Hillary Clinton's Use of Personal Email Account (only) for Secretary of State Business

[tytlyf]

How many people would even contemplate setting up an email server in their house/office and not use an existing one at their place of employment? Doing so and pretending it is nothing is alarming. She didn't trust her own government to handle her emails? Seriously? ... and took the matter into her own hands? Seriously? ... and no one thought this was a problem?

I'm not sure where people are reading that, but I haven't seen a single thing about her having an email server physically at her house.

 

[idav]

It took over four years for people to find out that Hillary Clinton wasn't using a .gov email address?

Of course she should not conduct government business with a personal email, but is it very strange to think no one noticed such a thing previously.

People would notice, word of mouth would spread. Wouldn't it?

I am sure her non .gov correspondence don't mind even when dealing in an official capacity.

 

[4consideration]

Inasmuch as she is far more loyal to big business and wall street than she is to the cherished middle class, I see little difference between her and most conservatives. What separates them seems to be social issues, and the pronouns they choose when giving speeches.

For the most part, I agree with what you're saying here.

Mostly, for me, my opinion of Clinton was formed over the decades of watching her, and coming to the conclusion that I know I don't trust her. There may be (and likely are) lots of other untrustworthy politicians out there, but I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt, and I just don't have a doubt about how much I don't trust Hillary Clinton. That doesn't mean she's guilty of a specific thing. But...I think her behavior in this matter is highly suspect.

I'm not trying to assert that Ms. Clinton didn't handle the situation poorly. But I'm not sure it's a "huge deal". I'm sure it is to some, but then I question the motives of many of those who do see it as a huge deal. I'm aware of how she's handled by a media that's far more fascinated with her genitalia and whether she wears skirts, and a political party that would just as soon crucify her as look at her, and thus I can empathize with how she makes some of the choices she makes.

I understand. I think it's ok if we see things as having differing degrees of importance.

I agree, and have always objected (even while disliking and not trusting Hillary) to petty media reports about her looks, her clothing, etc. I think those kinds of remarks are out of place in matters, and do seem done in an out-of-balance sort of way toward female politicians.

I think she played the "female" card a little bit, though, in one of her explanations about why she thought people ought to understand that she didn't want everyone to have access to her personal emails when she said something like that she thought people could understand her not wanting her private emails made public -- like when she was planning Chelsea's wedding. It struck me as: "Oh come on, the records of the United States government, and communications relative to foreign policy, and U.S. involvement in foreign countries takes a back seat to preserving your private details about your daugther's wedding? Talk about setting back the attitude regarding women in important positions on that one. Thanks, Hillary."

 

[4consideration]

Do they really believe those emails are gone forever? Deleted emails and text messages are known for being pesky things that may come back and haunt people.

I don't actually believe they are gone, but if her official spokesperson is saying all the emails are gone, I think for the moment, and all practical purposes they are unavailable. I wouldn't have a clue as to how to find that kind of information.

 

[Marisa]

I think she played the "female" card a little bit, though, in one of her explanations about why she thought people ought to understand that she didn't want everyone to have access to her personal emails when she said something like that she thought people could understand her not wanting her private emails made public -- like when she was planning Chelsea's wedding. It struck me as: "Oh come on, the records of the United States government, and communications relative to foreign policy, and U.S. involvement in foreign countries takes a back seat to preserving your private details about your daugther's wedding? Talk about setting back the attitude regarding women in important positions on that one. Thanks, Hillary."

You're going to have to explain to me how that's a "female card" issue. I see it completely differently. Everyone has an expectation of privacy, at the heart that what's this issue is all about . . . how far that privacy extends when it abuts government business and how far does the government business aspect extend when it abuts the people's right to know what their government is doing. I think there are few people that wouldn't be interested in reading Ms. Clinton's private emails, but that's because they are salacious and we are a society of priggish voyeurs.

 

[idav]

You're going to have to explain to me how that's a "female card" issue. I see it completely differently. Everyone has an expectation of privacy, at the heart that what's this issue is all about . . . how far that privacy extends when it abuts government business and how far does the government business aspect extend when it abuts the people's right to know what their government is doing. I think there are few people that wouldn't be interested in reading Ms. Clinton's private emails, but that's because they are salacious and we are a society of priggish voyeurs.

A word of advice for anyone in this digital age.
When you dont want personal emails subject to scrutiny, then dont use personal emails for work.

 

[Marisa]

A word of advice for anyone in this digital age.
When you dont want personal emails subject to scrutiny, then dont use personal emails for work.

