It's not just the e-mails - it's anything the Clintons' touch, that can be blown-up to create instant crisis to knock her from her top-spot perch in the next election. She knew the perils going in to this election, after so many years of criticism - so she's in it to stay. Good for her.
8
And bad - very, very bad- for our country.
"devoted public servant"? Hillary is devoted to one cause: Hillary. She and her philandering husband have become rich selling out our country to adversarial interests. Knowing the perils? She never imagined that this Champion of the Left, the NYTimes, would be the investigatory agent to uncover and publish her trading our country's interest for millions to the "Clinton Foundation" -- most of whose money ended up in their personal fortune, via that charity's "Other Expenses."
Her activities are red meat only to those seeking truth.
Her activities are red meat only to those seeking truth.
2
The first 850 pages released is about 1% of what was originally on Hillary's private server, making it such a small sample as to be irrelevant. I'm quite sure that if destruction evidence was intended, it was well accomplished, so I don't expect to see any incriminating emails released.
What I am interested in is the overall data picture: unusual redaction, incomplete email chains, or expected correspondence that is missing. That picture will take thousands more emails (all of which I expect to be boring) to form. Until then, these pieces are just fluff.
What I am interested in is the overall data picture: unusual redaction, incomplete email chains, or expected correspondence that is missing. That picture will take thousands more emails (all of which I expect to be boring) to form. Until then, these pieces are just fluff.
6
Keep in mind that the redaction is by an office of the Executive branch. Its CEO is . . .
Fluff it he says, fluff it they does.
Fluff it he says, fluff it they does.
It is troubling that Mrs. Clinton's defenders in these comments take for granted that she has made available all email required by law despite the fact that her use of a private server violated State Dept. policy.
Moreover, how do request that she disclose emails that should have been available from departmental servers amount to persecution by the "right wing?"
Apparently, from the perspective of Clinton supporters, laws and regulations designed to assure transparency in government need only be followed by the little people. Well, why not? That is certainly consistent with the operating principles of the Obame Administration.
Moreover, how do request that she disclose emails that should have been available from departmental servers amount to persecution by the "right wing?"
Apparently, from the perspective of Clinton supporters, laws and regulations designed to assure transparency in government need only be followed by the little people. Well, why not? That is certainly consistent with the operating principles of the Obame Administration.
13
Yep, just like we should trust that Jeb Bush disclosed everything of consequence from his private email account when he was Florida Governor.
1
We ended up with the ruling in the Citizen's United Supreme Court case because Bush was appointed president in 2000 by the Supreme Court. Had Gore gotten the Presidency that he won, Roberts and Alito would not be on the Court. Bush's presidency is the gift that keeps on giving. There is likely to be 2 to 3 appointments to the Supreme Court in the next 9 years. Do I want Hillary making those appointments or Jeb Bush or Scott Walker? So whatever her flaws - I would much prefer Bernie Sanders - I will vote for her. Of course, she should have used government email, even if Colin Powell and Condilezza Rice didn't. Of course, she's beholden to the rich. Jeb Bush and Scott Walker aren't? There's no choice here for me. I have to vote for her. For those who hate her and there are many who do, they too have no choice but to attack her with whatever they can find or makeup just like was done to John Kerry in the "Swift Boat" debacle turning honorable military service into a noose around his neck.
12
Like but I'm voting my conscious. Go Bernie Go!!!
Why use a personal email to discuss professional business. She was Secretary of State, not a CEO of Ben and Jerry's discussing the next flavor of the month! I don't care what party she belongs to or her politics. Anyone at her level of responsibility with the sensitive nature of her communications should know better. It's a poor judgement call.
15
The Clinton State Department emails that are being released are irrelevant as is the revisiting of Behghazi to the overall issue of pay to play regarding the Clinton foundation. The real issue involves the email communication between Ms. Clinton and her political/foundation/shadow campaign staff (Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Philippe Reines, Dennis Cheng etc).
These emails have been erased or withheld and transparency will only occur if a Clinton version of the Nixon/Watergate era deep throat emerges. Otherwise, the full truth will not be known and we will be left to ponder why we elected Richard Nixon...ops Hillary Clinton over a current version of George McGovern...Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
These emails have been erased or withheld and transparency will only occur if a Clinton version of the Nixon/Watergate era deep throat emerges. Otherwise, the full truth will not be known and we will be left to ponder why we elected Richard Nixon...ops Hillary Clinton over a current version of George McGovern...Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
9
You are comparing Richard Nixon to Hillary Clinton? Could you please provide a list of her accomplishments. His are well documented and unnecessary.
2
I'm sure there's nothing there after David Kendall got through with them and removed anything questionable. Spinning a story is an acceptable practice but suppressing information related to a public figure, who happens to be running for president, is beyond the pale.
Perhaps there is no there 'there' as some famous politicians like to weasel word the facts. The Clintons have such a negative reputation for such things that no one would believe them if they passed a hundred lie detector tests.
Perhaps there is no there 'there' as some famous politicians like to weasel word the facts. The Clintons have such a negative reputation for such things that no one would believe them if they passed a hundred lie detector tests.
7
The real Benghazi scandal is not the one GOPers like to talk about but it´s real and needs to be exposed for what it is. The GOP-dominated congress slashed the diplomatic security budget by half a billion dollars. Sec. Clinton warned that a 20+% cut like this was draconian, would undoubtedly hamper security efforts, and jeopardize the safety of diplomats. They ignored that warning and lives were indeed lost because of inadequate security. And the 2014 Ryan budget called for another half billion dollar cut. The GOP has no scruples though ranting and raving about the scrambling that the Benghazi incident caused in the State Dep´t totally oblivious to their own culpability, and assessing blame on others. This is the height of shameful hypocrisy.
14
The Republicans depend on terrorism as do the permanent floating mercenary otherwise unemployable men of the middle east who do not have their fingers in the oil emirates. War is welfare in the middle east for unemployable men who want to bully women and children and shoot guns. Spreading fear, denigrating women and gay rights is income for otherwise unemployable beltway mediocrities who trade on loyalty for payment as toadies for the Koch oligarchs.
1
What these emails will show, i'm afraid, is that Ms Clinton, our Sect of State was negligent, derelict of duty, of confronting the major foreign policy issue of our time--Climate Change/Global Warming. It would serve the interest of both Republicans and Democrats here (also, for the most part, negligent, derelict of duty--ok, the republicans more so) to make this about Benghazi.
Kerry, on the other hand, in between endlessly trying to put out fires, has started to acknowledge CC as important. Global warming is the biggest fire.
Kerry, on the other hand, in between endlessly trying to put out fires, has started to acknowledge CC as important. Global warming is the biggest fire.
4
Like the endless repetitive "investigations" of Benghazi, this is all fairly pointless. Republicans are on a campaign witch hunt now, and all but salivating at the idea of having access to the personal emails of Mrs. Clinton. Jeb Bush, of course, used a personal server as governor of Florida, but no one cares. George W. Bush had many emails from his administration lost since White House officials used a private server set up by the Republican National Committee.
Republicans seem to be operating now on a permanent search and destroy mission, and never to do anything constructive for the good of the country. Their favorite targets are always minorities and women. I'm surprised they're not bringing back stocks, witch tests, and scold's bridles.
News flash: Almost no one cares, especially those outside the obsessed Fox circle of haters.
Republicans seem to be operating now on a permanent search and destroy mission, and never to do anything constructive for the good of the country. Their favorite targets are always minorities and women. I'm surprised they're not bringing back stocks, witch tests, and scold's bridles.
News flash: Almost no one cares, especially those outside the obsessed Fox circle of haters.
14
I'm an independent and I totally dislike fox news but I do care about national security.
2
The real Benghazi scandal is not the one GOPers like to talk about but it´s real and needs to be exposed for what it is. The GOP-dominated congress slashed the diplomatic security budget by half a billion dollars. Sec. Clinton warned that a 20+% cut like this was draconian, would undoubtedly hamper security efforts, and jeopardize the safety of diplomats. They ignored that warning and lives were indeed lost because of inadequate security. And the 2014 Ryan budget calls for another half billion dollar cut. The GOP has no scruples though ranting and raving about the scrambling that the Benghazi incident caused in the State Dep´t totally oblivious to their own culpability, and assessing blame on others. This is the height of shameful hypocrisy.
9
Aha - they will say, "so you admit there was a problem in Bengahzi!" Like the drunk caught raping their own daughter the Republicans are the first to accuse others of having a 'dirty mind.' So they caused the problem by slashing security funds - irrelevant! In other words they are willfully ignorant, prevaricating, criminals. Best to investigate a few of them for squandering millions on an investigation that has already been held twice.
1
Nobody in public arena is ever going to get the full story, because the CIA and security agencies were involved, and actively at work in this area. By sheer necessity, they most likely cannot release secret/sensitive information.
This was the 13th such attack since Invasion of Iraq on US diplomatic compound in Middle East. The first 12 were under Bush Administration. How are they any less important?
This was the 13th such attack since Invasion of Iraq on US diplomatic compound in Middle East. The first 12 were under Bush Administration. How are they any less important?
6
Easy. No Clinton? Not important.
Here is a possibly dumb question that is bothering me about this story.
While you can clearly decide not to transmit confidential information from a personal e-mail, how do you prevent the receipt of it? It's clear Mrs. Clinton established a practice of using personal e-mail for government work. How did she make sure no one SENT her classified information to the e-mail? There couldn't have been official procedures to prevent it (becuase it was unauthorized), so how was this possibly controled for?
This just does not smell right.
While you can clearly decide not to transmit confidential information from a personal e-mail, how do you prevent the receipt of it? It's clear Mrs. Clinton established a practice of using personal e-mail for government work. How did she make sure no one SENT her classified information to the e-mail? There couldn't have been official procedures to prevent it (becuase it was unauthorized), so how was this possibly controled for?
This just does not smell right.
4
Everything we're going to see from the State Department has been thoroughly vetted by Clinton Foundation lawyers. Simply put, the Clinton's have their own set of rules and the rest of us another. Really that simple.
9
They all have their own set of rules. Go Bernie Go
I understand extreme partisanship, but some of the comments are appalling. Implying that what we have here is gratuitous trolling, looking for dirt on a disliked politician.
She was Secretary of State, and had an private email that deliberately shielded her from full disclosure of her *official* correspondence - violating explicit rules within her own department and implicit ethical principles that should be standard for any government official.
Malfeasance should never get a pass, just because you like someone or her politics.
She was Secretary of State, and had an private email that deliberately shielded her from full disclosure of her *official* correspondence - violating explicit rules within her own department and implicit ethical principles that should be standard for any government official.
Malfeasance should never get a pass, just because you like someone or her politics.
9
One significant downside to partisanship is that it provides cover for some pretty unpleasant behavior.
4
If you were in Hills camp at state wouldn't these be the ones you release first? P.T. Barnum said it was a sucker born everyday. So true So true. Guess the next ones will be she has nothing to do with Bills foundation.
3
I have to wonder how many of her "released emails" will correspond with what other State Department Employees have from her. How many of the "not so good looking" conversations did she Delete?
1
Here's the thing. The only Democrat that has any chance of being elected in 2016 is Hillary Clinton. There is no other viable option. Joe Biden is too old, Elizabeth Warren is too far left and strident to be electable, and everyone else is too unknown. The next President will almost certainly select two or more justices to the Supreme Court. So unless a person wants the next several decades to have policy be decided by the likes of Roberts, Scalia, et al., I would strongly suggest we get behind the candidacy of Ms. Clinton.
The extreme criticism of her at root is because she is a woman just as the extraordinary disrespect shown to President Obama is because he is Afro-American.
All the rest is commentary.
The extreme criticism of her at root is because she is a woman just as the extraordinary disrespect shown to President Obama is because he is Afro-American.
All the rest is commentary.
8
I would LOVE to see a woman president. However, first I want a president who puts the "average American citizen" first and who is honest, who is open to questions, and who does not consider herself/himself above the law. Although Hillary has said she wants to be our "champion," I don't think she has any idea what an "average citizen" encounters. With the amount of money and power she and Bill have, she cannot relate to most Americans.
Obama has gotten a great deal of "protection" from the media. If he had been truthful about ACA from the beginning, prosecuted bank executives for their fraud, fought ISIS instead of calling the a "JV team," and not used executive power to get what he wants (instead of using our governmental system to give the people what THEY want), few people would be criticizing him. The criticism has nothing to do with his ancestry, but his actions. (I find it interesting that when Obama is criticized, many people think it must be because of his ancestry. If he were so disliked, he would not have been elected president!)
Obama has gotten a great deal of "protection" from the media. If he had been truthful about ACA from the beginning, prosecuted bank executives for their fraud, fought ISIS instead of calling the a "JV team," and not used executive power to get what he wants (instead of using our governmental system to give the people what THEY want), few people would be criticizing him. The criticism has nothing to do with his ancestry, but his actions. (I find it interesting that when Obama is criticized, many people think it must be because of his ancestry. If he were so disliked, he would not have been elected president!)
Here we have democrats joining republicans in destroying a perfectly good woman and one of their best hopes for the future. No wonder they keep losing and we are becoming essentially the red states of America.
7
Elect HRC and watch the continue downward slide of America. Income inequality will grow, we will remain in the middle east, deficits will balloon, poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer.
The corporate elite have spoken and anointed their chosen one. If you think she'll actually make a positive change I have bridge to sell you.
The corporate elite have spoken and anointed their chosen one. If you think she'll actually make a positive change I have bridge to sell you.
2
The Republicans will come up dry on this too.
But they will continue to flail about anyway trying to make something out of nothing.
But they will continue to flail about anyway trying to make something out of nothing.
4
In 1928, they said Al Smith was "unAmerican" (i.e., Catholic). Then Franklin Roosevelt was "a traitor to his class." War hero George McGovern got the treatment in 1972. 16 years later, Republican "strategist" Lee Atwater gave honorable Mike Dukakis the Willie Horton treatment. Even poor John McCain received slime treatment in the 2000 Republican South Carolina primary. Then Vietnam vet John Kerry was swiftboated. Barack Obama isn't even an American. . . .
Of course it's Hillary Clinton's turn now. She can win, and that wouldn't be good for the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and the champions of inequality. So she killed Vince Foster and hid the evidence. Mike Huckabee didn't send her to jail over "Whitewater" because she hid the evidence. The Clinton Foundation -- which does good in the world -- is somehow criminal (if only we could prove it), but unlimited anonymous political spending by billionaires is not. If you could see her deleted e-mails (or the ones that never existed), you'd see the treason.
Karl Rove and his acolytes at work.
Of course it's Hillary Clinton's turn now. She can win, and that wouldn't be good for the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and the champions of inequality. So she killed Vince Foster and hid the evidence. Mike Huckabee didn't send her to jail over "Whitewater" because she hid the evidence. The Clinton Foundation -- which does good in the world -- is somehow criminal (if only we could prove it), but unlimited anonymous political spending by billionaires is not. If you could see her deleted e-mails (or the ones that never existed), you'd see the treason.
Karl Rove and his acolytes at work.
6
Koch is it. The Koch family hates the Clintons and they have a mother fixation that they went to war with one another over. Now a clear cut case of transference, the repressed homosexual and incestuous yearnings of the brothers has reunited them from suing one another into 'trying to kill mommy' even if it means spending a billion dollars to do it.
5
The real issue is she was Secretary of state her private server was tapped by every major spy organization on the planet. I had a high clearance and I would have been court martialed for what she did. She could say nice kind things yet still be giving away state department personnels movements and activities. I have had these security briefings. Telling the wife on an insecure line I won't be home the next three days
18
These incoherent unpunctuated allegations are "picked" why?
The State Department server was hacked repeatedly. I wouldn't trust it either.
An ex president's server is highly secured by the Secret Service. I understand that conservatives need to reach for something, anything, to try to put a dent in her electability.
Please name one accomplishment by Hillary. I am leftest and will end up voting for her by default. However, Hillary fans who talk about her like the second coming really should review her record. As first lady, her health care initiative was a failure. As Senator, she voted for the Iraq War and Patriot Act. As Secretary of State, well the results of her many failures are still with her. She continues to be a backer of Wall Street (as was her husband).
She may very well be our only choice for us on the left seeing the only person WITH integrity -- Elizabeth Warren -- will not run. But please stop with the hero worship.
She may very well be our only choice for us on the left seeing the only person WITH integrity -- Elizabeth Warren -- will not run. But please stop with the hero worship.
3
We still do not know what she knew, and when she knew it regarding the Ambassader's wanting to leave Benghazi because of safety concerns. Did anyone in Washington say stay there? Or, it is time to leave?
Bravo commenters. I am truly amused that you are actually trying to defend Hillary and her seventh grade like cover up of Benghazi and email gate by taking on all negative commenters by saying it is OK because Bush "lied" to start the Iraq war. The liberal penchant for self delusion never ceases to amaze me.
15
To you and the few others who repeatedly refer to the "cover up" over Benghazi, I'd love to know what's (allegedly) being covered up.
5
Jordon, could you please outline what exactly is the cover up? Is the cover up that members of the administration in the immediate aftermath claimed that the attack was spontaneous when it actually was a coordinate terrorist attack and they knew that or had reason to believe that at the time? Is that the extent of it?
3
I guess the Republicans must be 6th graders since their own Benghazi report(s) can't come up with a single piece of evidence that implicates Hillary, Obama or anyone else in the administration in any kind cover-up.
2
She failed to act on those concerns re Benghazi. Where does the buck stop with such an inept State Department?
11
I guess you don't vote for her for President if you think she should have taken a larger roll in consular security decisions rather than trust the opinion of the security experts as customary among USSOS's.
1
Your Right-Wing focus on the two State Dept deaths, while ignoring the two CIA deaths, makes it quite clear you are only interested in "getting" Clinton, not on actually understanding what happened.
3
The lives lost in embassies/US offices during the Bush years were grievous:
June 14, 2002 Karachi, Pakistan killing 12
May 12, 2003 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing 34
Dec. 6, 2004 Jeddah, Saudi Arabia killing 4
July 13, 2008 Afghanistan killing 19
Sept. 16, 2008 Yemen killing 16
Where was the GOP outrage then?
June 14, 2002 Karachi, Pakistan killing 12
May 12, 2003 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing 34
Dec. 6, 2004 Jeddah, Saudi Arabia killing 4
July 13, 2008 Afghanistan killing 19
Sept. 16, 2008 Yemen killing 16
Where was the GOP outrage then?
4
Which hunt?
Witch Hunt.
Witch Hunt.
7
Yes, yes Republicans focus on imaginary scandals and offer the people no real ideas on vexing problems. Discourage people to vote with poisonous attacks on a bright, compassionate person, who wants a more decent life for our young. Benghazi is Whitewater of the nineties. We've seen this movie before and it's time to look forward, not back.
5
The NYT says that they did not see any classified information in the emails that Hillary CHOSE to release, so there must not be any. Are you kidding? She deleted the ones with classified information in order to avoid prosecution. This is like a criminal telling the prosecutor "I did not do it" and only giving him the evidence he wants to give. "Yes, the blood-stained clothes are at my house, but I decided not to release those to you". Do you really think a prosecutor would go along with that?
In her whole career, Hillary has been shown to obstruct justice and hide evidence with impunity (remember the Rose Law Firm records?), and yet, the NYT just takes her at her word that as Secretary of State, she never had classified materials sent to her? Or that she never sent classified information to anyone? What do they think a Secretary of State does? Is the NYT really this unaware, or are they just trying to save Hillary?
In her whole career, Hillary has been shown to obstruct justice and hide evidence with impunity (remember the Rose Law Firm records?), and yet, the NYT just takes her at her word that as Secretary of State, she never had classified materials sent to her? Or that she never sent classified information to anyone? What do they think a Secretary of State does? Is the NYT really this unaware, or are they just trying to save Hillary?
14
I don't understand how the NYT can draw conclusions from these emails that her prior testimony was verified in these emails. It fails to mention she purged those emails SHE concluded were not germaine. The Clintons have gotten away these flim flam games for years.
13
Can you remind me what are the other flim flam games with which they have gotten away?
