We may be sick of talking about Hillary Clinton’s damn emails but we’re going to be talking about them whether we like it or not.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
68 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
This is why young voters hate democracy.
No worries. Hillary Clinton will be happy to address people about this just as soon as her staff prepare a few position papers and some draft talking points are assessed by some focus groups.
Timing is interesting
If you believe this isn’t worth talking about, why did you bring it up?
there are a lot of valid reasons to distrust HRC. this is not one of them.
we could talk about the idiocy of some of the government’s secrecy rules, which apparently make it possible to classify something as confidential even when it’s already publicly known and reported.
I’m encountering some of that right now in my scientific research, for which I’m mining data from declassified reports from military laboratories. In a couple of cases, Report A contains data from Report B, yet Report B itself retains some sort of confidential classification such that I cannot obtain a copy. I can request an exemption in order to get the still-confidential reports (which are available to Defense Department employees and contractors), but this is rarely successful, even in cases where the reports I’d like to see are 50 years old. There is no damn logic to this.
Great question.
You know, writers, they do this all the time when they haven’t got anything else to say. Not that there aren’t a lot of other quite good topics; just that Hillary Clinton is probably going to be indicted for violation of the Federal Secrecy and Accountability Act before the end of her presidential campaign is a legitimate concern and honestly, who wouldn’t want to report that?
Nah! Obama is not going to indict his SoS.
“Federal Secrecy and Accountability Act”
That’s not actually a thing.
Well, whatever it’s called….
Oh come on, obviously because this is where the national political conversation has turned over the past 24 hours, so it merits discussion.
Nobody can report or comment on any election without bringing up issues du jour that he or she thinks are not relevant to assessing the candidates’ fitness for office.
Just a few days ago, right here, Booman went on at length about Dukakis’ fatal mistake in not responding to the Willie Horton ads in 1988. Was Horton specifically or the furlough program in general relevant to the election? Of course not, but by refusing to participate in the fatuous conversation, Dukakis fell victim to Bush’s campaign in a way he never recovered from.
No, the emails don’t matter and nobody cares about them. But they’re back in the news cycle so they must be discussed. This isn’t rocket science.
Sadly I have to agree. HRC can’t ignore this. There has to be a response bc that’s the way the system works anymore. No matter how tediously boring and gratuitously useless these exercises in futility are.
Ugh.
I’m with Bernie, “Enough with the e-mails.” If the DOJ concludes that legal action is appropriate and necessary, then no good way not to talk about it, but until and unless that happens, a waste of time to follow any of the extremely slow and limited trickle of e-mails publicly released by the State Dept.
Enough information exists in the public arena for people to evaluate the matter and conclude what it says and means about Clinton’s character, competence, and suitability for POTUS.
I will say that it was always clear to me that all work products, documents, e-communications were to remain on company premises and equipment and taking any originals off-site or deleting/destroying anything was grounds for immediate termination. If requested by superiors or attorneys, everything was to be handed over ASAP.
With you 100% but stupid Republicans think they are going to find a smoking gun linking her in a terrorist plot to attack the embassy. While I think the whole matter was mishandled from start to finish, HRC as Mata Hari is too stupid for words, which fail me, because I don’t know how to say “dumber than rocks”.
Quick vision of Mr. rogers saying “Can you say ‘paranoid’? I knew you could.”
Don’t give them that much credit — they dig and dig with no idea what any sane person could reasonably expect to find buried in a hole. Absent that reasonable expectation (well over 90% of which would be that there is nothing there), they don’t bother doing any cost/benefit analyses either. Like a miner that digs for ten years to find a $20 gold nugget.
Another quick mental image in response to your words; a big but dumb labrador retriever digging a huge hole in a clay yard fling clay gobbets back between his legs thinking “There must be a bone down there somewhere.”
I like dogs, but they can be very stupid and monomaniacal.
Just yet another in numerous reasons to vote for Bernie Sanders!
Has this sort of stuff ever not benefited the lLinton’s.
The reaction in the office I was in was a collective groan.
Meanwhile there is a pretty embarrassing gaffe floating about from Clinton at one of the fundraisers.
What’s this about an “embarrassing gaffe”?
yes, hope fladem explains. i’ve been searching around the ‘tubes for something a bout it, no luck
What was the gaffe? Saying that we’ll never ever have single-payer(aka Medicare for All)?