Can't argue that.
ETA: Doesn't mean we don't have an expectation of privacy, though.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't actually believe they are gone, but if her official spokesperson is saying all the emails are gone, I think for the moment, and all practical purposes they are unavailable. I wouldn't have a clue as to how to find that kind of information.

If Wikileaks were still a thing (yes, I know it's still "out there," but it's not an active force humiliating politicians like it was) we'd probably have each and every email by now.

 

[Revoltingest]

The basic disagreement I'm going to have with is that I don't think it's possible to have a completely transparent government. It's simply a necessary evil. I'm disturbed by the prosecution of whistle blowers because I also recognize that any institution run by human beings will never, ever, be perfect and simply will make mistakes. I'm extremely reality oriented in this. Despite the fact that I disagree to a large degree with how our government currently functions, I do not possess a inherent distrust of it. So in light of those realities, and recognizing my own dearth of knowledge, I'm comfortable relying upon the opinions of those whom I feel have more knowledge than myself.

I realize there will be some secrecy out of legitimate governmental necessity. But political necessity doesn't justify it IMO. I look at actions to discern motives, which would predict how a candidate would behave as prez. To me, this predilection for opacity is a strike against her. It's moot anyway....she's nowhere near my political orientation, & thus not on my list of possible candidates.

Kinda like you do in assessing Ted Cruz' intellect as superior to Obama's (I'm listening to the Toobin interview you suggested, BTW).

Aye, I'm not bothered by differences in judgment calls. Such things are difficult to weigh.

 

[idav]

Can't argue that.
ETA: Doesn't mean we don't have an expectation of privacy, though.

Yeah, it's when people start doing something suspicious, like mass deleting official emails, that scrutiny comes into play.

 

[Marisa]

Aye, I'm not bothered by differences in judgment calls. Such things are difficult to weigh.

Agreed.

 

[4consideration]

You're going to have to explain to me how that's a "female card" issue. I see it completely differently. Everyone has an expectation of privacy, at the heart that what's this issue is all about . . . how far that privacy extends when it abuts government business and how far does the government business aspect extend when it abuts the people's right to know what their government is doing. I think there are few people that wouldn't be interested in reading Ms. Clinton's private emails, but that's because they are salacious and we are a society of priggish voyeurs.

I agree everyone has an expectation to privacy in private matters.

Use of the proper protocol, that she was aware of and was in charge of making sure her own staff followed, would not have made Ms. Clinton's private emails a subject of concern. This is not like someone got hold of a few official emails sent from a personal account and decided that meant she had no right to privacy and ought to have all her private emails scrunitized.

Exclusive use of a private email account, on her own private server, I think "pulls in" the public domain into an area she had complete control over as remaining solely private, if she had not chosen to communicate in all her official governmental business from that location, only. It is not unlike, in times past -- before the internet, when official communication was done in paper form. It would be similar to all her official letters being housed on her own private property, her deciding what to turn over, and then burning the location that had housed everything. It doesn't look good.

What I meant about the "female" card, (and I may have used an inaccurate term) is I think it was an appeal to women to overlook her actions...like of course, as a mom you wouldn't want your daughter's personal wedding plans and things of that nature made public. I got the impression with that comment, she was trying to point to herself as a mom, and her personal business as having the higher priority for motivating her actions, instead of her duty as SOS -- and this whole matter is about her as SOS. It seemed a personal and emotional appeal, and I think the perception of women as being too personal and emotional for high level positions (is wrong, and) has been a major hurdle for women. So...telling us that she structured official governmental communication to be thoroughly mixed with her personal communications, and then being the only one to determine what the public has a right to see...and defending it with a personal/emotional appeal as a mama, didn't jive well with me.

 

[4consideration]

If Wikileaks were still a thing (yes, I know it's still "out there," but it's not an active force humiliating politicians like it was) we'd probably have each and every email by now.

I was wondering about that very thing last night.

There were some reports about other information being out there from a hacking of someone that was on staff during Bill Clinton's administration -- regarding her communications with him about Benghazi, and him advising her, even though he was not a federal employee -- but I thought it was too soon, and would take too much of my time to research well enough at this point to want to bring up that issue just yet. I figured it was best to see what shows up from the lawsuit about it.

 

[Marisa]

I agree everyone has an expectation to privacy in private matters.

Use of the proper protocol, that she was aware of and was in charge of making sure her own staff followed, would not have made Ms. Clinton's private emails a subject of concern. This is not like someone got hold of a few official emails sent from a personal account and decided that meant she had no right to privacy and ought to have all her private emails scrunitized.