2
One more thing, can anyone tell me who would be a better president in this day and age of daily international implosions? What republican or democrat has even the most remote experience (good or bad) to deal with the the list of issues we have to address in the next ten years? I can not even start a list here of the areas where 41, 42 and 43 messed things up and 44 (Obama) did not do anything to change the overall vacuum that exists now in foreign policy!
1
Not for anything and hey she may be the best candidate but what did she actually accommplish as SOS?
The Problem is she used a personal SERVER ALSO.
She can delete files, smoke Hard Drives and destroy anf self-incriminating material.
Its a National Security issue:
Private Emails & Servers can be hacked, Guccifer already hacked Hillary's account.
NO CLASSIFIED MATERIAL ?
Really ?
Thats alarming, How can she do her job effectively without any Classified Emails ?
How did she receive any Classified material ? By Horse ? By UPS ? Smoke Signals ?
SHE USED HER PRIVATE ACCOUNT FOR 100% of the time as Secretary of State.
Not 1 Classified Email ???
Totally Incompetent, or lying.
It is simply inconceivable, that as secretary of state, she did not originate or receive any classified emails - quite simply impossible. I spent over 20 years with the FBI and DEA and a day did not go by that I did not send or receive classified emails. They have to be done on a government secured computer network. There is no way she could conduct the business of the State Department without being exposed to classified material in an electronic format, i.e. e-mail.
She can delete files, smoke Hard Drives and destroy anf self-incriminating material.
Its a National Security issue:
Private Emails & Servers can be hacked, Guccifer already hacked Hillary's account.
NO CLASSIFIED MATERIAL ?
Really ?
Thats alarming, How can she do her job effectively without any Classified Emails ?
How did she receive any Classified material ? By Horse ? By UPS ? Smoke Signals ?
SHE USED HER PRIVATE ACCOUNT FOR 100% of the time as Secretary of State.
Not 1 Classified Email ???
Totally Incompetent, or lying.
It is simply inconceivable, that as secretary of state, she did not originate or receive any classified emails - quite simply impossible. I spent over 20 years with the FBI and DEA and a day did not go by that I did not send or receive classified emails. They have to be done on a government secured computer network. There is no way she could conduct the business of the State Department without being exposed to classified material in an electronic format, i.e. e-mail.
14
All the excuses, particularly the "convenience" of a single device, are just plain obfuscation. I have, in Outlook on this one computer, service to multiple email accounts, two of which I use daily. Their servers are also accessible through a browser when I'm away from this computer. I have no problem selecting which account an originating email is to be sent from, Outlook automatically selects which of my several Inboxes is to hold an email based upon the account that received it, and also automatically selects the account by which a reply to that email is to be transmitted. Any reasonably clever 7 year old could master that.
She had the technical smarts -- or assistance from those with such smarts -- to set up and configure her own server. Ms. Clinton had no -- as in not one -- excuse for not using State Department servers for her official email, and another ISP for her personal email -- all from one device.
Her initial decision to avoid State Department facilities was motivated by her wanting to keep even her official correspondence from prying eyes, and her destruction of her supposedly private messages continues that practice.
I wonder: How many of those private emails involve her negotiations with sources of "contributions" and the quid pro quo involved. Recall: only 16% of the contributions to the Clinton Foundation actually went to charitable efforts. Over half are hidden in "Other Expenses".
She had the technical smarts -- or assistance from those with such smarts -- to set up and configure her own server. Ms. Clinton had no -- as in not one -- excuse for not using State Department servers for her official email, and another ISP for her personal email -- all from one device.
Her initial decision to avoid State Department facilities was motivated by her wanting to keep even her official correspondence from prying eyes, and her destruction of her supposedly private messages continues that practice.
I wonder: How many of those private emails involve her negotiations with sources of "contributions" and the quid pro quo involved. Recall: only 16% of the contributions to the Clinton Foundation actually went to charitable efforts. Over half are hidden in "Other Expenses".
10
"The intense interest in the emails stems in part from the revelation this year that Mrs. Clinton exclusively used a private email address to conduct her government work as secretary of state."
and
"The emails appear to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address."
If "Mrs. Clinton exclusively used a private email address" and "she did not receive classified information at her private email address", then she never received any classified email communication during her term as Secretary of State. How does this claim make sense? Where's the logic? Surely she received classified communications as Secretary. To claim she never did receive any by email is preposterous. Please explain.
and
"The emails appear to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address."
If "Mrs. Clinton exclusively used a private email address" and "she did not receive classified information at her private email address", then she never received any classified email communication during her term as Secretary of State. How does this claim make sense? Where's the logic? Surely she received classified communications as Secretary. To claim she never did receive any by email is preposterous. Please explain.
5
This continues to be all about upending the Clinton presidential campaign by increasing her negatives in the early polling. It's a good test of her durability as a real candidate and one the Democratic party is not prepared to do on its own by fielding a real opponent to her nomination.
4
Likely samples from Hillary's "deleted" e-mails:
Hillary: You know how things are in Washington Chris. I'm only one person and there are a lot of channels that need to be gone through.
Amb. Stevens: I don't know who else to reach out to. We're getting desperate. I feel something really bad is going to happen soon. I'm even receiving death threats now.
Hillary: Oh Chris. Don't let empty threats worry you so much.
Amb. Stevens: By the way, why is our correspondence not going through official State Department messaging protocol?
Hillary: It's a new system we're testing out to improve efficiency.
Amb. Stevens: It seems highly unusual. I'm not sure this is even legal.
Hillary: LOOK CHRIS! I've been patient with you long enough. If you have nothing constructive to further add to this conversation then let's call it a day and I caution you not to discuss State Department business with any other agencies inside or outside Washington. I hope you understand that.
Amb. Stevens: I just want some help here Madam Secretary. We need help fast.
Hillary: I asked you if you understand what I said about discussing these matters with outside agencies.
Amb. Stevens: Yes, I understand.
Hillary: You know how things are in Washington Chris. I'm only one person and there are a lot of channels that need to be gone through.
Amb. Stevens: I don't know who else to reach out to. We're getting desperate. I feel something really bad is going to happen soon. I'm even receiving death threats now.
Hillary: Oh Chris. Don't let empty threats worry you so much.
Amb. Stevens: By the way, why is our correspondence not going through official State Department messaging protocol?
Hillary: It's a new system we're testing out to improve efficiency.
Amb. Stevens: It seems highly unusual. I'm not sure this is even legal.
Hillary: LOOK CHRIS! I've been patient with you long enough. If you have nothing constructive to further add to this conversation then let's call it a day and I caution you not to discuss State Department business with any other agencies inside or outside Washington. I hope you understand that.
Amb. Stevens: I just want some help here Madam Secretary. We need help fast.
Hillary: I asked you if you understand what I said about discussing these matters with outside agencies.
Amb. Stevens: Yes, I understand.
9
Is this actionable libel?
1
This is all about projection. The Republican party assumes that intelligence during Libya must have been cherrypicked, exaggerated, coerced and fabricated to fit into a Narrative the Obama Admin must have wanted to spin during the chaos of Bengazi. Why? Because this is exactly what the Republican party knows they did during the preceding 8 years of their hero W and the Iraq war. Honest assessments being made in real time by a well meaning administration...never - can't be. Let's call it a scandal and surely we will reveal proof of foul play later - heck we Repub's deleted 6-10 million emails under our hero Bush's watch - surely we will find a smoking gun if we look hard enough.
7
Exactly! It's Bush's fault.
1
But, but, but we need to elect a woman!
6
Except for the conspiracy theorists and the journalists who are in a snit about Clinton not talking to them why is any of this surprising?
7
"The emails appear to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address."
So let me get this straight - she scrubbed her email and you are saying that it confirms our assertions about the type of information? Seriously? What a joke.
So let me get this straight - she scrubbed her email and you are saying that it confirms our assertions about the type of information? Seriously? What a joke.
14
Especially since they've only looked at 850 out of 55,000 emails!
I find the hysteria over Sec Clinton's email just amazing. Once again the republicans have lit their torches and grabbed their pitch forks to start their daily Hillary Clinton witch hunt. How dare Hillary Clinton use a personal server the critics say, but not one word about Sec. Condoleezza Rice or Sec. Colin Powell not even saving ANY OF THEIR emails. And these were people who took the country to WAR. Where is the outrage over their emails? Unless and until the Clinton critics can answer those questions, then they have no credibility and this is nothing more than a political witch hunt of the worst kind. And the question needs to be asked of these congressional men and women leading the charge, why are your congressional emails EXEMPT from the Freedom of Information Act?
11
I guess while the candidates are reading over 850 pages of emails and finding their 'quote of the day' or drill down point for weeks to come about the Clintons and their secrecy conspiracies, they will not have time to formulate and communicated to us voters any meaningful a) domestic agenda, b) any foreign affairs positions, i.e. Asia pivot, middle east issues, c) address the environmental concerns of fracking and drinking water or drilling in Alaska to name a few of the overlooked issues!! Oh, I forgot, the fact that 5 banks that are too big to fail just plead guilty to criminal conspiracy for rigging the world currency trading mechanism and are paying the US Government a total of $5 billion in fines. I guess the focus is well placed!!!
Mission accomplished on at least one from!
Mission accomplished on at least one from!
8
Yet no one was indicted in the bank fraud! "Banks" don't make decisions, people do. And the people responsible for rigging the currency should be sent to prison and to pay the fines out of their own pockets. Instead, the "banks" have to pay the fines - which means the stockholders and bank customers will foot the bill!
The story is not about the emails we are going to read, but about those that were deleted. I think that if the NYT wants to be critical of the actions of Mrs. Clinton, they should keep to the point.
4
Why do we make such big deals out of non-issues. Is it because the press can make a non-issues into an issue if they repeat it often enough. The Republicans know the game and play it well. On the other hand, if one of their guys gaffs out, just ignore it and it will go away. That also works.
7
I am bewildered by what the NYT's Clinton coverage demonstrates about the NYT. In this instance, a senior government employee hid and then destroyed government records. The NYT has reviewed a few privately obtained remnants, chosen by the employee, and wishes to declare the employee trustworthy.
The NYT's display of indifference to actual history, character and law is of deep concern and inconsistent with the ideals of journalism.
As to my fellow Democrats, I do not understand the desire to continue to promote a candidate of demonstrated indifference to the law and a candidate who is certain of the law's inapplicability to her self service and secret though legally governed activities.
The NYT's display of indifference to actual history, character and law is of deep concern and inconsistent with the ideals of journalism.
As to my fellow Democrats, I do not understand the desire to continue to promote a candidate of demonstrated indifference to the law and a candidate who is certain of the law's inapplicability to her self service and secret though legally governed activities.
17
Superiority? You wish. Republicans aren't alone in their suspicion of Hilary. Have you been ignoring critical stories about her here in the NYT, as well as the Washington Post?
2
"The emails also show that Mrs. Clinton was circulating information about the attacks in Benghazi that contradicted the Obama administration’s initial narrative of what occurred, and that she was concerned about how Republicans could use the incidents to undermine President Obama"
It would have been useful to report on the dates of those emails. Were they sent in the immediate aftermath (say within 2 weeks) of the attack on 9/12?
And are you suggesting that she knew that attack wasn't the result of a youtube video, but publicly lied about it?
It would have been useful to report on the dates of those emails. Were they sent in the immediate aftermath (say within 2 weeks) of the attack on 9/12?
And are you suggesting that she knew that attack wasn't the result of a youtube video, but publicly lied about it?
9
I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!
2
Am I missing something? Given the years of intensive scrutiny of Benghazi by the House of Representatives, weren't emails from people like Ms. Abedin produced to the House? And wouldn't they have included emails to and from Secretary Clinton? As far as I can tell, only emails that were not copied to other State Department staff from the Secretary would be "new" emails in this "investigation."
5
Ms Abedin used a private email account on Hillary's server (along with Cheryl Mills), so no, we would not have those. That is the dirty little secret here, she was able to hide most emails that could show her in a negative light.
2
Have you been hiding under a rock? Why do you think Hilary's emails are so important now??? They've not been made available until now. Who know what was in the thousands of emails she deleted? How did she communicate sensitive data, when she contends she didn't send any through her server - the only one she used as Secretary? The House subpoenaed her emails over two years ago, yet it took over a year for the State Dept. to admit they didn't have copies of Hilary's emails....
Why did Slaughter's reference to the NYT pic make it into the trunk of this story? In a competition for space, how did that win? Surely there was a far more important point to be made about the debate Slaughter was opening up about arming Libyan rebels? Her remark was about the equivalent of 'nice win for the (add name of some sports team or other)' and I can't imagine that making it in there. Strikes me as very surprising stereotyping. Slaughter had a very important policy role. Her opinion of Clinton's picture was not newsworthy and a big distraction. Her views on arming the rebels, however, most definitely were.
29
Agreed. Anne-Marie Slaughter is a very serious and intelligent person, but the NYT authors and editors did what they could to her sound as if she were tweeting the Kardashians. Crazy. Also. HRC and AMS are friends. Does one have to be a sycophant in order to give a compliment to a friend. I knew my brain would melt during the HRC due to ridiculous media coverage, but I did not know the melting would begin so soon.
1
Ms. Monaghan, I'm a staunch supporter of Secretary Clinton. I voted for her in our 08 primary. I continually call out the misogyny aimed at her and I think such comments will help motivate both independents and occasional voters to our, (her), side. I think the New York Times' point was to point out a rarely seen example of the internal off topic conversation between high level government officials. I've seen examples of intra gender banter involving male officials in the past.
On another topic, it will be difficult, really next to impossible for any Republican except Governor Kasich to take Ohio from Secretary Clinton. She will likely beat him here also. I am hopeful she can take Indiana also.
On another topic, it will be difficult, really next to impossible for any Republican except Governor Kasich to take Ohio from Secretary Clinton. She will likely beat him here also. I am hopeful she can take Indiana also.
I quite agree, Elaine Monaghan. Slaughter's remark is a simple aside in the manner that women use, just as you pointed out the equivalent in male discourse.
Why should I care whether she used her personal email account as long as the job got done?
4
Because the Secretary of State is prohibited from using a personal account for official business? As to 'getting the job done' - she accomplished nothing as SofS. Our relations with nearly every other nation are at historic lows. That is her diplomatic 'legacy'.
5
Because she used her position to enrich herself and her husband, and used her personal email server to hide the evidence. She has almost surely committed dozens of felonies, perhaps even treason. That is why you should care.
As for getting the job done, have you seen the state of the world lately? No one, not even Hillary, can name a single accomplishment she had as Secretary of State.
As for getting the job done, have you seen the state of the world lately? No one, not even Hillary, can name a single accomplishment she had as Secretary of State.
4
How did she get the job done. Four state department personal one a US Ambassadors was assassinated under her watch an she had to resign. Key question what foriegn agencies monitored her private emails did she incompetently give away the movements to foreign groups who could then act on them? None of this would be classified but still deadly to American interests.
If Hillary was in charge there never would have been an Arab Spring. She would have put a cap on it.
In the interest of fair and balanced, every republican candidate who insist that Hillary open her private emails to public view should also open up their private emails for public access. That also go for the hypocritical national press corp.
11
Well, if she'd followed the rules and used a State Dept email address and server, we wouldn't be concerned about her precious personal email.
2
@Mike Davis:
She broke the rules by co-mingling her official emails with her private emails, on her own private server; all the Republicans emails are already public, because they actually follow the rules and use a .gov email address on a government server. Are you one of those that believe that the Clintons are above the law? This also can serve as a reply to E.B below.
She broke the rules by co-mingling her official emails with her private emails, on her own private server; all the Republicans emails are already public, because they actually follow the rules and use a .gov email address on a government server. Are you one of those that believe that the Clintons are above the law? This also can serve as a reply to E.B below.
1
They were not private emails, they were government emails. She is not allowed to decide what constitutes official government emails and what do not. That is up to an independent arbiter, assigned by the State Department, to decide. She did not do that, and she broke the law.
3
Maybe we'll begin to take the Times' never-ending peep show on Ms. Clinton seriously when we can also see all of the personal and official emails of everyone else running for president during their time in public service.
8
People ask what law did she break well here it is
18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Destroying records during an ongoing investigation also carries a 5 year sentence for each infraction .
Matters not if she destroyed the server ,she deleted records and that is the crime, not the emails .
18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Destroying records during an ongoing investigation also carries a 5 year sentence for each infraction .
Matters not if she destroyed the server ,she deleted records and that is the crime, not the emails .
17
A copy of a record is not a record.
2
Congress is not a department or agency under the statute you cite.
2
Everything in your screed is a psychotic and illiterate misapplication of code and law to a non-applicable scenario to which the facts do no abide. Such blather is far better received on 'oooh-chorus' websites like 'PJ' where the delusional speak to themselves without the aid of cellphones - the fillings in their teeth suffice.
So it wasn't the video as claimed by Hillary, Barack Obama, and Susan Rice? Hmmmmm...... Liars and deceivers - every one of them!
13
Were you this angry when Bush was asleep at the switch on 9-11? Or do you Texans forgive the incompetence of your own?
5
"The emails appear to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address."
Wow. The NY Times makes the above statement after Hillary selectively leaks about 200 of more than 100,000 e-mails!
Wow. The NY Times makes the above statement after Hillary selectively leaks about 200 of more than 100,000 e-mails!
15
You don't have to give up classified information. You can just talk about where an ambassador will be at a certain time and place and great damage can happen. The real key information is who was monitoring Mrs Clinton's emails? Can they even trace and find out who was monitoring her emails. Is the level of her incompetence so high that it is actually criminal negligence considering the likelihood her emails would be tapped.
Many years ago the sage political commentator, IF Stone, said that "all governments lie." Now we can enlarge that to mean, all politicians lie. Clinton, Bush, Rubio, etc. Sure, Clinton feathered her own nest and massaged her email collection. All the Bushes were born on third base but their involvement with government allowed them to come home without a care. Our job now is to pick the least lying and cheating from amongst the 20 or so potential candidates. My guess is that person is Bernie Sanders. However, It would be a miracle if he wins. Whoever wins it will still be Wall Street and the Pentagon who will be pulling the strings.
3
Actually the Bushes stole home plate with the help of a $1.B Saudi loan.
1
Clinton's lawyers picked which emails we would get to see when they decided which emails to print and which emails to delete. After that they wiped the drive clean so there would be no possible way to recover any of the destroyed emails. So when Hillary tells us she wants the emails to be released you got to ask what her definition of "email" is.
13
Given that the emails were sent to recipients with government addresses and exist on government servers, your assertion makes absolutely no sense.
5
Many emails would not be sent to others with government email addresses, like for instance, her assistants, who also had private email accounts on Hillary's server. You do know that she had up to a dozen different email addresses on that server, right? So who were all those addresses for, and were they turned over?
The title of the article is misleading.
1
Of course, NYT waits until the last sentence of the article to state there is nothing suspicious in the emails, as this paper tried to create a questionable situation by wildly speculating and casting aspersions. Then this paper was way disappointed that it didn't nick Hillary at all, just sent her poll numbers higher. This paper should realize by now that its political opinions smeared all over its articles will not sway elections in the future, or going to war, because we know this paper practices yellow journalism to get the outcome it wants in any election or political decisions.
4
The problem is not her emails, but her private server in her house, her lack of transparency when confronted, and her attempt at erasing thousands. She is running for president. She can't do that stuff during an election year. If she wasn't running for president, no one would care. We want a trustworthy president. Her actions are shady.
20
Clinton has brought this on herself. From day one of Benghazi, she and Obama out and out lied to the American people. Her past history is nothing but cover-ups, innuendos, and lies. The Clintons...all three of them....should retreat far from the public eye. Our country has had enouogh of these three mega egotists.
16
At least the Clintons did not lie us into a useless, tragic, and unbelievable war, as did the Bushes.
10
Ummm, she voted for it. Therefore, she is, also, responsible for it.
11
As I clearly recall - there were a series of elaborate misrepresentations and lies fed to the Congress and the UN that supported the Bush administration's call for invading Iraq. But, 'never mind the facts!' Right Randy? I mean, facts are such inconvenient things.