If it wasn’t the emails it would be something else.
You can talk about the emails if you want to, and throw in some Benghazi-Benghazi and , hell, a dash of Vince Foster while you’re at it.
I’m not interested, it’s all meritless bullshit.
It’s a Clinton thang. You wouldn’t understand.
The emails are literally without substance.
How can any sensible email be ‘literally without substance’? Why would anyone sent such an email?
Let me restate that.
Since the emails have been reclassified, we don’t know what’s in them. If we don’t know what’s in them their content is merely speculative on our part.
So I guess I’m trying to say that the scandal is without substance until we know the substance of the emails, and if they’ve been reclassified that means we probably won’t ever be released.
You know, it sounded clever to me when I wrote what I wrote, but on reflection I guess it does sound kinda dumb.
Always interesting how HRC’s campaign team reacts to news items … plenty of negativism from Fallon’s twitter account over Bernie Sanders. Will it become a real election cycle after all for Democrats?
○ Myths And Facts On Hillary Clinton’s Email And Reports Of “Top Secret” Materials | MediaMatters – Aug. 2015 |
○ Will a winter snowstorm decide the direction of American politics?
Of course her emails need to be talked about. Is it not at least worth remarking on the curious way she arranged these matters as SoS as if she was unaware of possible consequences. Is she so stunningly self-absorbed that it never occurred to her the arrangement could leave her open to suspicion of negligence, flagrant arrogance or just plain stupidity, even treason. This person may very likely become POTUS within a year: meditate on it. We would all be a lot better off if the Clintons ended their political activities. Then we wouldn’t have to be concerned about her emails or anything else about them. What crap. They’ know how to suck up almost as much oxygen in the room as Trump. It’s a wonder that between them the other candidates can catch a breath. They’re vile.
And the email thing was not a snap decision. She had to set it up. Someone had to say “Hillary, what happens with high-risk emails?” and she had to say “Oh, I’m sure my security will be adequate.”
Arrogance, stupidity, inability to see beyond the end of her nose.
Fine, but when can we consider the emails talked about? The really isn’t that much to say–there are the facts of the situation, which are basically known; and then there is just an endless amount of posturing and rhetoric. Once you’ve stated the facts and voiced your opinion, you’re just repeating yourself.
Drip, drip, drip. More shit keeps coming out. And if you think that the R party will leave this go, all I have to say is “Benghazi”.
Your naive notion that this will die down is amusing. This will not die down. We will hear about this every single day, and if the actual emails that have been held back are found and released, WOOOO boy. That is gonna be a moment.
And it is going to happen. Hey, if it happened on Oct. 30, what then?
Who said anything about this dying down? I don’t expect these idiots to back off any time soon, but I don’t see any harm in pointing out that it’s mostly hype.
As this thread illustrates, there is a very vocal and active minority of Hillary-haters on the left, and they will be heard, and repeating GOP agitprop comes natural to them.
And there is an active faction of Clinton supporters all over the internet that insist on labeling anyone opposed to Clinton as “Hillary-haters.” In their effort to dismiss anything on her resume (ie. things she has done, said, and advocated for) that on contrary to liberal policy positions, peace, and measures of equality. Just like that Clinton campaign spokesperson now running around and claiming that Sanders has been running the “dirtiest campaign ever.” When what little truth has been uncovered to date (the tip of the iceberg IMO) is that Clinton’s campaign has been engaging in dirty tricks against and public lies about Sanders. Not too different from ’08 except there’s more of it this time around.
I didn’t vote for Nixon in ’82 — and did pretty much loathe him — but even then it was based on his character and deeds.
I recall you, Marie, recently claiming that Hillary supporters would prefer to vote for Carly Fiorina in preference to Bernie Sanders. That seemed pretty hateful to me. Whatever.
If you’re going to reference something I’ve said here, at least get it right to avoid looking foolish:
First — I was called out by name to respond to something about PUMA’s. Not sure why because I did not and never would affiliate with such a group. What I said:
Must have had some dim memory floating around when I wrote that last sentence because PUMA did go on to support McCain after Obama won the nomination.