My understanding is that she did follows the rules in place at the time she was SOS. They've changed since her time, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to hold her to the new standard. My question would be: are we implying something by finding this troubling when it was HC that was SOS but was fine with CP was SOS?

What I meant about the "female" card, (and I may have used an inaccurate term) is I think it was an appeal to women to overlook her actions...like of course, as a mom you wouldn't want your daughter's personal wedding plans and things of that nature made public. I got the impression with that comment, she was trying to point to herself as a mom, and her personal business as having the higher priority for motivating her actions, instead of her duty as SOS -- and this whole matter is about her as SOS. It seemed a personal and emotional appeal, and I think the perception of women as being too personal and emotional for high level positions (is wrong, and) has been a major hurdle for women. So...telling us that she structured official governmental communication to be thoroughly mixed with her personal communications, and then being the only one to determine what the public has a right to see...and defending it with a personal/emotional appeal as a mama, didn't jive well with me.

I don't see it as an appeal based on shared gender. I see it as an appeal based on a shared expectation of privacy.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm not sure where people are reading that, but I haven't seen a single thing about her having an email server physically at her house.

I'm quite sure what you are saying is true.

 

[Revoltingest]

For reference....
Hillary Clinton's email: Did she follow all the rules? | PolitiFact
Per this article, it appears that Hillary did violate the rules.

 

[Marisa]

For reference....
Hillary Clinton's email: Did she follow all the rules? | PolitiFact
Per this article, it appears that Hillary did violate the rules.

Excellent. I shall read it!

 

[4consideration]

My understanding is that she did follows the rules in place at the time she was SOS. They've changed since her time, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to hold her to the new standard. My question would be: are we implying something by finding this troubling when it was HC that was SOS but was fine with CP was SOS?

I'm not even talking about CP. I don't take a position about what he did. When I mentioned I'm generally fine with CP, I don't have particularly strong dislike (or like) for him. I've disliked enough of what I've seen to not be automatic about deferring to his opinion, as you suggested you were doing on the matter.

I don't take the position that if someone does something wrong, it's ok if I can find someone else that has done it, too.

Some of the rules have changed, but the duty to protect and preserve official State Dept. communications was there -- and I think her actions bring serious doubt into the matter. Whether she is guilty of any crimes, and/or whether she might be guilty of some crimes, and not others -- I'm not taking a position on. I would not wish to convict a person of "crimes" even in my own mind, without them having the benefit of a trial. From what I've seen, though, it's enough information for me to oppose her being in office.

I don't see it as an appeal based on shared gender. I see it as an appeal based on a shared expectation of privacy

Fair enough. I think that's a valid point.

I also see the appeal based on shared expectation of privacy. I just think there's the emotional/mama appeal included, as well.

 

[Marisa]

I'm not even talking about CP. I don't take a position about what he did. When I mentioned I'm generally fine with CP, I don't have particularly strong dislike (or like) for him. I've disliked enough of what I've seen to not be automatic about deferring to his opinion, as you suggested you were doing on the matter.

I don't take the position that if someone does something wrong, it's ok if I can find someone else that has done it, too.

Some of the rules have changed, but the duty to protect and preserve official State Dept. communications was there -- and I think her actions bring serious doubt into the matter. Whether she is guilty of any crimes, and/or whether she might be guilty of some crimes, and not others -- I'm not taking a position on. I would not wish to convict a person of "crimes" even in my own mind, without

That's not what I meant to suggest when I said I deferred to Colin Powell. Powell has held the job, and his intimate knowledge of the job is what I'm deferring to. This isn't to suggest that Ms. Clinton is blameless, simply that I don't feel equipped to judge that.

 

[4consideration]

That's not what I meant to suggest when I said I deferred to Colin Powell. Powell has held the job, and his intimate knowledge of the job is what I'm deferring to. This isn't to suggest that Ms. Clinton is blameless, simply that I don't feel equipped to judge that.

OK.

I was wondering why you were asking if we were implying CP's use of emails was fine, when I hadn't even brought him up. His situation is different, in that I have not ever heard he used private emails exclusively, which is one of the mains point about Hillary Clinton's activity.

He does have intimate knowledge of the job, but I wonder what he has to say about Clinton having deleted all the emails on the server. I haven't seen what he's said, and I'd be interested to know if he's offering an opinion after some of the most recent information has surfaced, or if he was simply talking about someone in that position sometimes using personal emails (edit: I meant, personal email accounts, not personal emails.) Do you have a link handy to something he's said indicating her actions were not of major concern?