3
The scandal mongering over everything Hillary Clinton will only end up making her even more larger than life and a mythical political super hero who is indestructible. Emails, Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation all add up to only near misses of actual clear and concrete wrong doings. There will be no smoking gun. Clinton having slogged through the mine strewn political field leading up to 2016 will appear tough and tested.
Oh and by the way, while there is much attention being paid to these, uh scandals, the real story is that Clinton is running a masterfully strategic democratic primary campaign. Those that are slinging the most arrows this early on will be sorely disappointed when all of this matters least in the general election because by then all of the Benghazi-email-foundation brouhaha will seem like one big blur of yesterday's old news. Right wing whiners and smug journalists warning one too many times of the big bad Hillary Clinton and her evil ways without an actual dead body will appear hysterical and shrill. Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?
Oh and by the way, while there is much attention being paid to these, uh scandals, the real story is that Clinton is running a masterfully strategic democratic primary campaign. Those that are slinging the most arrows this early on will be sorely disappointed when all of this matters least in the general election because by then all of the Benghazi-email-foundation brouhaha will seem like one big blur of yesterday's old news. Right wing whiners and smug journalists warning one too many times of the big bad Hillary Clinton and her evil ways without an actual dead body will appear hysterical and shrill. Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?
7
Only thing that matters is how Hillary & Obama looked. There was an election going on that he was losing.
5
A bit of arithmetic, now, that leads to a question:
We’re told the 30,490 emails turned over to the State Department comprise 55,000 pages. That’s an average of 1.8 pages per email. Running a little experiment here, it seems 1.8 pages of textual email contains typically 800 words. It would take me a minimum of 15 minutes to compose a meaningful email that long.
Ms. Clinton’s total email count, including those deleted, was 62,320. At 15 minutes on the average per email, that comes out to at least 15,580 hours spent composing emails.
Ms. Clinton was in office from 21 Jan 2009 to 1 Feb 2013, 1472 days including weekends, holidays, vacations, state visits, etc. Even if every day was an email day, that works out to at least 11 hours per day, every day, composing emails – half of which were personal – while still doing the rest of her job.
Exactly what was her job again?
We’re told the 30,490 emails turned over to the State Department comprise 55,000 pages. That’s an average of 1.8 pages per email. Running a little experiment here, it seems 1.8 pages of textual email contains typically 800 words. It would take me a minimum of 15 minutes to compose a meaningful email that long.
Ms. Clinton’s total email count, including those deleted, was 62,320. At 15 minutes on the average per email, that comes out to at least 15,580 hours spent composing emails.
Ms. Clinton was in office from 21 Jan 2009 to 1 Feb 2013, 1472 days including weekends, holidays, vacations, state visits, etc. Even if every day was an email day, that works out to at least 11 hours per day, every day, composing emails – half of which were personal – while still doing the rest of her job.
Exactly what was her job again?
7
You forget, dude, these are email threads. Go look at your own inbox. How much of it did you write?
3
About 75%. So that's 8 hours a day. Including Saturdays, Sundays, 4th of July, Christmas . . . Further: One does not write voluminous emails quickly on a cell phone.
More time considering strategy in negotiation with our allies and adversaries, and dangers to her overseas staff, and less time at the keyboard, might have served her country better.
More time considering strategy in negotiation with our allies and adversaries, and dangers to her overseas staff, and less time at the keyboard, might have served her country better.
1
Well, um, yeah, what Tom said, Neverlift and also keep in mind Sec of State is essentially a job of communications. There is no punching a time clock and they don't make widgets. So, even as your "calculations" are made-up-on-the-basis-of-whatever, it actually would be fairly likely she would being emailing for hours and hours every day. And of course if that were a Sec of State under a republican admin you'd probably point to that as nose-to-the-grindstone hard work. But OF COURSE because it's HRC, it must be a scandal!!!!
7
I'm willing to bet there's nothing damaging in these emails or we would have already heard about it. The Republican "investigative" committees have a nasty habit of selectively leaking snippets of material, then we find out later it doesn't quite say what they claimed it said. Darrell Issa mastered this art, I'm sure his successor is just as talented at massaging info to feed the scandal-driven press. As you noted, the House committee already has 55,000 pages.
I understand why the GOP is doing this. They fear Mrs. Clinton as a candidate. I understand why partisan press like Fox News gleefully piles on. I don't understand why trusted news organizations like the NYT go along with the game.
I understand why the GOP is doing this. They fear Mrs. Clinton as a candidate. I understand why partisan press like Fox News gleefully piles on. I don't understand why trusted news organizations like the NYT go along with the game.
10
Of course there is nothing damaging in these emails, Hillary got to decide what emails were released. If every criminal was allowed to decide what evidence was presented, our prisons would be empty.
They've not yet received all the emails, only the ones that Ms. Clinton's assistants deemed safe/worthy to keep. Get the facts sweetie.
Gee, it's hard to believe people find conservatives unpleasant.
Why in the world are the contents of the former Secretary of States messages being given to the press/public? Who decided that because she used her own phone on occassion, the messages should be public?
It is no wonder why public figures such as Clinton or Tom Brady balk at turning over their phone contents to reglatory bodies. They should simply skip a step and go right to Fox news and the NY Times. Geez, has this entire country has become a mix of National Enquirer and Hedda Hopper?
Michael Schmidt, i do not know much about you, but if you feel shame, you should be ashamed of yourself for writing this sort of thing. I am sure that at one time you aspired to being a serious writer/investigative reporter. What happened along the way that led you to writing this sort of thing
It is no wonder why public figures such as Clinton or Tom Brady balk at turning over their phone contents to reglatory bodies. They should simply skip a step and go right to Fox news and the NY Times. Geez, has this entire country has become a mix of National Enquirer and Hedda Hopper?
Michael Schmidt, i do not know much about you, but if you feel shame, you should be ashamed of yourself for writing this sort of thing. I am sure that at one time you aspired to being a serious writer/investigative reporter. What happened along the way that led you to writing this sort of thing
4
When you work for the government,
all records are owned by the people.
all records are owned by the people.
Ms. Clinton asked that the e-mails be made public. Next!
They are not her emails, they belong to the public. She worked for us, she was not a private citizen. They should have been available to the public at the time she first sent them, not years later. She purposely avoided all FOIA requests and subpoenas, which is a crime in itself. The law required that an independent arbiter look at all her emails and decide which should be made public.
Lets see.. First Mrs Clinton's staff filters these EMails, then the State Dept. filters them. And We a talking about the crumbs were being feed. Really???
13
Unless and until the media, like the NY Times, starts demanding the prosecution of the Clintons for their assorted crimes against this country, these little "revelations" are as meaningless as they're intended to be.
14
Well, OK, please list out the crimes in detail. We are waiting….
4
Purposely hiding information from FOIA requests and subpoenas, deleting official government records, sharing classified information with people without clearance, accepting bribes from corporations and foreign governments, to name a few.
1
Agree. If only the MSM would do their job as they did during the Nixon Administration . BUT that is precisely why we are in the mess we are now in. The bias is overwhelming .
2
Why doesn't the article explain how SBU material is handled?
2
Obviously, the relative non-story of Benghazi will never be allowed to end... the same "news" rehashed over and over and over again... how many years has it been now? All part of the Republican plan.
Meanwhile, how many thousands of people have died and how many $ billions have been squandered because of US actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc, etc. And how much profit made by the likes of Halliburton, Blackwater, etc? And of course the likes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz NEVER called to account!
This is all a little like endless "exposes" about a turnstile-jumper while someone is cleaning out Fort Knox and the Treasury and also killing thousands of people indiscriminately!
Meanwhile, how many thousands of people have died and how many $ billions have been squandered because of US actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc, etc. And how much profit made by the likes of Halliburton, Blackwater, etc? And of course the likes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz NEVER called to account!
This is all a little like endless "exposes" about a turnstile-jumper while someone is cleaning out Fort Knox and the Treasury and also killing thousands of people indiscriminately!
12
@ NYer
Obviously, the relative non-story of Bridgegate will never be allowed to end... the same "news" rehashed over and over and over again... how many years has it been now? All part of the Democaratic plan.
See the irony.
Obviously, the relative non-story of Bridgegate will never be allowed to end... the same "news" rehashed over and over and over again... how many years has it been now? All part of the Democaratic plan.
See the irony.
4
Laura Hunt: You need to brush up on the terms "irony" and "false equivalence." But thanks for providing a good example of Fox "news analysis".
2
Whatever Tommy don't watch Fox never have, but everyone here says this has been all blown out of proportion it hasn't and I shoudl have used the word hypocrisy. But hey thanks for the heads up.
The hypocrisy of the Republicans is mind boggling ,on the one hand they are spending tax payer money on the Benghazi investigation for Republican political
benefit.
On the other hand leading Republican figures when asked about the decision to invade Iraq say that is all in the past .Pataki is the latest example.
We cannot sweep the Iraq tragedy under the carpet and the Bush a Administration should face a judicial investigation as undertaken in the UK and all correspondence between Bush and Blair should be revealed and all other documentation.
We need this to avoid further tragedies of this magnitude .
To my mind Bush broke Iraq and no one will be able to put it together again.
The Iraq war was the genesis of ISIS because Bush did not think beyond the invasion of the consequences
benefit.
On the other hand leading Republican figures when asked about the decision to invade Iraq say that is all in the past .Pataki is the latest example.
We cannot sweep the Iraq tragedy under the carpet and the Bush a Administration should face a judicial investigation as undertaken in the UK and all correspondence between Bush and Blair should be revealed and all other documentation.
We need this to avoid further tragedies of this magnitude .
To my mind Bush broke Iraq and no one will be able to put it together again.
The Iraq war was the genesis of ISIS because Bush did not think beyond the invasion of the consequences
9
Money is spent on the Benghazi investigation to find the truth which has yet to be found. The other committees, democrat or repubs wasted money. Trey Gowdy's committee is actually doing something. When they are done this time, it will be over. It will be over regardless of the outcome.
I have to agree with the posts that question the practice of trawling through her emails. What bothered me, and still does, is her lack of judgment in using her private email for stat purposes. That is an entirely separate question from whether the average citizen should see the emails. I don't like the potential compromise of security interests.
2
They will not divulge anything that is classified or that would not otherwise be considered public.
It doesn't matter if it's classified... the account alone, even if it was mundane messages, is illegal.
The existence of a private server, for these accounts is intent.
The existence of a private server, for these accounts is intent.
9
It was not illegal at the time but that does not matter I guess
1
I just hope the Democrats produce a decent, honest candidate so that we are not stuck choosing between a crooked, dishonest Hillary and a crooked, dishonest crew of Republicans. Bernie Sanders is looking better and better every day.
6
Bernie Sanders is a self-described Socialist. Socialism has proven a failure every time it's been adopted. Please, please do not vote for that un-American man.
Didn't you already say this? I'll repeat, look up Ben Carson.
1
Questions I have:
Where’s the line?
What is truly our business, based on everything is not ours’?
What is essential disclosure?
What is detrimental disclosure short term… longterm?
What is harmful for all the world to see?
How do we regain a sense of ourselves, boundaries and integrity?
Is the ever-present degradation and objectification of Hillary Clinton (et al) tied to our own sense of wellbeing? Might that ever be viewed as a personal problem?
How able are we to hold incongruent thoughts and feelings about ourselves, about others… Are we able to demonstrate that ability to those around us?
Where is equilibrium?
Where’s the line?
What is truly our business, based on everything is not ours’?
What is essential disclosure?
What is detrimental disclosure short term… longterm?
What is harmful for all the world to see?
How do we regain a sense of ourselves, boundaries and integrity?
Is the ever-present degradation and objectification of Hillary Clinton (et al) tied to our own sense of wellbeing? Might that ever be viewed as a personal problem?
How able are we to hold incongruent thoughts and feelings about ourselves, about others… Are we able to demonstrate that ability to those around us?
Where is equilibrium?
2
When will any of these stories start with the caveat - "State Department officials do NOT use e-mail for sensitive, classified correspondence. They have other, more secure means of communicating." ???
Mrs. Clinton is many things - but she is certainly no fool.
These e-mails will include no "bombshells" because that isn't how a cautious, smart government official (and future candidate) operates.
On to the next "scandal" please!
Mrs. Clinton is many things - but she is certainly no fool.
These e-mails will include no "bombshells" because that isn't how a cautious, smart government official (and future candidate) operates.
On to the next "scandal" please!
5
Some critics will pounce on Hillary no matter what. Personally, I doubt her use of a private email account caused any security problems (though obviously none of us knows that); I just oppose her because I find her not terribly impressive to start with.
But isn't there something on which ALL of us can agree about this?
Millions of us are assigned a work email address and told to use that email address for all work-related email, and only for work-related email. Most employers would be quite upset to learn that work-related emails are routinely being sent through an employee's personal email address. They'd also be upset at having to pay millions of dollars to wade through an employee's emails to figure out which are personal and which are work-related. Nor would they be happy to learn that the individual had taken it upon herself to review all of those emails and delete the ones she feels her employer shouldn't see.
Regardless of whether Ms. Clinton gave away vital US secrets (again: I doubt it, though I can't claim to know), shouldn't she be expected to do what millions of other Americans routinely do: Use only a work email address for work-related emails and only a personal email address for personal emails? Is that asking too much? And if she doesn't, isn't it unfair that the rest of us have to pay to separate those emails? And is it appropriate that she first gets to review them and delete the ones she doesn't think we should see?
Can't all of us agree on this?
But isn't there something on which ALL of us can agree about this?
Millions of us are assigned a work email address and told to use that email address for all work-related email, and only for work-related email. Most employers would be quite upset to learn that work-related emails are routinely being sent through an employee's personal email address. They'd also be upset at having to pay millions of dollars to wade through an employee's emails to figure out which are personal and which are work-related. Nor would they be happy to learn that the individual had taken it upon herself to review all of those emails and delete the ones she feels her employer shouldn't see.
Regardless of whether Ms. Clinton gave away vital US secrets (again: I doubt it, though I can't claim to know), shouldn't she be expected to do what millions of other Americans routinely do: Use only a work email address for work-related emails and only a personal email address for personal emails? Is that asking too much? And if she doesn't, isn't it unfair that the rest of us have to pay to separate those emails? And is it appropriate that she first gets to review them and delete the ones she doesn't think we should see?
Can't all of us agree on this?
5
As I understand it, that was NOT the policy of the State Department at the time Ms. Rodham Clinton was Secretary of State.
2
If Ms. Clinton had really wanted these emails to be released, she had the power to do so long ago. Instead she stated unequivocally that they would not be released and the server could not be inspected. How disingenuous to now say that no one wants the emails released more quickly than her.
11
@Todd: "...People like you are democracy's worst enemies..."
I would not say this about you or any of the posters here, who often espouse outrageous statements.
I am in no way an enemy of democracy. Check your hubris, please.
I would not say this about you or any of the posters here, who often espouse outrageous statements.
I am in no way an enemy of democracy. Check your hubris, please.
6
So transparent, the Republicans hope that in keeping Hillary under the microscope, they can avoid accepting responsibility for Iraq, and everything that followed Iraq including ISIS.
4
Your statement is pretty ironic, given that Hillary has yet to accept her own responsibility for her vote on the Iraq war. Like most of her "principled"views, she was very much in favor of that, as long as the political winds were going that way.
2
She has acknowledged that her vote was a mistake. What more would you expect her to do?
Who gave the paper the E-mails and who decided which 850 to give them?
The Times need to disclose who their sources are for the recent stories about Mrs. Clinton. It seems clearly they are coming from Trey Gowdy or members of his committee staff. If they are feeding the Times information to plant negative stories about the front-runner for the Democratic nominee that's a bigger story than anything the Times has printed about the former First Lady and Secretary of State. Why isn't the Public Editor chiming in on this? She has been complaining about the Times use of unnamed sources recently.
We are always hearing about the appearance of things when the Times writes about Mrs. Clinton, well now it appears the Times is being used by someone on the Benghazi committee. Has the times learned anything about being manipulated since the Judith Miller scandal or not?
The Times need to disclose who their sources are for the recent stories about Mrs. Clinton. It seems clearly they are coming from Trey Gowdy or members of his committee staff. If they are feeding the Times information to plant negative stories about the front-runner for the Democratic nominee that's a bigger story than anything the Times has printed about the former First Lady and Secretary of State. Why isn't the Public Editor chiming in on this? She has been complaining about the Times use of unnamed sources recently.
We are always hearing about the appearance of things when the Times writes about Mrs. Clinton, well now it appears the Times is being used by someone on the Benghazi committee. Has the times learned anything about being manipulated since the Judith Miller scandal or not?
2
Here's a thought. It's time to treat Hillary! like you would an old white male republican.
8
Ever since the Clintons entered the national stage, an industry grew up alongside them engineered by their political enemies. Unfortunately, for them, and for ordinary citizens, that industry outgrew itself and became a loud, boisterous, self-propagating bashing machine such that, it seems, people have a harder time distinguishing between the bashing and the Clintons, and particularly, Hillary. Every media source, including the NYT, participates in it regardless of there being any truth to the underlying reason for the attacks. The truth is people just like to have a forum to express their hatred, but the connection between that energy and her is consistently tenuous, at best. Moreover, anyone who's been scrutinized as closely as Hillary Clinton and yet manages not to shrink into the background is truly astounding.
2
No, the Clinton's did this to themselves when they decided to be someone and keep themselves front and center. Put the blame squarely where it belongs and stop blaming others like Hillary is wont to do.Taking money or her Foundation from UAE and the like, giving barely 10% to charity and projects. No the blame is on them and no one else.
12
When I read about the blaming, I look at the people doing the blaming. She didn't hurt me the way she seems to have hurt all of you.
By "people" you must mean "everyday Americans"? Whatever that means.
Even if her e-mails showed she was involved in murdering kittens and puppies, I still would vote for her over any any one of the two dozen Republican embarrassments currently running for President.
6
Any politician who commingles their professional and private emails either out of laziness or out of an attempt to hide from scrutiny, deserves that scrutiny when caught. Hillary was caught.
11
Mrs. Clinton deleted those emails she regarded as "private", as she claims was her right to do. We may never know what they contained. But we have learned that of those turned over to State, the whole Blumenthal mess comes to light. It will be interesting to see what other messes these thousands of pages create.
6
Hillary has concocted a fantastic campaign strategy. Wow. Just wow.
George the Third likely couldn't have cooked up a more royal campaign strategy for US President.
If elected, will she try to govern with such imperial control over everything?
If so, the term, "she who must be obeyed" will probably take on a new meaning.
George the Third likely couldn't have cooked up a more royal campaign strategy for US President.
If elected, will she try to govern with such imperial control over everything?
If so, the term, "she who must be obeyed" will probably take on a new meaning.
4
A lot of comments here miss the point, so what's the point? Sadly pathetic
The NYT is incorrectly and unfairly characterizing how sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information is disseminated presumably to criticize Ms Clinton. Information is either classified, in which case it is transmitted electronically over what is called the SIPRNET (the classified internet) or it is unclassified and sent via regular internet. The use of SBU has grown over the years as a way to limit public dissemination of information (before SBU there was something FOUO or for official use only that had the same purpose) without classifying it. Arguably it is a lazy way out of not assigning a national security classification, which is how one truly limits dissemination. Federal employees dealing with SBU information transmit it via their regular internet account since it does not carry a national security classification. The Times' is unfairly singling out Ms. Clinton for following a practice common to Federal employees, which is what she was as Secretary of State.
6
Can we now expect other Democrat and Republican presidential candidates to release their e-mails in the same manner as Hillary or will they be hypocrites when it comes to opening their e-mail kimonos?
2
Were other candidates the Secretary of State or under some legal obligation to retain emails and produce them in response to FOIA requests? What a false equivalency.
Yes, I think every candidate that used a personal email for government business, or who set up a private server in their basement, should disclose their emails.
1
JEB bush has yet to release all of his e-=mails as governor from 8-years ago. What has come out is highly redacted. So GOP put up or shut up.