I’m perfectly fine with correcting or even withdrawing any comments I make that are factually incorrect or so poorly phrased that it bear not relation to what I intended to say. I might even change my opinion on some issues if anyone makes a solid enough case through facts and logic. What I’m not fine with are those like you that take something I’ve written and completely distort it for no purpose other than to denigrate, besmirch me. That’s HATEFUL,
We could continue going back and forth with this –
however –
I am really not wanting this site to start to resemble dKos with the Bernie/Hillary wrangling going on there.
So you win.
Not about winning (or losing) it’s about fair play and honesty in advocating for or against anything or anyone.
You could have conceded that you completely mischaracterized my prior comment to indicate that you understood that you started this pie fight with me and why it was wrong. To retreat to “I don’t want this space to devolve into dKos type wrangling” is a cop-out. (Although I do agree that dKos pie fights have once again become insufferable. But so too were they in 2003 and 2007.)
If you’ve followed my comments you will have notice that I not only didn’t criticize Clinton wrt to anything she did or didn’t do or said wrt Benghazi, and went further to say that she did and said nothing wrong. (Her “What difference does it make” outburst was completely appropriate to the situation.) (I do, however, reserve the right to change my opinion if we ever learn what was really going on at the “annex” and her knowledge of and participation in that aspect.) You may also have noticed that I’m not interested in all the hyperbole surrounding the content of her emails and consider it a waste of time by pundits and bloggers. No amount of noise will change whatever the DOJ concludes about this matter and whatever their conclusion is, she and we will have to live with it. (Then again, I’m more of an open government type and think very little should be classified/top secret and when their are valid reasons for secrecy, it should be for short periods of time. Although it is rich that Mrs. Clinton would call Ed Snowden a traitor while feeling entitled to store government docs on her private server.)
Marie: ” … Guess you missed the updates from other media reports that it had been resolved and was called a kerfuffle. Can’t imagine why you would do that. … “
I dislike nasty insinuations, especially of a personal sort. So I will avoid the aggravation of making myself a target to you again.
” … You could have conceded that you completely mischaracterized my prior comment .. “
I did not. As I said, I have no need to say anything furthur to you, ever. Over and out.
Sanders dirty tricking:
“tricking”
Guess you missed the updates from other media reports that it had been resolved and was called a kerfuffle. Can’t imagine why you would do that.
This whole email thing is just DEFINITIVE about why HRC is not qualified. She arrogantly decided that she could circumvent the normal controls. She lied about the existence of high risk communications. And she did the email server KNOWING that this kind of shit was going to come down. And if she did NOT know, that is even more condemnatory.
She’s an idiot. This episode is more than enough to disqualify her entirely for POTUS.
If a government employee can’t distinguish the value of a message between SECRET, TOP-SECRET or SAP [Special Access Programs] 4 Your Eyes Only; he or she is unfit to lead. With HRC’s experience she should have been aware of the level of confidentiality, the official classification is superfluous.
In addition, HRC’s pick of advisors tells lots about her policy, views and bad judgement – Dennis Ross on Israel, Lanny Davis on Honduras and Sidney Blumenthal on Libya and Syria…
On June 20, 2011, Blumenthal advised her that “the most important event that could alter the Syrian equation would be the fall of Qaddafi, providing an example of a successful rebellion,” while providing her with an article CNN published by an analyst making that point. [Source: FOIA request pdf doc]
○ The US Classification System
You’re kidding, right? The classification system is in complete disarray and she’s supposed to anticipate what the Random Secrecy Machine is going to come up with next? Or she’s “unfit to lead”?
And going after Blumenthal is just extra sweet: are you getting your newsletters from Trey Gowdy and Darrell Issa now? BENGHAZI!@!!!!!!~!
The entire cluster-fuck of the incompetence of the ORIGINAL DECISION is the issue. She fucked herself by her inability to see beyond her nose, and her selfish point that she couldn’t cope with the complexity. That’s the issue, not the classification.
A non-sensical comment doesn’t deserve a reply really, but …
You think President Obama had knowledge about the informal role Sidney Blumenthal was playing at the State Department?
As you may know, Qatar was a main sponsor of Islamist fighters in Libya and later in Syria. Qatar was a large benefactor of the Clinton Foundation. The Muslim Brotherhood alliance was Morsi in Egypt, Erdogan in Turkey, the Emir of Qatar with his royal family doing “charitable” work and Hamas in Gaza. Hillary Clinton was the big promoter of intervention in Libya and later in Syria. HRC was a fan of Al Jazeera, the Qatar royal family’s propaganda channel. Move on, nothing to see here … we’ve got a president to elect.