5
Hillary Clinton is one of the new dangerous and deceitful generation of politicians. These have agendas that "the end justifies the means" and the end for these feckless, dangerous and evil people is power and control held only by them. They can deny, manipulate and destroy countries "at their whim". They stonewall, avoid and will not answer to the Rule of Law, the Constitution or any legal process they choose not to. Obama, Holder, Harry Reid and others are Hillary's cohorts. We are at the most dangerous time of history - the main stream media worships at the altars of these fops and it seems no one else actually gives a damn.
9
G.W. gave us two wars and drove our economy into the ground. You really need to pay attention.
1
Just another right-wing brouhaha over nothing.
5
ddCADman, same could be said for Bridgegate no? Though no one actually died with the lane closings did they?
Over nothing? I see why you're a CAD man and not an Engineer.
If Ms. Clinton had followed Pres Obama's and State Department's rules about transparency and not used a personal server that mixed personal and official emails, she would have avoided this controversy. She gave her enemies new fodder and put her supporters in the uncomfortable position of defending a perplexing decision. Those of us in the pragmatic middle (Dem, Rep, Ind and unaffiliated) who believe in reproductive rights and gay marriage, who desire a Supreme Court that will not further erode civil rights and dismantle campaign finance reforms, and who want a leader to rebuild our infrastructure, reform our immigration policies, invest in education and research, and promote peace and opportunity (especially for women) in the world may vote for her anyway. As it stands now, the Republican alternatives are all so far away from me on these issues, I just can't consider them. So, I simply ask Ms. Clinton for a more honest apology about this instead of the defensive one she gave outside the UN. I also ask her to be more open to the press, especially print media. Thin skin and protective walls will only weaken her as a candidate and as President.
29
So you think an apology is all that is needed. I'm sure with a little acting lessons she could give you what you want. However it won't mean that she is truly sorry; only actions can show that and thus far there are no actions by her to show that she regrets anything.
Is she the best the democrats have to offer? Look at Bernie Sanders record. He's THE most honest politician out there. (I know, sounds like an oxymoron)
I believe we can do better. She's been too shady for too long. She's used her mulligan more than once.
I believe we can do better. She's been too shady for too long. She's used her mulligan more than once.
This is like a drug dealer flushing the drugs down the toilet as the cops are knocking on the door. "Sure officer you can search my house I have nothing to hide"
8
Why are posts like this always from single names and "USA?" not trolls I'm sure. This is actually like a former Secretary of State saying, ''I'm pleased to address the Republican questions publicly, but unwilling to allow them to claim exclusive access and then reinterpret their selective leaks to the media or attack my family members and privacy.''
1
What screams louder than the emails she allowed the country to see are the thousands of emails she purposely deleted.
7
She abused her position of power as Sec. of State. She enriched herself and her family and won favors for friends and family, including her brothers. There is no confidence in her ! Hillary is Obama in a skirt ...
4
how many of the negative comments are the result of an organized right wing effort ?
Lets stipulate to the negativeness; you really gonna tell me Jeb "Terry Schiavo" Bush, Marco "charity no show job for wife" Rubio, Scott "dump on poor people", Jindal, etc are any better ?
really ?
Lets stipulate to the negativeness; you really gonna tell me Jeb "Terry Schiavo" Bush, Marco "charity no show job for wife" Rubio, Scott "dump on poor people", Jindal, etc are any better ?
really ?
4
Do you really propose to dignify the inexcusable invasion of the Schiavo family by the Republican Right and using her inanimate brain dead shell as a hockey puck by making that the moral equivalent of the neo-cons having a tantrum because they're not allowed to distort the content of Clinton's emails to their own self-serving political ends?
Very few, however you could be one of the many paid hillary trolls that would back this obvious crook no matter what, huh?
"... show that Mrs. Clinton was circulating information about the attacks in Benghazi that contradicted the Obama administration’s initial narrative..."
Enough about her personal emails, yoga classes, grandmotherly duties, and some flattering photo in the NYT (surprised at that one?) - who cares about any of that?
Why did the President and ALL his senior cabinet lie about Benghazi and why did Hillary - who knew better - stand idly by?
Enough about her personal emails, yoga classes, grandmotherly duties, and some flattering photo in the NYT (surprised at that one?) - who cares about any of that?
Why did the President and ALL his senior cabinet lie about Benghazi and why did Hillary - who knew better - stand idly by?
5
Stand idly by what exactly John? A speculation as to what caused rioting in Lybia that turns out to have been a planned attack? There was an investigation. The finding was 'no fault.' No this false-positive of an 'email issue' is being propped up by the right in an attempt to have leverage against a candidate who cleans the clock of the 22 odd cuckoo birds they might field against her.
1
Money, money, and more money
If anyone believes that classified information was not passed through her private server, you are not thinking logically to put it conservatively. She was the Secretary of State. Classified information is transmitted daily from this cabinet position. To think otherwise is absurd. Agree that there's a witch hunt happening, but it's for the right reasons. She broke the law and therefore should be held accountable. Period.
5
And her private life is public business because...?
1
Because she mixed her private life with her public obligations by have a personal email server and combining private emails with government and public emails. Because . . .
2
HRC is someone everyone knows, and regarding whom everyone has an opinion. I would ask the following questions of her supporters:
1. Trust (or lack thereof) was the underlying reason W. Bush was so widely reviled. "Bush lied, people died". Given HRC's behavior over the years, do you see the same problem with her candidacy, based onn the polling that shows very few Americans actually trust her, or see her as an honest candidate?
2. The question of qualifications will continue to be broached (with good reason). What are some key achievements that Clinton can point to as an elected persona?
3. Finances. Romney was mocked, and arguably lost a presidential election, because of his perceived status as a rich, out of touch debutante. How can that standard be reckoned against the Clinton family, whose time in government has created a $100m + fortune?
Thanks.
1. Trust (or lack thereof) was the underlying reason W. Bush was so widely reviled. "Bush lied, people died". Given HRC's behavior over the years, do you see the same problem with her candidacy, based onn the polling that shows very few Americans actually trust her, or see her as an honest candidate?
2. The question of qualifications will continue to be broached (with good reason). What are some key achievements that Clinton can point to as an elected persona?
3. Finances. Romney was mocked, and arguably lost a presidential election, because of his perceived status as a rich, out of touch debutante. How can that standard be reckoned against the Clinton family, whose time in government has created a $100m + fortune?
Thanks.
8
To many who plan and run the political machine on the right the truth no longer matters. After all a party that accepts and promotes the idea that Reagan believed in balanced budgets, that massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations benefit us all, that human behavior is not contributing to global warming, that climate change is a myth, that the Iraq war was justified, that Obama is responsible for creating instability in the Middle East, that Hillary hasnt already in Senate testimony taken responsibility for Benghazi, Obamacare doesnt work, that the economy hasnt grown impressively since Obama took office can win if people focus on the facts and reality. They have to mislead, scare, and prey on peoples worst instincts, because they have nothing of substance on which to run a campaign.
Hillary Clinton is a flawed candidate. But, this email business isn't going to lead anywhere. It is merely an attempt to get as much potentially negative stuff about her in the media as possible. Where are the Republican's with real, new ideas that might actually work. I miss Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, and John McCain before he went nuts. The adolescents minds have taken over the G.O.P. I hope the American people have the wisdom to see through their bluff and bluster.
Hillary Clinton is a flawed candidate. But, this email business isn't going to lead anywhere. It is merely an attempt to get as much potentially negative stuff about her in the media as possible. Where are the Republican's with real, new ideas that might actually work. I miss Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, and John McCain before he went nuts. The adolescents minds have taken over the G.O.P. I hope the American people have the wisdom to see through their bluff and bluster.
3
Maybe the email issue is not her undoing on its own but if you add up all of the other nefarious issues and lack of accomplishments, you have not a flawed candidate but a disastrous, empty-suited, individual.
1
I am obviously not as bright as the GOP folks in Congress, but I fail to understand what is it that they actually hope to find even if each and every email were reviewed. Are they looking for proof of dereliction of duty about Benghazi or some other sinister plot to eradicate Christianity? At the end of the day, if all emails from any politicians were made public, there would probably be quite a bit of information that could be criticized. This seems to be just an attempt to find a needle in the haystack, if that needle even exists. So let's make this fair: ask all candidates to disclose all their email correspondence - I bet Christie would say no...
7
Several commenters make essentially the same accusation against the Times:
"I don"t understand the point of the story. Given that Ms. Clinton no doubt deleted all emails which might reflect negatively on her, it seems as though advertising her side of a story is little more than being a mouthpiece for the Clinton PR machine."
It hardly takes a crystal ball to predict that the Times will endorse Hillary Clinton for President. That doesn't mean this article isn't just "news" -- though it certainly leaves open the possibility that it's more than that, as critics charge. To promote one's favored candidate, it's rarely effective simply to shout: "My candidate is great! The other candidates are all losers!", and that option isn't available anyway to a highly respected news organization.
Better to run pieces that say "My candidate has some faults, but they're not all that bad. She's human, just like the rest of us."
And after all, who among us wouldn't expect millions of taxpayer dollars to be spent in distinguishing thousands of our personal emails from thousands of our work-related emails? Why should any of us have to bother using a work email address for work emails and a personal email address for personal emails?
"I don"t understand the point of the story. Given that Ms. Clinton no doubt deleted all emails which might reflect negatively on her, it seems as though advertising her side of a story is little more than being a mouthpiece for the Clinton PR machine."
It hardly takes a crystal ball to predict that the Times will endorse Hillary Clinton for President. That doesn't mean this article isn't just "news" -- though it certainly leaves open the possibility that it's more than that, as critics charge. To promote one's favored candidate, it's rarely effective simply to shout: "My candidate is great! The other candidates are all losers!", and that option isn't available anyway to a highly respected news organization.
Better to run pieces that say "My candidate has some faults, but they're not all that bad. She's human, just like the rest of us."
And after all, who among us wouldn't expect millions of taxpayer dollars to be spent in distinguishing thousands of our personal emails from thousands of our work-related emails? Why should any of us have to bother using a work email address for work emails and a personal email address for personal emails?
This is ludicrous... I'd love to see the same scrutiny of correspondence going back to Andrew Jackson. This a witch-hunt (and I'm not even a Hillary fan...). The ambassador, of which we've lost MANY over the years, misread his situation and put too much faith in his TV-Movie-Inspired tactical team, and he lost his life. End of story. Do you honestly think he'd blame Mrs. Clinton for his death. GOP - get a new(er) bandwagon and keep on rollin' it along...
5
Rightwingers have been swift boating Hillary for 25 years and what do they have to show for it? Nada. Zip. They'll keep at it because winning dirty is the only way they can win.
4
As Hillary once stated to congress , " At this point , what difference does it make ?" We know that nothing will come from any of this . Democrats are never held accountable for misdeeds or mistakes. Just part of that ' fundamental transformation ' the so-called Progressives and their adoring MSM have inserted into America.
4
Let the GOP read on until they have gained nothing and are thoroughly exhausted.
4
Why is there so much discussion about Benghazi when we got so very little about the run-up to September 11, 2001?
Indeed,the "rest of the story" would put Watergate dead last.
Indeed,the "rest of the story" would put Watergate dead last.
5
Oh do tell!
HRC wants them released to the public so that the Repub.'s can't cherry pick words to make it appear she said something she did not. Smart move Hillary! Repub's have no ideas and nothing for regular Americans. All they can do to win is smear the opposing candidate with lies and innuendos. A sad state of affairs the republican party is.
4
The issue with Benghazi was the coverup..... putting politics, and outright lying to the American people, above the sacrifice of the men who died there. I wonder if Ms Abedin was sending on state department server or the covert Clinton sever .
5
Hay will be made from this, I'm sure. Living in a swing state in 2016 is going to be very unpleasant...
Secretary Clinton keeps saying there was no wrongdoing, then evidence is revealed that backs her up but then in Kafkaesque fashion the investigation continues. This is what we need to do, full annual FBI background checks on all current and future members of Congress. Find something wrong and out you go, end of story.
1
I'm just gonna go out on a limb here...
Republicans whined about Hillary when she was Secretary of State.
Republicans whined about Hillary when she wasn't Secretary of State.
Republicans whined about Hillary when she didn't release the emails.
And now republicans will whine about Hillary releasing these emails.
Just a guess...
Republicans whined about Hillary when she was Secretary of State.
Republicans whined about Hillary when she wasn't Secretary of State.
Republicans whined about Hillary when she didn't release the emails.
And now republicans will whine about Hillary releasing these emails.
Just a guess...
6
The emails also show that Mrs. Clinton was circulating information about the attacks in Benghazi that contradicted the Obama administration’s initial narrative of what occurred, and that she was concerned about how Republicans could use the incidents to undermine President Obama.
----------------------------------------------------
Of course, her cherry-picked emails she exchanged from her private server do not show anything inimical to her interests or cast her in bad light. That was expected.
As for Obama administration's narrative about Benghazi not jibing with the actual events as revealed in her messages, Obama should stop calling Warren a politician as if he is not one. What hypocrisy!
----------------------------------------------------
Of course, her cherry-picked emails she exchanged from her private server do not show anything inimical to her interests or cast her in bad light. That was expected.
As for Obama administration's narrative about Benghazi not jibing with the actual events as revealed in her messages, Obama should stop calling Warren a politician as if he is not one. What hypocrisy!
4
Let's see if we get this right.
The Obama-led State Department culls through thousands of emails, deciding for all of us what we're allowed to read and know. Meanwhile, some 200,000 other personal emails on her 'home server' have been deleted.
And we're supposed to believe that somehow Clinton was 'concerned about Libya' and the Middle East?
I KNOW this paper is desperate to support this awful candidate. I know that the Democrat-controlled State Department will do everything it can to rehabilitate its reputation. But this?
Anyone else smell a rat here?
The Obama-led State Department culls through thousands of emails, deciding for all of us what we're allowed to read and know. Meanwhile, some 200,000 other personal emails on her 'home server' have been deleted.
And we're supposed to believe that somehow Clinton was 'concerned about Libya' and the Middle East?
I KNOW this paper is desperate to support this awful candidate. I know that the Democrat-controlled State Department will do everything it can to rehabilitate its reputation. But this?
Anyone else smell a rat here?
8
Hillary is more crooked than Quasimoto's spine. She was bought and paid for years ago. The Clinton Family Foundation makes the Vito Corleone Foundation look like the Boy Scouts of America. In Orwell's book, 'Animal Farm', Napoleon the pig says, "All animals are equal...but, some are more equal than others." That pretty much describes Hillary's outlook. The woman is no champion of the people and anyone who thinks so is nothing more than a fool.
2
The emails just after the attack in Benghazi are stunning. Clinton clearly knew Ansar al-Sharia -- an al-Qaeda affiliate -- was behind it, and that it was a pre-planned coordinated attack. Yet she still allowed the White House to spin the myth for WEEKS that it was started by an anti-Islam youtube video. She herself later blamed it on the video, and promised the families of the Americans killed in Benghazi that she would make sure the person who made the video was "brought to justice." (He's currently in jail.) What an absolute disgrace.
8
Ne evidence of any wrongdoing? Well, of course, that's exactly what you would expect if there's been wrongdoing!
1
"she was concerned about how Republicans could use the incidents to undermine President Obama" Ok GOP lets keep enhancing her stature. Bet the silence of Darrell Issa will be its own indictment of the wasted tax dollars and resources Republicans wasted. Republicans are not interested on governing and they do believe the taxpayers money is to hand out to their cronies and rich donors. Its time to wake up America! Stop the GOP from telling how to live your life. Vote them out of office, be outraged take YOUR government back from their sweaty hands.
2
Unless Ms. Clinton used a disk scrubber, the deleted emails might be recoverable by computer forensics experts.
Why, in all these months, has the House not subpoenaed that hardware?
Why, in all these months, has the House not subpoenaed that hardware?
4
It is not in the least odd to find a liberal reporting agency trying to desperately spin and un-spinnable story about Hillary.
3
As Secretary of State, Hillary has been a part of the most corrupt Presidential Administrations in US History. She has no credibility, integrity or honesty.
5
Anything in this batch is to be suspect, since it was Hillary herself who decided what was worthy of release. Thus, this story is little more than a puff piece for Hillary.
3
If, as many Clinton-haters here are claiming ad-nauseum, all the damning e-mails that surely exist have been carefully redacted by the Clinton team one has to wonder why the House Committee is wasting its time analyzing the dross that is being released.
And then there is the issue of invasion of privacy for Ms. Clinton's correspondents: I suspect the subordinate that complemented her on the photo is less than thrilled to have that characterized as "flattery" of a supervisor in this NYT story.
And then there is the issue of invasion of privacy for Ms. Clinton's correspondents: I suspect the subordinate that complemented her on the photo is less than thrilled to have that characterized as "flattery" of a supervisor in this NYT story.
2
Love how this is set up as a lose-lose for Clinton: Release the emails, shriek the Republicans! Then, once the emails are released: It doesn't matter if the emails are released because she deleted all the stuff we want to see!
5
When Hillary Clinton voluntarily turns over her unadulterated server along with all backups, then and only then will we even begin to be able to trust her.
As of this point she is just another self serving politician lacking all integrity.
As of this point she is just another self serving politician lacking all integrity.
12
A leader would have put all these emails on dvd, so they could be searched and reviewed quickly. These are all printed to make it harder to search and discover. Hillary, as usual, hiding her ineptness.
2
Another great non-story. I doubt that House investigators will find a great deal to tar Ms. Clinton with. Personally, I do not care one wit whether she had a private email server or not, I do not care how she received or managed her emails, as long as she was doing her job.
7
Unless a Republican had done the same. Then you'd be shaking your fist in righteous rage and demanding the FBI open a case immediately. No?
3
I look forward to seeing all of the emails sent by the Republican candidates for President that I am sure Fox "News" and the Republicans in Congress will insist on. In fact, I believe we are still waiting on the notes from Cheney's secret energy task force meetings. Why isn't Fox all over that one I wonder...
6
Of course Mrs. Clinton received classified information on any one of her numerous private email addresses. But those were of course destroyed by her.
2
The questions that need to be asked concern her unsecured website and email. Mike Morrell of the CIA has stated that without doubt Clinton's email accounts were hacked by foreign services. Did her private emails dealing with Libya, now purposefully destroyed, reveal or note the movements of the Ambassador while at Benghazi and allow terrorists to gain access to sensitive information about Ambassador's presence at the consulate. Did Clinton's scandalous failure to use secure State Department secure communications result in the brutal murder of the Ambassador and 4 other Americans at Benghazi? And an impetus for the destruction of the private Clinton server?
3
An excellent question. Was her server hacked, and the rebels knew of the Ambassador's movements and intentions?
2
This puff piece is a joke. Clinton broke the law by destroying official e-mails and maintaining a private server in her home. She should be prosecuted as a felon and excluded from any presidential run. The Clintons always believe that they are above the law. Why do they get a pass? That is the question Democrats and liberals need to be asking.
4
So sick of Hillary Clinton, the Bushes and the whole sad cast of characters that have run this country into a ditch over the last 20 years. Their time is over. I don't want this presidential election to be spent talking about Clinton's emails or some other off-colored mess that these people are involved in. I want to talk about stagnant wages, crumbling infrastructure, corporate taxes, trade deals, financial regulation, college costs, and the failure of our justice system to prosecute high level crime, among other things. Right now, Bernie Sanders is the only one talking about these things.
4
It is interesting to see that situation in Libya wasn't as spontaneous as we were told. It seems as though the administration could have responded more effectively and maybe prevented Amb. Steven's and the three other men's deaths with decent contingency planning.
No mention of any anti-Islamic videos, I guess. Sure would be interesting to have seen all the e-mails Hillary deleted and destroyed.
In a democratic form of government, every leader needs to be open to questioning and scrutiny. They are making their decisions in our name.
No mention of any anti-Islamic videos, I guess. Sure would be interesting to have seen all the e-mails Hillary deleted and destroyed.
In a democratic form of government, every leader needs to be open to questioning and scrutiny. They are making their decisions in our name.
3
The so-called "email-gate" (aka "Benghazi-gate") is just another political ploy, as the the experts say, to drive up Secretary Clinton's "negatives" in order to reduce voter turnout in the 2016 Presidential election. That's probably the only viable strategy the Republicans have to win given their extremist positions on most issues that matter to the electorate. And that why Mrs. Clinton urged the release of all the emails "as soon as possible" so as to put this kerfuffle behind her. And then, of course, it's on to "Foundation-gate" another magical-thinking Republican misdirection tactic to distract from the issues and the fact that most of them have already been bought by a billionaire backer.
2
In these days of insouciant hacking, Clinton's private e-mails show a lackadaisical attitude toward on line communication. While the Republicans want to exaggerate her private e-mail account into a conspiracy, on her part, to hide a foreign policy gone awry in Libya, I think her behavior in this matter stemmed from the laziness of entitlement. She did what was convenient and easy for her to do, she did not go the extra mile to protect the state department subsidiaries and employees in far flung dangerous places, because she lacked the empathy and the sensitivity to comprehend and correct what her private e-mails could do to them and she thought less like a canny diplomat and more like a gossipy goose. I wouldn't cut her out as my presidential choice but I would ask her to buck up. While I don't want her to see a bugaboo under every rock as Republicans do, I certainly want her to be Internet savvy and not mix business with the personal in cyber communication. She should insist on solid cyber protection for all her business e mails and she should be aware that she serves at the behest of the public and she cannot delete or sanitize her e mails to make herself look good . The last, if it was done or attempted, not only gives fodder for her enemies it bolsters the opinion she comes from a culture of impunity.
16
...but she already has admitted to deleting emails and refused to turn over her scrubbed server. What on earth is there left to trust about her? Could it be her charity that takes in millions upon millions of dollars and only about 10% of that actually goes to charity. Could it be her "oops" on her taxes. I'm sure she pays a lot of money for her own private tax expert. Do you think that expert has multiple clients to deal with? No! Just the Clintons. No excuse! Today I read that Clinton confidante Blumenthal notified Ms. Clinton via email that the Benghazi attack was planned and that the protest was used as a cover but she didn't divulge that, she said it was about a conservative video.
The list goes on. How many apologies does she owe this country. Where do apologies end and responsibility takes its place?
The list goes on. How many apologies does she owe this country. Where do apologies end and responsibility takes its place?
The only thing more amusing then those straining to draw a direct parallel to Nixon and Watergate are those trying to convince us that Clinton is a war criminal. The level of desperation is profound, but not surprising. The emails are genuine; no one is disputing that. Those who want to destroy Clinton will find nothing to support the narrative they’ve created. The emails confirm that there was real confusion as to whether the attacks were perpetuated by violent Islamic protestors or an Al Qaeda cell, though the latter began to appear more likely. It is notable that Clinton specifically emphasized at the time that no matter which scenario ultimately turned out to be true it would make no difference to the Republicans; they would attempt to exploit the uncertainty which surrounds the aftermath of such a tragedy to undermine President Obama. Here it is nearly 3 year later and having been unable to damage the President the Republicans are still using the same failed playbook against Clinton. Might there have been emails which were less flattering which Clinton deleted? Certainly; but this gives Republicans nothing. The idea that Clinton at the time of this tragedy created a series of emails which substantiate her version of events but at the same time created an entirely different set which directly contradicted it is entirely untenable.
66
Disagree. POTUS and HRC are damaged, as is our global credibility.
That they perpetuated a known lie for political purposes coming into an election is not shocking. (your choice of keeping your doctor/video protest/Syrian red line/Iranian breakout time, etc.)
That they to this day have not acknowledged that is shameful.
That they perpetuated a known lie for political purposes coming into an election is not shocking. (your choice of keeping your doctor/video protest/Syrian red line/Iranian breakout time, etc.)
That they to this day have not acknowledged that is shameful.
When the bodies of the four Americans slain in Behghazi returned to the United States and after it was known by the administration (Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense at the time said he knew immediately it was terrorism), Hillary Clinton expressed her condolences to one of the families, looked them in the eye and promised to bring to justice whoever made that video. That is contemptible to lie to the family of brave Americans who died for their country, just to protect her own reputation and shot at the White House.
Isn't it rather astonishing to hear the 'war criminal' phrase emitted from a group of know nothings who have avoided going to a public vote on levels of engagement in the middle east despite controlling majorities in both houses? The same group that saw 'nothing wrong' with pictures of GIs torturing prisoners of war with dogs, water-boarding, beatings, sensory deprivation, and savage degradation?
This woman needs to be in jail.
3
Another Clinton email scandal whitewash. We know that the Brand® had another "secret" email account she used - thanks to revelations by the NYTimes. First there was [email protected]. Now we find there was [email protected] - but you can't see the secret documents until after the 2016 election. What a farce.
Judicial Watch summarized: The State Department has yet to turn over any documents from her second secret email accounts. The latest round of revelations (reluctantly released) are jaw-dropping. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists. These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”
So Seymour Hirsch WAS right…
But as the Brand® says: What difference does it make"…
Judicial Watch summarized: The State Department has yet to turn over any documents from her second secret email accounts. The latest round of revelations (reluctantly released) are jaw-dropping. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists. These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”
So Seymour Hirsch WAS right…
But as the Brand® says: What difference does it make"…
4
Imagine if this were a republican, imagine the uproar and screams of coverup. But because she's Hillary and a Democrat she gets a pass.
3
This has got to be the world's biggest press-release-in-disguise. One non-story after another, week after week, trying to stay relevant. A slick PR operation or TMI out of control? Doesn't matter. I've stopped clicking on Clinton.
10
Of course there won't be anything found in these emails. They were scrubbed by her. She deleted the relevant ones and had the server destroyed to cover it up. The State Dept is now scrubbing the ones that she already scrubbed. The only thing you will see is what this govt wants you to see. That's it, nothing else. If you believe otherwise, you're dilusional at best.
13
"It is not clear when the vast majority of Mrs. Clinton’s emails will be made public", I'm sure those that won't will be leaked by Trey Gowdy to the NYT when it is convenient for his politically-motiviated Benghazi witch hunt.
2
It stands to reason that if all this time later we are still yammering on about Benghazi, that the Republican war machine must have very little on Hillary.
11
MD4,
It's called a cover-up.
Or "Obstruction of Justice."
Take your pick.
Absence of evidence due to active efforts to obfuscate, deny, destroy, and confuse is not evidence of pure intentions. In fact, the cover-up is evidence of misdeeds.
It's called a cover-up.
Or "Obstruction of Justice."
Take your pick.
Absence of evidence due to active efforts to obfuscate, deny, destroy, and confuse is not evidence of pure intentions. In fact, the cover-up is evidence of misdeeds.
3
It stands to reason that if all this time later we are still yammering on about Bridgegate, that the Democratic machine must have very little on Christy.
Just saying.
Just saying.
1
When you circumvent the system by setting up your own server and then you go through all of the trouble to delete half of your messages it is just a bit disingenuous to then tout about the content of the remaining emails that you release.
I'll wait for hackers to release the other half. Then we might actually learn something.
I'll wait for hackers to release the other half. Then we might actually learn something.
13
I'm sure one of her worries is that while Bengazi was happening, she might have been fund raising for herself and her foundation.
6
Here we go again. The Republicans continue their incessant demands for investigation after investigation of the Clintons. Have we sifted through the Clintons' bathroom trash can yet? How about Hillary's high school homework assignments? Surely, SURELY, there is scandal to be found somewhere if we just keep looking.
They simply can't bear it that she is going to be elected president.
They simply can't bear it that she is going to be elected president.
135
Neither can I bear it, and I am a lifelong Democrat. I just can't get over my preference for someone with integrity. Elizabeth Warren is my first choice. Bernie is, at this point, my second choice.
1
Madeline, just insert Chris Christie on your diatribe. See the hypocrisy yet?
Good.
And I don't even like the guy.
Good.
And I don't even like the guy.
1
Elizabeth Warren is not as "pure" as she'd like her followers to believe, she takes plenty of special interest money, Goldman Sachs, Attorney and Accountancy Firms. She is not my choice at all. Bernie sounds like the only decent candidate among the many Klowns running.
2
I'd like an investigation into Benghazi! Specifically an investigation into the $449,000,000 that the House GOP cut from diplomatic security funding in 2011 and 2012. When are Reps. Chaffetz and Issa going to investigate that? Heck, the GOP cut $215,000,000 from diplomatic security AFTER Benghazi!
13
"The emails also show that Mrs. Clinton was circulating information about the attacks in Benghazi that contradicted the Obama administration’s initial narrative of what occurred, and that she was concerned about how Republicans could use the incidents to undermine President Obama."
The concocted story of a YouTube video inspiring the attack in Benghazi is going to do significant damage to both Obama's legacy and Hillary's candidacy. Was Clinton lying at the memorial service at Andrews Air Force Base on September 14, 2012 when she stated the following?
"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with."
The concocted story of a YouTube video inspiring the attack in Benghazi is going to do significant damage to both Obama's legacy and Hillary's candidacy. Was Clinton lying at the memorial service at Andrews Air Force Base on September 14, 2012 when she stated the following?
"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with."
3
Does anyone have a tally on the waste of money by the GOP on Benghazi, repealing Obamacare and the tea party IRS fiasco....?
8
Th only people with an intense interest in Hillary Clinton's emails are the NYT and the Republicans on their never ending witch hunts.
7
So now the NYT is part of the vast right wing conspiracy?
5
What spin! The Times should be ashamed of itself for such a one sided, biased article. Since we will never see the 'deleted' stuff, their can never be any honesty in this matter.
12
I would be willing to bet that the NSA has every single email, but we will never see them.
1
Thus far, the emails are as banal as I would have assumed. If this is the biggest scandal the GOP can dig up, well, good luck. Looks like we're in for a long year of pathetic, chicken little histrionics from the right wing. I'm looking forward to the endless parade of crackpot conspiracy theorists, Benghazi-screamers, Whitewater re-hashers, Vince Foster detectives, Lewinski-loonies, and secret cash-chasers.
I guess when your policies have been an utter disaster for the last three decades, the sideshow is all you've got.
I guess when your policies have been an utter disaster for the last three decades, the sideshow is all you've got.
5
The woman is not to be trusted. She has brought this upon herself, hiding the Whitewater documents that were requested, and other things where she shows herself as opaque rather than transparent. She is not nearly presidential material. Her judgment is poor and she is not worldly.
8
What server did Mrs. Clinton's emails go through when she was Senator from New York? Isn't the Senate just as much a part of the U.S. Government as the Department of State? Can we see those emails and, if not, why?
5
"Mrs. Clinton, who has said she wants the emails to be made public"...Oh yes, I'm sure these are a real treasure trove. It amazes me that she can even ask this with a straight face.
6
She only has to fool 51% of the mindless sheep and since 47% of them blindly pull the "gimme free-stuff" lever anyway, she is likely a shoe-in for President and she knows this. Amazing that the "pro-choice" party has only 1 choice for their leader. How's that for democracy?
7
Hilary Clinton destroyed the US Foreign Policy as Secretary of State - this is the least of her failures. Getting a US Ambassador killed and murdering the reputation and stature of the US in the Middle East are other failures.
Beyond these failures there is a deep criminality that needs to be brought into the light. If any of us had wiped our hard drives if the JD or IRS wanted them we would be in jail in a matter of days if not hours.
HRC is a politician who covets power and refuses to give it up. She is out of touch - in the literal sense as she races around the country at 100 mph trying to 'appear normal' while avoiding the press and engaging in propagandized 'meet and greets'.
Beyond these failures there is a deep criminality that needs to be brought into the light. If any of us had wiped our hard drives if the JD or IRS wanted them we would be in jail in a matter of days if not hours.
HRC is a politician who covets power and refuses to give it up. She is out of touch - in the literal sense as she races around the country at 100 mph trying to 'appear normal' while avoiding the press and engaging in propagandized 'meet and greets'.
11
Right on. I can't prove she is corrupt, but neither can I prove a duck is a duck.....but, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....chances are.
3
Do you know a politician who doesn't covet power?
1
"They appear to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address."
And the thirty thousand plus deleted e-mails, what assertions did they back up?
And the thirty thousand plus deleted e-mails, what assertions did they back up?
7
Judging from my inbox, they were probably all LinkedIn reminders/updates/requests...
1
While we are at it, where are the 5 million emails deleted from White House accounts through the RNC in 2007 in violation of the Presidential Records Act?
Oh that's right, they were Republicans, held to a different standard by the media, or better yet, no standard at all.
Oh that's right, they were Republicans, held to a different standard by the media, or better yet, no standard at all.
8
It's possible (likely?) this will backfire for "Email-gaters."
Hillary's support has remained steady through these unfounded accusations.
Many women, and some men like myself, will see her being attacked and sympathize. If there's one thing we like as a nation, it's the underdog rising up, refusing to bow down, never giving up and always standing tall.
As someone wise said, there's no "there" there.
Hillary's support has remained steady through these unfounded accusations.
Many women, and some men like myself, will see her being attacked and sympathize. If there's one thing we like as a nation, it's the underdog rising up, refusing to bow down, never giving up and always standing tall.
As someone wise said, there's no "there" there.
8
What unfounded accusations? She violated State Department policy, obligations to respond to congressional subpoenas, and principles of government transparency/accountability. The issue isn't the substance of the emails. It's her sense of being above the law.
DOJ should be investigating her actions for possible indictment.
DOJ should be investigating her actions for possible indictment.
2
Neither of us knows for sure whether there's any "there" there, though I've always suspected her use of a private email account didn't cause any substantive security problems.
What bugs me, though, is that we have to spend a lot of taxpayer dollars to wade through many thousands of her emails to figure out which ones are personal and which ones are work-related. Isn't that something she should have done up front, just like most of us do?
What bugs me, though, is that we have to spend a lot of taxpayer dollars to wade through many thousands of her emails to figure out which ones are personal and which ones are work-related. Isn't that something she should have done up front, just like most of us do?
"They appear to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address."
These emails are from a batch that she handed over from her private account. All the other emails that she did not hand over were deleted.
Basic logic would show that the only assertion these emails could possibly back up is that she didn't hand over any emails containing classified information.
These emails are from a batch that she handed over from her private account. All the other emails that she did not hand over were deleted.
Basic logic would show that the only assertion these emails could possibly back up is that she didn't hand over any emails containing classified information.
12
Is that what its called now, "her private account"?
Not a mention that the 55,000 now being screened by state were pre-screened by herself and her cronies. When and how do the unwashed and non-worshipping masses like myself get full access to the server?
Not a mention that the 55,000 now being screened by state were pre-screened by herself and her cronies. When and how do the unwashed and non-worshipping masses like myself get full access to the server?
10
You and the other unwashed are not entitled to go rummaging through anyone's private communications to satisfy your morbid curiosities. That's the big point that most of the anti-Hlllary commenters here miss: only her official communications are public records, not all her communications.
1
The Times boosts its preferred candidate by not clarifying that these are the e-mailes that Clinton chose not to delete.
13
The fact remains that as a public figure her emails belong to the people, not just the flattering ones she hand picks. Another Hillary farce.
16
She'd better hope there are no spelling or grammatical errors, and absolutely no emojis. Otherwise the GOP will pounce.
11
Right, similar to how the Dems pounced on a certain Republican vice president's spelling of potato. Or a more recent Republican president's verbal departures. Dems are more interested in the really important stuff.
2
This was a satirical comment.
2
Our first female candidate for President who has a clear shot at winning. My, how some people really want to pull her down.
Why should everyone want to see all of her emails, and not Condoleeza's? Or Cheney's? Or Rummy's? Methinks there is a lot more to see there, frankly.
Why should everyone want to see all of her emails, and not Condoleeza's? Or Cheney's? Or Rummy's? Methinks there is a lot more to see there, frankly.
14
If there was a lot more to see there, frankly, it would have by now been brought to light by the legions of dim bulbs in the liberal media.
"The Times obtained about a third of the 850 pages of emails. They appear to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address."
This is an amazing assertion by the NYT. The only emails that we see are the ones Mrs. Clinton wants us to see, the rest have been destroyed.
This is an amazing assertion by the NYT. The only emails that we see are the ones Mrs. Clinton wants us to see, the rest have been destroyed.
20
Many Republicans prefer to rationalize the lies that resulted in the disaster of the Iraq War, and the resulting ongoing blowback of Mideast meltdown, to obsess over Clinton, Obama and Libya, mixing up mountains and molehills for political gain. It's the most disgraceful and tawdriest of politics.
18
They also bemoan the loss of 4 Americans in Benghazi and the size of the debt - then they wanted a full time troop presence in Iraq for the last 6 years and want people to believe that somehow that wouldn't grow the size of the debt or cost more than 4 American lives.
2
Ah yes, the State of Denial, the reddest state of all.
2
Never mind the fact that the Bushes engaged in wholesale treason, overturning a presidential election with the cooperation of a 5/4 SCOTUS, engaging in criminal treasonous negligence prior to 9/11, then using it for an excuse to engage with Iraq - a third party to the ordeal. These are but FACTS. Those at Fox and other emporiums of neo-con bluster are concerned with much deeper issues, how to regain power.
Enormous credit to the Republicans for inventing a scandal. They've had at least as many pointless hearings on Benghazi (read: hatchet jobs intended to defame and discreet our most respected female leader) as they've had voted to repeal Obamacare.
Maybe if Rand Pauk et al. with their sexist rants found something better to do, but no, that wouldn't benefit them or their corporate owners.
Maybe if Rand Pauk et al. with their sexist rants found something better to do, but no, that wouldn't benefit them or their corporate owners.
16
Apparently the only way the Republican clown car can keep its minuscule mind of rape issues and vaginal probe oriented issues is to double down on Bengahzi fantasies. Pathetic.
"The emails also show that Mrs. Clinton was circulating information about the attacks in Benghazi that contradicted the Obama administration’s initial narrative of what occurred, and that she was concerned about how Republicans could use the incidents to undermine President Obama".
I'm curious about what she said happened. If her info was different, what changed her mind?
I'm curious about what she said happened. If her info was different, what changed her mind?
4
Unlike the people in the Bush administration who kept their mouths shut when blatant lies were being spread all over the place.
I don't find a single thing wrong with internally circulating new information about an event that was as unclear as Benghazi.
It's 3 years later, and the House is still contradicting itself about Benghazi. What exactly is the problem ?
I don't find a single thing wrong with internally circulating new information about an event that was as unclear as Benghazi.
It's 3 years later, and the House is still contradicting itself about Benghazi. What exactly is the problem ?
1
All of this illustrates is that with the Clintons it is all like pulling on a string. Sure, at the bottom of it all there may be much ado about nothing, but their way of being and doing things always generates such suspicion. They remind me so much of the kid who's parents are questioning him on where he has been all day and what he has been doing. The kid gives out very little information, and cannot seem to give an unequivocal answer to a direct question, or gives an answer to a question that is not the question the parent asked to avoid directly answering the question, and then says that they answered the question completely and truthfully. When your ten year old has been away all day and you ask that child: where were you? Who were you with? what did you do? You expect complete, truthful answers. With the Clintons even if there is nothing at all to hide their response is to duck and dive. It is like pulling teeth. You just want to say "go to your room and don't come back out until you are going to give a complete and truthful account".
4
Why is this only true with the Clintons ?
You could spend the next twenty years playing "what did you know and when did you know it" with the Bush administration and still never be satisfied.
You could do this with every politician. Your selective outrage is the problem.
You could spend the next twenty years playing "what did you know and when did you know it" with the Bush administration and still never be satisfied.
You could do this with every politician. Your selective outrage is the problem.
Must be nice to live in her own little world. One where she can shape a future by deleting the past and have cover from powerful Democrats in office.
18
It's working beautifully for G.W. Bush. There he sits painting pictures while people mourn the men and women he sent to be killed, not to mention the tens of thousands of troops who are battling horrific injuries.
He doesn't appear troubled in the least by all of this suffering or about running our economy into the ground and damaging the lives of millions of Americans.
He doesn't appear troubled in the least by all of this suffering or about running our economy into the ground and damaging the lives of millions of Americans.
8
And the media. They are re-flexibly in her corner as they were for Obama.
2
"The intense interest in the emails stems in part from the revelation this year that Mrs. Clinton exclusively used a private email address to conduct her government work as secretary of state."
This is the extent of the background information you give? Nothing about how this may have violated records retention rules/laws? Nothing about how the email provided for release was only what she decided to turn over? Nothing about there's controversy over how she admittedly deleted tens of thousands of email and wiped the server? Not even something like, "Critics say..." to cover those bases?
This is the extent of the background information you give? Nothing about how this may have violated records retention rules/laws? Nothing about how the email provided for release was only what she decided to turn over? Nothing about there's controversy over how she admittedly deleted tens of thousands of email and wiped the server? Not even something like, "Critics say..." to cover those bases?
16
Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and Madeline Albright all used private e-mail. The requirement to use a government e-mail address is recent. All you right-wingers conveniently ignore this.
1
Rice, Powell and Albright are not running for President. Now it turns out she had TWO seperate e-mail addresses. She's cherry picked all the e-mails she finds puts her in a good light.
2
Of course, none of the 30,000 emails she kept on a private server hidden in her living room will be among them. These are just the ones she, and she alone, has decided the world will see.
11
As Richard Nixon once tried to do with tapes he made. The real question is aren't there other qualified people in the US that could be president without all the drama?
5
I'm surprised people rarely point this out but Obama has had one of the most ethical, scandal-free administrations in recent times.
This will be problematic for Hillary because, rightly or wrongly, she will forever be associated with a long list of scandals (Travelgate, Whitewater, Lewinsky, foreign donors to CGI, cattle futures, etc, etc, etc, etc).
After all these years of ethical Obama will Americans really want to go back to the scandals and controversy of the 1990's?
This will be problematic for Hillary because, rightly or wrongly, she will forever be associated with a long list of scandals (Travelgate, Whitewater, Lewinsky, foreign donors to CGI, cattle futures, etc, etc, etc, etc).
After all these years of ethical Obama will Americans really want to go back to the scandals and controversy of the 1990's?
6
Travelgate was a farce. Whitewater turned up nothing. Lewinsky comes down to snoopy Americans wanting to know about the private sex life of their President. Kennedy had affairs everyone ignored. Roosevelt had an long term affair everyone ignored. Get over it. There was no Watergate, a real scandal. Or war crimes like the Bush administration committed. I will take a Clinton Presidency over any Republican.
1
I'm not saying there is anything to any of those 'scandals'. I'm merely pointing out that the public associates them with the Clintons. They do not associate 'scandals' with Obama. The contrast could prove problematic.
Tell me BriefAl where do you stand on Bridgegate? No one died do you feel it's all been a waste of time?
1
This whole topic just perpetuates the settled red herring issue of Benghazi. This is lead by people who see a conspiracy at every turn and are looking for any excuse to discredit Clinton. Apparently, trying to discredit her on her actually record is too hard or complicated for this crowd. There have been many attacks on US consulates and embassies since '98 resulting in many more deaths than Benghazi. It is only because people think they can bludgeon Clinton with this, that it gets any attention. It doesn't matter how the NYTimes covers this story. Unless they indict Clinton and confirm their conspiracy theory, these wing nuts will continue to accuse it of sham journalism.
18
This e-mail gait is the stupidest non-scandal that the republicans and the no news media have ever manufactured. It's incredibly to see these news leeches jumping all over themselves to get the scoop on this non scandal. Never mind the crumbling infrastructure, never mind the school crisis, never mind income inequality, never mind climate change, never mind the poisoning of the environment, never mind earthquakes due to fracking, never mind the big banks have again gotten out of control and again threaten the economy. All we want to know about are Hillary's e-mails.
24
It's funny.
I never remember hearing a single thing about Mitt Romney, when he was running for president, and his staff destroying all of the computers used during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts.
And I've only momentarily heard a mention about Mike Huckabee doing the same exact thing.
But I guess those sorts of actions don't warrant the same attention directed toward Hillary Clinton's spam box and lolcat forwards.
Oh well.
I never remember hearing a single thing about Mitt Romney, when he was running for president, and his staff destroying all of the computers used during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts.
And I've only momentarily heard a mention about Mike Huckabee doing the same exact thing.
But I guess those sorts of actions don't warrant the same attention directed toward Hillary Clinton's spam box and lolcat forwards.
Oh well.
11
To the best of our knowledge, no US ambassadors were murdered in the other events you list.
Benghazi remains a scandal because four American were murdered in an event where we still haven't learned the truth.
We went after Nixon over a "second-rate burglary and a cover up". Shouldn't Hillary et al be held accountable for deaths under their watch?
Benghazi remains a scandal because four American were murdered in an event where we still haven't learned the truth.
We went after Nixon over a "second-rate burglary and a cover up". Shouldn't Hillary et al be held accountable for deaths under their watch?
3
Welcome to the neo-con world view. Get rid of Hillary and really lucrative consultancy contracts can be all ours again.
Just because Clinton did not label the email with a classification, hardly means that the information was unclassified.
I suspect that the rest of the State Department considered the location of its diplomats in a war zone to be classified information.
Do some more digging.
I suspect that the rest of the State Department considered the location of its diplomats in a war zone to be classified information.
Do some more digging.
5
posting is from jroll:
Why the focus just on Benghazi? The Embassy in Tripoli was the real focus the night of attacks on American posts. The 80 some personnel and their dependents were successfully evacuated to a safe house that night and no lives were lost, nor was the Embassy attacked. The "stand down" order was given, not because these were military enforcements to protect Benghazi, but rather they constituted a military escort to retrieve the bodies after the fighting was over. The State Department decided that the Libyan militia were competent enough to retrieve the bodies in Benghazi and see that they were safely return to the Embassy. That decision proved right. There are Republican presidential candidates who think that the American Embassy was in Benghazi. It was not. The protection of the Embassy and its Americans is the real success story of that awful night.
Why the focus just on Benghazi? The Embassy in Tripoli was the real focus the night of attacks on American posts. The 80 some personnel and their dependents were successfully evacuated to a safe house that night and no lives were lost, nor was the Embassy attacked. The "stand down" order was given, not because these were military enforcements to protect Benghazi, but rather they constituted a military escort to retrieve the bodies after the fighting was over. The State Department decided that the Libyan militia were competent enough to retrieve the bodies in Benghazi and see that they were safely return to the Embassy. That decision proved right. There are Republican presidential candidates who think that the American Embassy was in Benghazi. It was not. The protection of the Embassy and its Americans is the real success story of that awful night.
8
It is an extremely important detail that the emails being released are the emails that Clinton provided from her private email account. This MUST be mentioned along with every article that covers the slow release of these emails from the State Department. We do not know if we are looking at a complete record. We will never know. And that's the reason Clinton's decision to use her private email for Government business (whether it was intended for deceptive purposes or merely a very poor decision) remains a really big deal. As we continue to see emails that praise Clinton's appearance in photos we must constantly wonder what we're not seeing.
9
When an intelligent, well educated, experienced individual asks the American public for the chance to lead the country they should be prepared to demonstrate respect by answering questions and being forthcoming. It is very likely that there is no malfeseance or even incompetence to be revealed by a person in that position but the fact that information is concealed or omitted; the fact that a candidate has so little respect for voters that they think they can or should conceal anything is on one level condescending and on every level insulting. I don't like being insulted by anyone, least of all someone who wants to lead me. That goes for conservatives, liberals, men, women, everybody.
67
This candidate deserves some respect too. Respect has to go both ways. The Repubs have been after Mrs. Clinton like a pack of ravening right-wing wolves ever since she first came on the scene, and have never, ever been able to get anyone to charge, arrest or convict her of anything. The fact that they persist is just a sign of their continuing idiocy, paranoia and disrespect for our country and its political system as a whole.
There are probably very few people you could vote for, then. I can think of many reasons I wouldn't people to see my emails, work or private, even though I'm not engaged in any "wrong doing," not just because of what they say about me, but because of what they reveal about others as well (would I want my friend's boss to see the email where she spends paragraphs complaining about him? would one of my previous professors want everyone to see that one email I saved just in case I ever needed to take action against him....?) There's also the problem of insignificant things can be taken way out of proportion by those unaware of context or with an agenda. Spin is a powerful force, and most people are willing to buy it if it fits what they want to believe. The fact that anyone would be willing to release their emails at all I found somewhat astounding. The idea that a human being - especially one tasked with managing delicate situations while keeping a certain public face in the process - can or should be completely transparent seems like an unattainable ideal. I guess I don't expect anyone to be spotless. I just expect them to do the best job they can.
1
@Luke. To paraphrase Cardinal Richelieu, give me six paragraphs written by the most upstanding man, and I will find three reasons to hang him.
1
Another nothing, no-facts article about a non-issue. The kind of hot air and vague insinuations the Republicans and their enablers live on.
20
Let's cut to the chase - voters don't care one hoot about Clinton's emails, or her foundation donations either. R's want to trip her up but trip themselves up in the process. Newspapers dig up just enough to make it news for a day, then it fades away. Hillary knows she has the presidency in the bag, with her eyes closed. After all, what difference does being ethical and honest make?
8
Speak for yourself. I am voter, a lifelong Democrat, and one of Mrs. Clinton's former constituents who happend to work for her 2000 campaign; I am appalled by this behavior by Mrs. Clinton and much less likely to vote for her (either in the primary or the general) due to it.
This is notwithstanding that I think that the whole Benganzi inquiry is a transparently political farce. The e-mail issue is a wholy independent problem and a wholly unforced error on her and her team's part. It is showcasing in an incredibly unfortunate way and at the worst time possible some of Mrs. Clinton's weakest qualities, including a sense of outraged entitlement that she should have to play by the rules everyone else is expected to or to answer questions or "own up" to her mistakes when caught red-handed.
This is notwithstanding that I think that the whole Benganzi inquiry is a transparently political farce. The e-mail issue is a wholy independent problem and a wholly unforced error on her and her team's part. It is showcasing in an incredibly unfortunate way and at the worst time possible some of Mrs. Clinton's weakest qualities, including a sense of outraged entitlement that she should have to play by the rules everyone else is expected to or to answer questions or "own up" to her mistakes when caught red-handed.
6
Speak for yourself. I care very much about these emails. We the taxpayers were paying for her salary as Secretary of State. I expect that she would comply with the rules and ethics required of her job- which was to use a government server; to turn over ALL of her emails upon leaving her job (she had to be forced two years later to turn them over - that is the ones she hadn't deleted- because of an FOIA requirement.)
I am also very concerned that she went behind Obama's back and disobeyed his orders that she not hire Sid Blumenthal. She went around that by hiring Sid for her Clinton Foundation and using him as an advisor.
I am also very concerned that she went behind Obama's back and disobeyed his orders that she not hire Sid Blumenthal. She went around that by hiring Sid for her Clinton Foundation and using him as an advisor.
3
Let's stop making excuses for Hillary Clinton's behavior. Her decision to use a private email server was calculated and done in an effort to maintain total, personal control over that information. Her activity was in direct opposition to official State Department policy that she herself made others follow. And when she was finally caught, she and her lawyers reviewed her emails and determined which were official business and which were personal. And then she DESTROYED all of the emails that she decided to not turnover so that no one could review what had been done. As Americans -- whether Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Socialists, etc -- we should all be appalled by her behavior. We should expect more from our leaders and hold them to the highest standards. But Mrs. Clinton knows most will not, most truly don't care, and in the end, she will likely get away with yet another ethical -- and likely legal -- transgression. Shame on us all for standing by.
27
Finally people are beginning to grasp how mystifying the Republican fixation on Libya really is. Have they proposed any intelligent policies or debated on the floor of the House with regard to our having been immersed in military actions throughout the Middle East? No, they have run away from it like a farmer running from their barn when it catches fire.
What the Republicans obviously have hungered for are secret inquisitorial hearings during which they might be allowed to 'question' Hillary Clinton and other current and former Administration officials, and then 'leak' their so-called 'findings' while threatening to slap a gag order on everyone their 'investigation' interviews.
What the Republicans obviously have hungered for are secret inquisitorial hearings during which they might be allowed to 'question' Hillary Clinton and other current and former Administration officials, and then 'leak' their so-called 'findings' while threatening to slap a gag order on everyone their 'investigation' interviews.
251
Dont forget the root cause of the investigation into Benghazi- the orgin of the administration smoke screen to blame a "riot that got out hand" on an obscure video satire of Mohammed . In the heat of a presidential campaign, mendacity and moral failings led to ethical lapses to protect a presidential campaign. For these reasons alone, HIllary cannot be trusted nor elected
Oh, yes, the root cause was a mistaken theory floated around along with dozens of other rumors and speculation in the immediate aftermath of a chaotic terrorist attack. Your point is as vapid as your conclusion is disconnected and revealing of nothing but your political prejudices. Nor does it address the basic point my comment raised. Just more of the Republican Laughing gas.
32
I thought the root cause of the investigations is that the Republicans believe that Americans are naive and stupid.
20
It'll be a mess if she gets elected. Enough with the Bush and Clinton families already. Unfortunately we can look forward to Chelsea in a few years and any of the dozens of Bush juniors.
7
All over the country, there are community problems between communities of color and the police. Our bridges are falling down. The USA is the world leader in childhood poverty. These are just a few of our problems. Can't we put Benghazi to rest?
10
Sure, once we finally have the truth.
1
There is a reason the Republican Candidates do not have to worry about their role in foreign policy, it is the same reason I don't have to worry about someone complaining about my performance at Carnegie Hall. I have never done it, so I have made no measurable mistakes.
Monday morning quarterbacks may know all the plays that should have been called, but when its time to start the game, you want the person who has been playing to suit up, not the political windbag from the big couch. Go Hillary.
Monday morning quarterbacks may know all the plays that should have been called, but when its time to start the game, you want the person who has been playing to suit up, not the political windbag from the big couch. Go Hillary.
11
What difference, at this point, does it make? With all of the deleted emails and hidden email servers, we will never know the full story. What will be disclosed has already been sanitized.
11
100% correct. The NYT staff should get in a meeting right now and agree that every article that will cover the State Departments' slow and steady release of Clinton's email should begin very clearly with a statement acknowledging that the State Department is working with the emails that Clinton provided. We will never know if we are looking at a complete record and that is exactly the problem with her decision to user personal email for Government business.
2
Hillary and her cabal's pushing for the destruction of a stable regime in Libya (which was one of America's closest allies in the war on terrorism in North Africa) should go down in history as one of the most evil acts by an American administration.
Her actions, and those of her gang, Blumenthal, Huma, Drumheller, Morell, et al should all be subjects of indictment and trial.
Her gloating at the inhuman lynching of Kaddafy (We came. We saw. He died--cackle, cackle, cackle!) revealed clearly the pure evil in her soul.
This issue, and all the related misdeeds and cover-ups, make Watergate pale to insignificance.
http://intelctweekly.blogspot.com/2012/07/libya-proof-that-pc-progressiv...
Her actions, and those of her gang, Blumenthal, Huma, Drumheller, Morell, et al should all be subjects of indictment and trial.
Her gloating at the inhuman lynching of Kaddafy (We came. We saw. He died--cackle, cackle, cackle!) revealed clearly the pure evil in her soul.
This issue, and all the related misdeeds and cover-ups, make Watergate pale to insignificance.
http://intelctweekly.blogspot.com/2012/07/libya-proof-that-pc-progressiv...
8
Such a lack of historical perspective is exactly why most of us don't buy into your conspiracy fantasies.
And I seem to recall a certain Republican president and his cronies lying this nation into a trillion-dollar war of choice that brought about "the destruction of a stable regime" somewhere east of Syria and west of Iran...
And I seem to recall a certain Republican president and his cronies lying this nation into a trillion-dollar war of choice that brought about "the destruction of a stable regime" somewhere east of Syria and west of Iran...
1
It doesn't matter whats in the emails. Her fevered opponents are already convinced that she has deleted everything. If there's no smoking gun in there, they'll just invent one. Half of them are already convinced that she personally conspired with the president to kill Ambassador Stevens.
22
The idea that Clinton is some evil genius is counter-intuitive to thinking she sends smoking gun emails that are achievable to other parties. The Drudge crowd that is now swarming the NYT will never see it that way though. They've been sold this narrative by the GOP and they've bought it hook line and sinker. The take away from all the email drama is that the GOP has successfully suckered lots of people into ignoring their ludicrous policies.
7
You report " The Times obtained about a third of the 850 pages of emails. They appear to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address." How in the world could one conclude or even infer that she did not receive classified information in the subject email account? In fact the recently released emails have been hand culled from a subset of emails that were not 'accidentally' deleted.
17
of course, these are only the emails that mrs. clinton unilaterally decided to turn over to the state department, so it's not surprising that she has no problems having them made public. to self-censor is to self-serve.
24
The simple fact that these types of issues (private emails, foundation funding, etc) keep popping up is enough to say "Enough!"
The country needs new blood and new ideas. The Clintons, Bushes and their networks need to be put out to pasture.
It is time for real change.
The country needs new blood and new ideas. The Clintons, Bushes and their networks need to be put out to pasture.
It is time for real change.
85
I agree completely, but isn't that what got us President Obama? Change for its own sake isn't enough. We need change, true, but perhaps we should add some additional qualifiers to that demand.
1
well, there is this guy B Sanders.
He holds positions that, according to polling, are supported by a majority of Americans.
So, almost by definition, B Sanders is a centrist who is advocating policys that most Americans agree with
He holds positions that, according to polling, are supported by a majority of Americans.
So, almost by definition, B Sanders is a centrist who is advocating policys that most Americans agree with
4
Then why is Jeb Bush running and being supported by some Repubs?
2
Is it too much to ask that matters of substance be introduced to the political discourse? We discuss the compliments a presidential candidate receives on their looks, but we don't discuss matters of state. This country has great power but lacks the wit and will to wield it.
1
To quote one of our esteemed politicians: "What difference does it make?"
The blind devotees of Hillary will follow her regardless, and possibly because of the assumption that she's crooked. The don't care, because they think she'll give them what they want, regardless of what's good for the country.
I think she actually stood a decent chance of getting support from moderate Republicans, precisely because she's not a blithering liberal, but more pragmatic. Now that she's outing herself as a liar and a fool, I think she's done for.
The blind devotees of Hillary will follow her regardless, and possibly because of the assumption that she's crooked. The don't care, because they think she'll give them what they want, regardless of what's good for the country.
I think she actually stood a decent chance of getting support from moderate Republicans, precisely because she's not a blithering liberal, but more pragmatic. Now that she's outing herself as a liar and a fool, I think she's done for.
14
The Hill ran a story the other day on Stephenopolis, but buried deep in it were details on how Sydney Bloomenthol was a go-between for Hillary and Ambassador Stevens. Bloomenthol had been instructed to find business contacts for the Clinton foundation with the "new" Libyan gov't, and was attempting to use Stevens for this endeavor. Stevens was cutting and pasting the content of these emails back to State Dept officials, due to the inappropriate requests made by Clinton through Bloomenthol.
Then Stevens ends up dead because of a State Dept stand down order during the 9/11 attack on the consulate. Then the Soetoro administration comes up with the idiotic arguments that a YouTube video no one had seen was to blame.
Here's your real conspiracy. Here's the real reason 30,000 emails were deleted.
Then Stevens ends up dead because of a State Dept stand down order during the 9/11 attack on the consulate. Then the Soetoro administration comes up with the idiotic arguments that a YouTube video no one had seen was to blame.
Here's your real conspiracy. Here's the real reason 30,000 emails were deleted.
18
Why should we even consider the reasoning of a commenter who can't spell the names s/he's writing about?
2
Apparently posted by a 'political hostage' denied access to the proper spelling of the name of the principal fantasized at the center of the cabal. Who cut the security funding for embassies at State? Oh, yeah, the Republican Congress and Senate, they slashed it. So you're saying that THEY were responsible?
2
I wonder, is it even possible to have a thoughtful, rational discussion about Ms Clinton as First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State and Presidential candidate? It seems lines have been drawn and on one side are those who support Ms Clinton or at the very least give her the benefit of the doubt and on the other are those who, for varying reasons, cannot or will not take as truth anything she says. Ms Clintons time will pass but, the polarization afflicting this country right now does not bode well for the future of America.
72
I agree with what you say but would take it one step further. Look at her Republican opponents and ponder on what the Republican Presidents since Reagan have done. If my choice is Hillary or one of the current Republican wanna-bees then the choice is clear. I would not discount someone just because they are Republican (Lowell Weicker for example), but the existing contestants, not a chance.
1
In truth, it has ever been thus. Seriously, back to Adams. Learn a little American history. It might have a calmative effect. . . Or, it might get you really worked up, but whatever it does, it won't leave you with a feeling that our nation is more polarized than ever. Simply, that is not true.
2
Okay, let's have the discussion. Please begin by listing Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State.
Two points: (1) using private e mail server: bad idea; (2) substance of e mails: pretty innocuous. Presidents secretly (and illegally) taped peoples conversations in the Oval Office and in phone calls for many years. In a way, this turned out to be a good thing. Without the tapes, Nixon might have managed to continue his criminal conspiracy through Jan. 1977. With Hillary, there was no crime, so what we are seeing is not evidence of anything. This is just voyeurism by the media and teeth-gnashing by the Republicans.
3
The only reason for releasing these emails is the right-wing mania that is never satisfied with the operations of government unless the Republicans are in power, which leads to countless investigations of supposed scandals that are never scandals at all. At times, the New York Times has bought into this, stoking the fires of suspicion by assuming that such investigations are valid. The more the partisan investigations, the more the government must spend its time defending itself instead of carrying out its normal functions. The more the partisan investigations, the greater the public distrust of government. All of which serves the purpose of the Republican party well, which constantly runs against government and therefore wants the government to function as poorly as possible whenever they are not in control. Thus the anti-Clinton machine, thus the anti-Obama machine. But of course if you are driven by ideology, and not by the obligations of responsible citizenship, you will see only what you want to see and complain about the Clintons or Obama over and over again, without admitting to your own fictions.
228
The only quibble I have with your assertion that the Republicans "want the government to function as poorly as possible whenever they are not is control" is that they seem to want it to run as poorly as possible when they ARE in control, too.
The right-wingers aren't happy with this Republican controlled House or Senate either. They are proving to be do-nothings. I personally think a good deal of them have been bought and paid for.
1
Not just recommended, but highly, highly recommended. Nailed it.
1
The ethical obligation of a lawyer is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Ethics is required as part of any continuing legal education program by most state bars.
While neither Clinton was President of the Harvard Law Review nor a Constitutional law scholar law school professor nor graduate of Harvard law School they should have some basic ethical sense and compass from Yale Law School.
This whole Hillary affair "stinks and shines like rotten mackerel under a full moon." What happened at Benghazi was the result of the same type of national security defense intelligence hubris and incompetence that allowed 19 men with box cutters to go unknown and undetected until a bright sunny day in September, 2001.
While neither Clinton was President of the Harvard Law Review nor a Constitutional law scholar law school professor nor graduate of Harvard law School they should have some basic ethical sense and compass from Yale Law School.
This whole Hillary affair "stinks and shines like rotten mackerel under a full moon." What happened at Benghazi was the result of the same type of national security defense intelligence hubris and incompetence that allowed 19 men with box cutters to go unknown and undetected until a bright sunny day in September, 2001.
9
Agree. But President Obama was neither a professor nor a Constitutional law scholar. He was a lecturer and has published no articles in peer review journals.
2
Academia breeds a hen pecking order.
Law is gender racial socioeconomic political educational colored ethnic sectarian American history. Law has nothing to do with morality, justice, logic, fairness, natural law or objectivity. Every legal system strives to be internally consistent enough to legally defend and justify slavery, apartheid, genocide, colonialism and imperialism.
Lawyers are no more scholars and scientific than are gun slingers, preachers, politicians, economists, accountants, financiers and historians.
Peers?
"Trying to make it real ...compared to what?" Les McCann and Eddie Harris
Law is gender racial socioeconomic political educational colored ethnic sectarian American history. Law has nothing to do with morality, justice, logic, fairness, natural law or objectivity. Every legal system strives to be internally consistent enough to legally defend and justify slavery, apartheid, genocide, colonialism and imperialism.
Lawyers are no more scholars and scientific than are gun slingers, preachers, politicians, economists, accountants, financiers and historians.
Peers?
"Trying to make it real ...compared to what?" Les McCann and Eddie Harris
1
Take your best shot; analyze the toppings she put on her taco at Taco Bell, see whether the shoes match with the car she is driving. Each of these non- sequitur minutia is serving to ignite new energy in a new voter.
Each of these investigations into every little thing done by Hillary suggests one clear thing: there is no one more qualified to be president. Almost any other previous president, with the likely exception of the rather simple and inexperienced Mr. Obama, could not stand this kind of scrutiny. Hillary has been under the public microscope from her time in the Rose Law firm. And what have people found? That she is human, makes mistakes, and comes back swinging the next day. I want my daughters to be like this.
Yes I have some problems with Hillary's positions, and I am a bit concerned about the money she took from people, but what I feel now is an overwhelming anger toward the media and the right wing for putting a qualified, well-meaning, outstanding lady like Hillary. I will put my doubts aside, and campaign my brains out for this outstanding person because I just hate the kind of treatment she is getting from the press and the right wing hate mongers.
Kalidan
Each of these investigations into every little thing done by Hillary suggests one clear thing: there is no one more qualified to be president. Almost any other previous president, with the likely exception of the rather simple and inexperienced Mr. Obama, could not stand this kind of scrutiny. Hillary has been under the public microscope from her time in the Rose Law firm. And what have people found? That she is human, makes mistakes, and comes back swinging the next day. I want my daughters to be like this.
Yes I have some problems with Hillary's positions, and I am a bit concerned about the money she took from people, but what I feel now is an overwhelming anger toward the media and the right wing for putting a qualified, well-meaning, outstanding lady like Hillary. I will put my doubts aside, and campaign my brains out for this outstanding person because I just hate the kind of treatment she is getting from the press and the right wing hate mongers.
Kalidan
261
Yes! The backfiring of right wing intransigence.
1
Romney was derided as too rich, yet Hillary made more money (almost double) than him in one year. McCain was derided as too old, yet Hillary is the same age as him when he ran. Double standards much?
2
Keep drinking the kool aid - it will distract you from recognizing she is the most duplicitous person in american politics
3
The e-mails released to date portray a secretary of state doing her job as we would want her to do - consulting experts and staff, listening to advice and argument, circulating information to key players, and avoiding e-mailing classified documents. The e-mails certainly do not portray a secretary of state disengaged from or disinterested in the welfare of our Benghazi mission.
But this shouldn't be surprising. After Edward Snowden's document release two years ago, the excerpts the media published uniformly portrayed Secretary Clinton in particular, and the Obama Administration's foreign policy officials in general, as responsible grown-ups thoughtfully and competently doing their jobs. There was nothing remotely comparable to the Bush-era intelligence briefing paper explicitly warning right before 9/11 of an imminent al Qaeda attack in the US.
Some of the commenters here protest that Hillary Clinton's deletion of e-mails she felt were not job-related might bias the remaining pool of e-mails to her political interests. My response is that Edward Snowden presumably had no such interest, and, to this day, nothing in the 1.7 million pages of documents that Snowden released has given any cause for concern about Clinton's performance as secretary of state.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
But this shouldn't be surprising. After Edward Snowden's document release two years ago, the excerpts the media published uniformly portrayed Secretary Clinton in particular, and the Obama Administration's foreign policy officials in general, as responsible grown-ups thoughtfully and competently doing their jobs. There was nothing remotely comparable to the Bush-era intelligence briefing paper explicitly warning right before 9/11 of an imminent al Qaeda attack in the US.
Some of the commenters here protest that Hillary Clinton's deletion of e-mails she felt were not job-related might bias the remaining pool of e-mails to her political interests. My response is that Edward Snowden presumably had no such interest, and, to this day, nothing in the 1.7 million pages of documents that Snowden released has given any cause for concern about Clinton's performance as secretary of state.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
So, MS Clinton is complimented on her looks in a NYTimes photo. I would be insulted, as a woman, who aspired to political office!
My response would be simple and swift. "
" If all that's needed of a candidate is good looks, we can just choose our candidates and governors from out of Vogue or other similar ladies or girls magazines, and then vote for which ever one whose looks are not just outstanding but also withstand the rigors of time-or 4 years of it.
Why even allow the candidates to actually speak or govern? Put their picture in the chair of state ,and let the chosen model go upon a long, or a permanent vacation.
Senior individuals with experience in various aspects of government and politics could be chosen from among numerous people at universities submitting requests for such employment. After putting their names in a hat and shaking them up, (to ensure some some mixing), a group could be chosen thus: Half could serve in the winter, the other half in summer.
Spares for sick days and illness could be chosen from among students who might be serving out internships and chosen according to their own personal interests.
It might even make for a government that actually functions.
My response would be simple and swift. "
" If all that's needed of a candidate is good looks, we can just choose our candidates and governors from out of Vogue or other similar ladies or girls magazines, and then vote for which ever one whose looks are not just outstanding but also withstand the rigors of time-or 4 years of it.
Why even allow the candidates to actually speak or govern? Put their picture in the chair of state ,and let the chosen model go upon a long, or a permanent vacation.
Senior individuals with experience in various aspects of government and politics could be chosen from among numerous people at universities submitting requests for such employment. After putting their names in a hat and shaking them up, (to ensure some some mixing), a group could be chosen thus: Half could serve in the winter, the other half in summer.
Spares for sick days and illness could be chosen from among students who might be serving out internships and chosen according to their own personal interests.
It might even make for a government that actually functions.
2
This is very much like the missing minutes on the Nixon tapes. No doubt Hillary should not have done any of this, and most likely anything that would put a bad light on her has been deleted. Whatever was done and seeing what the Republicans are pushing for president, she may still comes across as the lesser of 2 evils at election time. And that's the sin of it all. Where are the politicians that work for us rather than the Koch Bros or others like them?
3
One big difference among many, many differences is that Nixon was under investigation for the commission of crimes, while Mrs. Clinton was simply doing her job. There's lots of speculation, guess and conjecture in your comment, influenced by your dislike of Clinton.
2
"Where are the politicians that work for us rather than the Koch Bros or others like them?"
Those people by and large are never allowed to even come close to reaching the upper echelons of politics. The money-hoarding rich people that actually run this country get to handpick the candidates that are allowed to run for office (i.e. the candidates that will serve their money-hoarding rich masters) before you or I or anyone else ever even gets a chance to think about voting for them.
Anyone with a single ounce of morality who might wanna do something to change the country will immediately get squashed by money and the media (and remember who owns the media: money-hoarding rich people).
Mr. Smith wouldn't even be allowed near Washington in this day and age of pay-to-play politics.
Those people by and large are never allowed to even come close to reaching the upper echelons of politics. The money-hoarding rich people that actually run this country get to handpick the candidates that are allowed to run for office (i.e. the candidates that will serve their money-hoarding rich masters) before you or I or anyone else ever even gets a chance to think about voting for them.
Anyone with a single ounce of morality who might wanna do something to change the country will immediately get squashed by money and the media (and remember who owns the media: money-hoarding rich people).
Mr. Smith wouldn't even be allowed near Washington in this day and age of pay-to-play politics.
2
The only conjecture is your statement. One can be a Democrat and not always agree with the candidate. From your statement, she never did anything that's questionable. And you must really, really like her. I have no other choice but to vote for her.
1
Well, of course they back up her "assertions." She's releasing the ones she wants seen and she's DESTROYED the server. What part of that do you gullible, fawning liberals not understand? Amazing.
32
Most knowledgeable democrats are actually quick to point out Hillary's shortcomings, unlike republicans who blindly follow their candidates to the bitter end (see: George W. Bush's approval ratings near the end of his presidency).
What is entirely understandable is that Hillary's election over a Jeb Bush (or whoever) means that gay rights and women's rights and other minority rights will have a much better chance a progressing than under any single one of the conservative candidates.
Will she kowtow to the super-rich? Of course. They all do. But at least in the meantime we can have a president that actually does a few things other than simply sucking up to the rich and nothing else.
Amazing, ain't it?
What is entirely understandable is that Hillary's election over a Jeb Bush (or whoever) means that gay rights and women's rights and other minority rights will have a much better chance a progressing than under any single one of the conservative candidates.
Will she kowtow to the super-rich? Of course. They all do. But at least in the meantime we can have a president that actually does a few things other than simply sucking up to the rich and nothing else.
Amazing, ain't it?
2
Joe, I am a liberal and I get every part of it.
One way or another people like you and me have to reconcile so we can work for each other instead of having politicians on the left and the right turn us against one another while they work for themselves the way Hillary works for herself.
One way or another people like you and me have to reconcile so we can work for each other instead of having politicians on the left and the right turn us against one another while they work for themselves the way Hillary works for herself.
1
There's a sucker born every minute, and two to take him. - P.T. Barnum
1
It's wild that Hillary Clinton is being pressed to release her emails immediately. Of course some of them are sensitive. And they are probably nearly all sent by still-living and working diplomats, politicians, and workers, none of whom consented to have their emails published only 2-3 years after sending them. Clinton's time as Secretary of State is not long enough in the past yet for us to consider it history -- normally documents like these are not made public until after the death of the person in question, or at least well after the events have receded into the past. After all, she is not accused of any wrongdoing (her use of a private email account is not a crime -- the emails are all still archived by the State Department. This is not a normal part of the scrutiny of presidential candidates. If it were, where are Mike Huckabee's emails, Ted Cruz's, and Mitt Romney's??
Furthermore, if we don't like politicians occupying positions like Secretary of State, time to start appointing career diplomats to the position, the most qualified people. That's the response to take, not sniping at Hillary.
Furthermore, if we don't like politicians occupying positions like Secretary of State, time to start appointing career diplomats to the position, the most qualified people. That's the response to take, not sniping at Hillary.
149
I was unaware of the fact that history delays itself in time. in light of that, when can we revel in the falling of the Berlin Wall? Have those who were their consented to our revelry or must we wait till they're all dead?
1
"none of whom consented to have their emails published only 2-3 years after sending them." They do not have to consent. The emails are the property of the US government. The people who sent the emails have no right or say so over what happens to the emails.
"the emails are all still archived by the State Department" They were NOT archived by anybody until Clinton was FORCED to turn them over. Still she had the luxury of skimming through them all and turning over what she thought was relevant.
"This is not a normal part of the scrutiny of presidential candidates" This started as an investigation of her actions as Sec. of State years before she started her run for Pres. Poor HIlldabeast is being sniped at, was that the same as she was sniped at running off the tarmac with her head down?
"the emails are all still archived by the State Department" They were NOT archived by anybody until Clinton was FORCED to turn them over. Still she had the luxury of skimming through them all and turning over what she thought was relevant.
"This is not a normal part of the scrutiny of presidential candidates" This started as an investigation of her actions as Sec. of State years before she started her run for Pres. Poor HIlldabeast is being sniped at, was that the same as she was sniped at running off the tarmac with her head down?
The emails that she didnt DELETE are archived. The "yoga schedule" emails are gone forever.
1
Hillary is not a flawed --- she was put in charge of a very complex organization, managing region that defies any form of rational problem solving, and made the best decisions should could based on the information she had. If there is one thing we can all agree upon, is Hillary is not a flawed intellect --- which in a election season featuring an entire party with no intellect at all is all I need to know.
25
Her intellect may be adequate, what is lacking is any sense of propriety or moral obligation. We need at least one viable alternative in the race.
2
Name any accomplishments - because she couldn't come up with anything but women's rights in Myanmar and traveling a gozillion miles. Name one region or country that is in better shape or that we have better relations with? And keep in mind that Obama did not trust her enough with Israel, or Afghanistan. He set up special envoys reporting to him right off the bat.
Hillary is counting on the votes of people that "think" like ACJ.
Hillary can do no wrong, ever! If she's caught in a lie, well then it's the truth's fault for being wrong! Anyone that disagrees with Hillary is without intellect, or for that matter, humanity! Destroy the Unbelievers!
You do realize we're talking about a POLITICIAN right?
Hillary can do no wrong, ever! If she's caught in a lie, well then it's the truth's fault for being wrong! Anyone that disagrees with Hillary is without intellect, or for that matter, humanity! Destroy the Unbelievers!
You do realize we're talking about a POLITICIAN right?
1
Going after Hillary Clinton as a political figure is one thing but using the Benghazi tragedy as political football to get at her the way the Republicans have is shameful.
106
Who used it as a political football? By blaming it on an obscure film maker, taking out ads in Pakistan about the filmmaker, lying to the parents of the deceased at Dover about it - all in the efforts to mislead & detract an electorate two months before election day. That is playing politics.
4
Particularly when the mother of Ambassador Stevens asked people not do to this.
1
Where does the buck stop?
1
Ah, for a Dem candidate less twisted & twisting. Bernie Sanders, anyone?
15
I like Bernie Sanders a lot, but Mrs. Clinton is being assaulted in a political witch hunt, as usual.
3
When you have one server that functions, as both your professional and personal center for all your correspondences, and then you are asked to turn over those that relate to your professional dealings, does it make any sense for the owner of that server to decide which to send or not send? If a cop stops me for the purposes of checking my pockets for reasonable suspicion of contraband, do I have the right to tell him which pockets to search?
136
In fact, Federal employees, including Mrs. Clinton all have the responsibility to manage their email. This is from a National Archives 2014 (two years after Mrs. Clinton left the State Dept.) Bulletin:
"What is the role of Federal employees in email management?
Currently, in many agencies, employees manage their own email accounts and apply their own understanding of Federal records management. This means that all employees are required to review each message, identify its value, and either delete it or move it to a recordkeeping system. Some email, such as spam or all-staff announcements, may be deleted immediately. On the other hand, substantive policy discussions conducted in email may be appropriate for preservation for several years or ultimate transfer to NARA.
NARA recognizes that placing the responsibility on employees to make decisions on an email-by-email basis can create a tremendous burden. As a result, NARA recommends that agencies immediately begin to adopt automated or rules-based records management policies for email management, such as the Capstone approach."
"What is the role of Federal employees in email management?
Currently, in many agencies, employees manage their own email accounts and apply their own understanding of Federal records management. This means that all employees are required to review each message, identify its value, and either delete it or move it to a recordkeeping system. Some email, such as spam or all-staff announcements, may be deleted immediately. On the other hand, substantive policy discussions conducted in email may be appropriate for preservation for several years or ultimate transfer to NARA.
NARA recognizes that placing the responsibility on employees to make decisions on an email-by-email basis can create a tremendous burden. As a result, NARA recommends that agencies immediately begin to adopt automated or rules-based records management policies for email management, such as the Capstone approach."
2
"If a cop stops me for the purposes of checking my pockets for reasonable suspicion of contraband, do I have the right to tell him which pockets to search?"
Probably not, but here's a suggestion: If a cop ever offers you that choice and you've got some contraband in one pocket, tell him not to search that one.
Probably not, but here's a suggestion: If a cop ever offers you that choice and you've got some contraband in one pocket, tell him not to search that one.
1
That's a poor analogy. You have the right to tell the cop they can't search you.
Seems like Republicans' well-laid plan to bring down Hillary is backfiring on themselves. We may now see backtracking and suppression of her e-mails from the going public.
15
Theses are the ones that she reviewed and turned over to the Department of State. The e-mails that I want to read are the ones that are still on her personal server and the deleted ones. I can not get over the double standard that the media and the Democrat establishment has regarding her, if this was a Republican there would be a daily drumbeat for a federal investigation
31
Perhaps after all of the conservative and Republican led federal investigations of the Clintons, including the years-long Whitewater investigation, which concluded after a $75 million investigation without evidence of wrongdoing, Democrats no longer have patience for the countless allegations wrongdoing against the Clintons. As for the media, they not only have they been following this story, of which this article is proof, but over the years they've pursued allegations regarding Mrs. Clinton's billing at the Rose Law firm, Gennifer Flowers, the death of Vince Foster, the dismissal of personnel from the White House travel office, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, among others. As this list attests, conservatives and Republicans have encouraged a daily drumbeat for investigations for twenty years, and the public has tired of these attacks.
2
MJS, I am a lifelong Democrat born and raised in Massachusetts, and I will say (with much chagrin) that I am truly disappointed in Hillary's very questionable and suspect decision to conduct all of her State business from a private email. I don't know what, if anything, was done that is illegal, but from an ethical and simple matter of appearances perspective, it is extremely disappointing, and has changed my feelings about her considerably. Unfortunately she is still the best candidate among all the known Dems or Republicans at the moment, so I have no intention of voting for anyone else if she is on the ballot Nov. 2016.
1
Like the daily drumbeat to prosecute officials of the last administration for what were clearly, under both US and international law, war crimes in the CIA's black sites and the FOB, other US-run prisons in Iraq?
Funny, I don't hear that drumbeat so well. Must be old age.
Funny, I don't hear that drumbeat so well. Must be old age.
The Republican preoccupation obsession with Benghazi is a tarnish Hillary solution at any cost in search of an actual problem with her stewardship at State.
It's a waste of taxpayer money. a distraction, and worse... a dereliction of duty.
It's a waste of taxpayer money. a distraction, and worse... a dereliction of duty.
63
Christy and Bridgegate? So you think that's worse than an Ambassador losing his life among others? And we were all led to believe it was because of a video? The hypocrisy from the left never surprises. Amazing.
2
Tell that to the families of the people who died at Benghazi.
3
Several congressional investigations found nothing on Hillary.
3
People deeply invested in endless political dung throwing may have an interest in more Libya scandal, but I think that the majority of Americans are weary of it. It's not much a vote-turner, despite the Republicans' obsessive fantasy. Everyone knows that chaotic crises like this happen, everyone knows that all politicians, right or left, must try to cover their backsides when things go wrong, and everyone's much more concerned about things that will affect them directly. On that front the Republicans are particularly vulnerable.
22
No, a majority of Americans want the truth. You cannot live in a closet and believe that someone that used a private server to conduct govt business had transparency in mind. The emails she deleted belong to US taxpayers. She worked for us. This is the first thing that most on the left forget. You need to remember, dems won't have the WH forever. Will you be ok with a repub president conducting our business on a private server and only providing those emails that they deem fit for us to see? You guys on the left are setting a precendent. Be careful what you deem is ok.
1
Ignoring pleas for help from American soil isn't a scandal, it's dereliction of duty.
1
Really? American First from Texas - I thought that hiring Black Water, detaining stripped prisoners in hoods and torturing them with police dogs and water boarding was setting a dangerous precedent. I thought that lying to our Allies knowingly about Iraq WWMDs was a dangerous precedent. I thought that financing a foreign war with debt that left our economy in shambles and in debt to a competing world power, China, was a dangerous precedent.
Pages and pages of emails. Who cares? Those who like Mrs. Clinton will find positive things and those who don't like her will find negative things. zzzzzzzzzz.
34
Who cares? At the very least, if you were one of the 4 families of people who lost loved ones you would care.
1
This release has been highly managed and censored by Clinton, her operatives, and State. Expect nothing to be revealing.
53
If that's really how you feel, just give up and stop wasting everyone's time and money.
There will always be a conspiracy theory and it will always be a distraction. Even in the outside chance you are on to something, it still will not matter because you can't prove it.
This discussion devolved into useless political theatre, a total deadweight loss in time and money. It could have been a more constructive discussion on the role of technology in managing the public sector and proper accessibility protocols that balance security, reasonable time investment, and speed.
People like you are democracy's worst enemies because you fail to see the forest from the tree in front of you. Try checking your bias at the curb.
There will always be a conspiracy theory and it will always be a distraction. Even in the outside chance you are on to something, it still will not matter because you can't prove it.
This discussion devolved into useless political theatre, a total deadweight loss in time and money. It could have been a more constructive discussion on the role of technology in managing the public sector and proper accessibility protocols that balance security, reasonable time investment, and speed.
People like you are democracy's worst enemies because you fail to see the forest from the tree in front of you. Try checking your bias at the curb.
5
"Expect nothing to be revealing." Same to be said of the Republican clown car debates.
1
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil!!! And that's just George Stephanopoulos.
1
Using available automated text search tools millions of electronic documents could be reviewed in days. Please stop the nonsense and tell us everything.
19
The emails were not supplied in electronic form, they were printed and turned over to state on paper. This is the 21st century and this alone is an effort to slow down the process. So now the paper copies would have to be scanned before lexicographical tools can be used.
Really what needs to be done is to look at everyone's email at state and then look through the supplied emails and determine if any email appears only in the recipient's record. Content doesn't matter. Failure to archive official email is a felony.
Really what needs to be done is to look at everyone's email at state and then look through the supplied emails and determine if any email appears only in the recipient's record. Content doesn't matter. Failure to archive official email is a felony.
3
There's a reason for the process whether you're happy with it or not. Each email has to go through multiple agencies. Always interesting at how viscerally exciting people are to see these emails. And a little strange.
1
"It is not clear when the vast majority of Mrs. Clinton’s emails will be made public."
It definitely is clear. They will never be made public because she deleted them all. These emails are the ones she wants us to see. The ones that actually have content to them are gone.
It definitely is clear. They will never be made public because she deleted them all. These emails are the ones she wants us to see. The ones that actually have content to them are gone.
47
You must psychic to know the contents of those emails. Pls give me the next winning numbers in the Jersey Lottery.
2
I don"t understand the point of the story. Given that Ms. Clinton no doubt deleted all emails which might reflect negatively on her, it seems as though advertising her side of a story is little more than being a mouthpiece for the Clinton PR machine.
243
She couldn't delete the huge majority of "official business" emails sent to a government access. Your comment is therefore at best a far-fetched conspiracy theory and, by using the words "no doubt," constitutes an unsubstantiated slander.
15
@Michael,
You nail it.
And as usual, her die-hard blind herd will never see-through her self-serving, manipulative, and deceiving methods. We all know now her million miles trips were mainly to ask for donations to the so-called Clinton Foundation. All e-mails exposing this scandal were permanently deleted.
I am a lifelong lib/dem. But there is no way I will give my vote to this scandals shackled woman.
You nail it.
And as usual, her die-hard blind herd will never see-through her self-serving, manipulative, and deceiving methods. We all know now her million miles trips were mainly to ask for donations to the so-called Clinton Foundation. All e-mails exposing this scandal were permanently deleted.
I am a lifelong lib/dem. But there is no way I will give my vote to this scandals shackled woman.
2
No Applarch, Michael's point is self evident. Ms. Clinton, by virtue of her choice to conduct all of her State business by private email insured that she was the ultimate gatekeeper for ALL of her own emails. There is no doubt that ALL of these emails she released to State have been vetted by her and her staff.
2
Beware GOP. HRC will come off as knowledgeable and human — both true. The emails are a Trojan horse. Please proceed.
37
Yes, the thousands of deleted emails (which belong to us) are a trojan horse. Why is she able to decide what can be released and not released? Why the urgency to destroy the server right away? Why? If you can't answer that logically, then you're just a mouthpiece and will vote for her no matter what she does.
5
Deleted emails from an unauthorized private server are a Trojan horse?
5
Everyone understands that Hillary Clinton is the main responsible in these incident. There is no need to investigate because she has already tried to hide information that is a state secret. The traitors should be in prison.
12
So she hired the attackers? OMG! Secretary of State hiding State secrets? OMG!
13
While you personally may want her to be responsible for the "incedent" you might look into the GOP report that after 2 years of interviews found no wrong-doing. Not that that will be good enough for the conspiracy theorists but it's around if you're interested. Published November 2014.
2
That is incredible that 7 people so far recommended your inane comment. Clinton "got" four people killed with her "bad decision making". By your own logic how is Bush not in prison for the WMDs in Iraq debacle?
2
"The Times obtained about a third of the 850 pages of emails. They appear
to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address."
What patent nonsense. The set of e-mails, vetted and sanitized by the Clinton team prior to its printing and release to the State Department years after she left office, is now believed by the New York Times to be adequate justification and backup for Mrs. Clinton's assertions.
This is not journalism. The poster of three monkeys should sit together on the top or this article and on the banner of the Times. In regard to Hillary Clinton, the Times' motto is: "Hear no evil, See no evil. Speak no evil."
And the monkeys will answer all of your questions, after they "ponder it" and "put it on [their] list for due consideration."
to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address."
What patent nonsense. The set of e-mails, vetted and sanitized by the Clinton team prior to its printing and release to the State Department years after she left office, is now believed by the New York Times to be adequate justification and backup for Mrs. Clinton's assertions.
This is not journalism. The poster of three monkeys should sit together on the top or this article and on the banner of the Times. In regard to Hillary Clinton, the Times' motto is: "Hear no evil, See no evil. Speak no evil."
And the monkeys will answer all of your questions, after they "ponder it" and "put it on [their] list for due consideration."
73
You cannot base what happened solely on the emails that she did not have deleted. That's just silly.
A rolling release, what kind of nonsense are we about to be treated to. It sounds as though a well rehearsed series of flattering emails will be offered to the public to take the sting out of the campaign. An occasional email that is checkered will also be served up. This is a smoke screen. Release the emails and review the compter and server, I can guarantee they have been sterilized.
AS Desi would say to Lucy " You got some explainin to do ".
AS Desi would say to Lucy " You got some explainin to do ".
32
The "small footprint" strategy of this Administration doomed Ambassador Stevens, that and a Secretary of State who was busy doing, well, things other than assuming responsibility for the safety of her staff.
They should have just stuck by that strategy, which Americans supported, and not tried to peddle a silly narrative about a video. That insulted the intelligence of Americans and forced them into a worse situation, which was the cover up.
Now, to have to listen to Clinton insist she wants her emails turned over after having destroyed them and having found out that State was complicit in obfuscating who had what when, and having State forced to comply is just another insult.
The question is whether democrats and Clinton will be rewarded with an election win despite all this dishonesty.
They should have just stuck by that strategy, which Americans supported, and not tried to peddle a silly narrative about a video. That insulted the intelligence of Americans and forced them into a worse situation, which was the cover up.
Now, to have to listen to Clinton insist she wants her emails turned over after having destroyed them and having found out that State was complicit in obfuscating who had what when, and having State forced to comply is just another insult.
The question is whether democrats and Clinton will be rewarded with an election win despite all this dishonesty.
37
I'm writing a modern history textbook this year and see your post as an excellent example of Motivated Reasoning. Many thanks for the addition to the chapter.
2
Spare us the crocodile tears over Ambassador Stevens when all you do is shrug about the thousands of Americans killed and maimed in G.W.'s wars.
The Ambassador's mother asked that people not politicize his death.
The Ambassador's mother asked that people not politicize his death.
2
I seem to remember a "silly narrative" about WMDs etc. Lies that lead to war are the ultimate dishonesty. Double standard here anyway when George W. Bush's White House officials used a private server set up by the RNC with most emails lost.
3
Law requires State Dept communications to be archived/documented - Ms. Clinton's went to State Dept staff/employees at their State e-mails and so were archived. Not sure what the big flap is here. The fact that she sent them from a private server did not change their destination to State e-mail archives. Benghazi has been studied six ways from Sunday. It was a tragedy, part of the risk of having personnel in Libya, and how is it her fault?
186
Interesting point, but are we to assume she communicated exclusively with Department of State employees? I think it unlikely.
6
Because she was the Secretary of State she could have required increased security or withdrawn the consular staff. She is responsible for the welfare of her staff overseas and has the option of withdrawing them at any time.
5
Hillary had failed to provide adequate security in response to reports of the deteriorating situation from our American ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens. Stevens, in fact, had requested more security, yet Hillary's department had removed some of the existing security after that request for increased numbers of security personnel, leaving that detachment unable to adequately protect itself. Additionally, she had failed to request any security assets to be standing by in event of any attacks, which should have been obvious in light of the approaching date: September 11th.
This whole affair is particularly disappointing in view of the fact that the Democrats had, after the original 9/11 attacks, presented themselves as, essentially, the world's foremost dot-connectors. And they did have dots that they could have connected.
This whole affair is particularly disappointing in view of the fact that the Democrats had, after the original 9/11 attacks, presented themselves as, essentially, the world's foremost dot-connectors. And they did have dots that they could have connected.
4
Thanks to the federal judge Hillary's lies and ties to Sid will be public. If these emails were from Rice or Powell the title from the NYT's would have been "First Batch Proves Ties to Advisors and Discredits the Administration on Benghazi"
Instead we have the soft peddle of emails and in an effort to get this out there before the bloggers start a feeding frenzy on her lies the NYT's can claim they "reported". Amazing no comments yet on the relationship, use of the server for
whereabouts of official staff on private server, etc etc ...don't hold your breath for actual reporting.
Instead we have the soft peddle of emails and in an effort to get this out there before the bloggers start a feeding frenzy on her lies the NYT's can claim they "reported". Amazing no comments yet on the relationship, use of the server for
whereabouts of official staff on private server, etc etc ...don't hold your breath for actual reporting.
57
Who is Sid?
5
This paper has been pretty objective in its reporting on the Clintons. As a matter of fact, one could argue the Paper of Record has it in for them.
1
Probably because there is no there, there. When are her critics
going to return to reality?
going to return to reality?
2
It is becoming increasingly obvious that ams Clinton is a seriously flawed candidate. It is imperative that other viable democrats come forward and seek the nomination. Ms Clinton is not her husband and she lacks basic political skills needed to secure the presidency in 2016. The continuing revelations of how she operates is rather disgusting and will provide the GOP with all it needs to beat her. Wait until she begins to lash out when she is under real pressure from the opposition.
45
ha ha ha ha ha! And the other candidates aren't seriously flawed? It turns out that all candidates are human beings with flaws and assets. We don't get an ideal candidate, ever. Did you know that Colin Powell also used his private email when he was Secretary of State? No? He admits it. What possibly could Mrs. Clinton gain by using her private email? When she sent emails to people they now had a copy. BFD. Why do we make such big deals out of non-issues.
26
And so the anti-female rhetoric begins. Whereas men can "respond" or "argue," female politicians -- especially Hilary -- "lash out.." And this description comes from a presumed Democrat like T.W. imagine how the Republicans will describe her.
23
Is Hillary Clinton seriously flawed? Maybe. That debate has been going on for years. But really, what candidate wouldn't appear "seriously flawed" if years of their personal emails were gathered, poured over and commented on by supporters and detractors. This isn't reporting. It's voyeurism.
160
Let's hope they are made public before election day.
12
Remember Lois Lerner's missing emails ? Seems to be an interesting political strategy from the " most transparent administration in American history .'
9
I guess it's the equivalent to "the dog ate it" excuse before computers! ;)
Yesterday the government released the so-called treasure trove of materials obtained in connection with Bin Laden's capture. We've had this material since before September 2012 and when Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State.
One of the items was a document in which Bin Laden stressed the importance of attacking US Embassies in, among other places, Africa. Just another reason why Mrs. Clinton's State Department should have fortified the embassy in Benghazi. (One of the other reasons being that the embassy requested it.)
And yet Mrs. Clinton is competent to be President?
One of the items was a document in which Bin Laden stressed the importance of attacking US Embassies in, among other places, Africa. Just another reason why Mrs. Clinton's State Department should have fortified the embassy in Benghazi. (One of the other reasons being that the embassy requested it.)
And yet Mrs. Clinton is competent to be President?
41
We are repeated told what a great ambassador Hillary Clinton was for women. That's pretty much it for her accomplishments.
It appears that she used her time as Secretary of State to go on one of her famous "listening tours", to educate herself about foreign affairs so she could talk intelligently during her future presidential race.
It also appears that she wanted to distance herself from the Obama Administration. She knew his "legacy" would be a problem for her. The few times they appeared together were serious flaps -- ex., the Russian re-set button and Benghazi.
It appears that she used her time as Secretary of State to go on one of her famous "listening tours", to educate herself about foreign affairs so she could talk intelligently during her future presidential race.
It also appears that she wanted to distance herself from the Obama Administration. She knew his "legacy" would be a problem for her. The few times they appeared together were serious flaps -- ex., the Russian re-set button and Benghazi.
4
The facility at Benghazi was NOT an embassy. It was a U.S. Diplomatic Mission that housed a large CIA presence.
According to Wikipedia: Contrary to popular belief, most diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and in those cases are not sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions usually remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
According to Wikipedia: Contrary to popular belief, most diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and in those cases are not sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions usually remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
7
If I recall correctly, the funding for fortification of the embassy was requested from the House GOP. They rejected it.
11
My trust in Hillary Clinton is very low. She is snake like. She is so conniving that my guess is the e-mails we will actually get to see are "for the record" to make herself look good.
34
Is this HRC's "smoking gun?"
....Or, more of the GOP "blowing smoke?"
....Or, more of the GOP "blowing smoke?"
65
Well, since these are the emails Mrs. Clinton choose not to destroy they are simple propaganda from her election machine.
6
Sometimes a smoking gun is just a cigar.
1
So Mrs. Clinton can't be bothered to release the emails to the Congress she says she'll work with for four years. But leaking to the NYT is just fine.
37
It is not up to her. The emails are being reviewed by the State Department, not Hillary Clinton, and the State Department is responsible for releasing them. The NYT article does not say where they got the third of the 850 pages of emails they have. Clinton has stated she does want all the emails released which means it is not under her control at this time. (Read carefully.)
11
The MSM is a fine tool for molding public opinion. This person is sick of the biased molding.
Reading comprehension is a good thing. The article clearly states that the emails were turned over to the State Department who is responsible for their release.
5
Are we seeing every presidential candidates's private emails? Because I am so interested in what Ted Cruz is saying and who he is saying it to. Oh, lest I forget Mr. Paul-gosh I feel I am missing out on so much. Who else? Geez, take your pick. Is this where the campaigns are going now? Sheer boredom. Can we talk about how these people plan on helping the most vulnerable citizens in our nation? I am sure poverty is not in the content of any of the emails , disclosed and those not. i need information on WHAT MATTERS. The times now are beyond calling for answers and solutions. Enough with the minutiae.
220
These aren't private emails. These are public emails that should have been on a government server in the first place.
12
Before his election to public office Mr Cruz was a private citizen, not the Secretary of State. There is a difference when you are responsible for the foreign relations of the United States.
3
Colin Powell used his own Private Email Account when he was Secretary of State because the servers at State were terrible. Can we please see all of his emails, too? Like, immediately? There is a rule that Government employees are allowed to use their private email accounts as long as they send government related emails for archiving. Why is Hillary Clinton held to a different standard than Powell, Rice, Cheney and others? Some Senators refuse to have email accounts at all. Checi out this Interesting article: http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/story-hillary-clintons-private-email-a...
12
Condoleeza Rice was the previous (Republican-appointed) Secretary of State. I want to see her e-mails. All of them. And Dick Cheney. We paid his salary. Let me fish through his e-mails.
435
and W's.
25
Yes. Bring on Dick Cheney ' s emails and his subsequent trial!
5
Not relevant to this issue. HRC decided to co-mingled work and personal email on her personal account (which would get you fired in the real working world). Now she has to show it all. She refused to have an independent 3rd party review-so either she is hiding something or she is supplying the rest of us with doubt
Had she kept her SoS email and personal separate, this would not be an issue
This is all on her poor choices-then and now.
Had she kept her SoS email and personal separate, this would not be an issue
This is all on her poor choices-then and now.
9
This reads like the soft start of a long, slow ugly process to pressure the Dems to develop another candidate for the White House. The discovery of a 2nd private email account now proves that HRC is willing to lie about her lies. Shameful behavior..
77
It's very sad to realize that Hillary will remain unpunished. This indicates that there are serious problems in the country. Such as corruption, bad judicial system, moreover politicians are convinced that they are above the constitution.
5
Do you have a private email account? May we please read everything, right now? What, you aren't willing or able to put it together in two minutes? You must be an evil spy!
10
To Barbara, of course I have a private email account. I also have a work email account, in which I must, under penalty of termination, archive every message sent and received. It's easy to do, btw.
Plus, I'm not a former SOS now carpetbagging for the White House. There's a difference.
Plus, I'm not a former SOS now carpetbagging for the White House. There's a difference.
11