○ Sidney Blumenthal adviser hired by Clinton Foundation for $10,000 a month
○ Hillary Clinton lobbied by Cherie Blair to meet Qatari royal, emails reveal
○ Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy credentials – report | Israel Video Network | funded by 12TribeFilms
It is strange to claim that a boss has a right to tell a senior staffer that she cannot consult a friend whose opinion, knowledge and relationships she values, unless the friend is an avowed enemy of the boss and his organization. Blumenthal does not meet that description.
The dark claims about Hillary’s friendship with Blumenthal are very peculiar.
Also clarifies why HRC lacks vision to be in a leadership position … her presidency would be like a Democratic George W. Bush with Sidney Blumenthal fulfilling the role of Karl Rove. Just like Blumenthal, the former first lady lacks moral integrity. Not surprising being in US politics most of her life.
Nevertheless, The New York Times endorses Hillary Clinton for president, just as it did in 2008 over Barack Obama. Her policy position on Israel trumps all… enough said.
○ NYT David Kirkpatrick reporting seen as a white-wash for future presidential candidate
I stand corrected.
Unfortunately it’s not a yes or no question. Someone is going to be elected president this year, and if this disqualifies Clinton, then who does it qualify in her place? To me Bernie Sanders is an acceptable answer, but God forbid it should be any of the Republicans.
The D Party has essentially crowned HRC. Others were discouraged from running by her huge warchest and strong following. The email thing has been out there all along, and many have said that this issue of classified stuff being there was going to be found out. I sure have said that.
So now we have a dead duck running. I have said all along that she is unelectable. There were others who are and were good choices. Too late now, however. O’Malley is a decent guy. Sherrod Brown, Jim Webb, a number of others. But we have HRC.
And just wait until the main election gets going. It’s gonna be bimbo eruptions, cigars, Monica, Georgina, rape allegations, Benghazi, ISIS, all the Clinton shit 24/7.
If only Bernie Sanders would run.
Yes, he’s there. I like much of what he says. I can’t help but see him as the second coming of George McGovern, however.
Remember that McGovern was 43 years ago running against an incumbent Republican promising the imminent end to the Viet Nam war. The comparison to Sanders 2016 isn’t apt. (Lots of articles out on this topic in the past couple or weeks….)
A man of peace is a hard sell to American voters unless the man is dead.
It would become more apt if Sanders wins the nomination and the DEM party elites and associates pull the same stunt they did in ’72. Which also gave license to the GOP to operate a plethora of dirty tricks. And let’s not overlook that the privacy of Eagleton’s medical records was violated. Rejected for a severe depression that had been fully and successfully treated years before. (He continued to serve in the Senate until ’87. He was far more conservative than many McGovern supporter would have preferred, but a decent and competent enough man that it was an acceptable compromise.) While eight years later a man in the early stages of dementia was elected and re-elected when his dementia was obvious.
On CNN’s Smerconish this morning General Mukasey promoted the conspiracy that the reason the emails sent to Clinton weren’t classified was that she had directed the senders to delete the classifications.
Can you elaborate? delete the classifications on each email, or in some central location?
Regardless, if true, it’s blacker.
Ex AG Mukasey showed an email from Clinton from I think 2011 where she was dealing with a fax machine that was not secure and she wanted talking points sent to her so she told the sender to delete the ‘classified’ designation and send it over email. Of course it’s not a very tidy argument to then jump to the conclusion that she understood how to circumvent getting classified emails from that instance and therefor used that method ongoing. Also messy to use that argument when she was asking for ‘talking points’. There’s a good explanatory piece that talks about overclassification and the damage it does to inter/intra agency communication.
That’s what were all supposed to be so outraged about? To me this really kind of illuminates the lack of a “there” in this whole situation. They’re looking for something juicy that the can use against her, but all they’ve got is a set of talking points and a goddamn fax machine.
The wingnut mind is capable of generating an infinite number of implausible scenarios. Which seems to go with their inability to grasp everyday reality.
I’m no fan of the Clintons, and really am opposed to a lot of HRC stands for and does.
That said, I think the emails are a big fat time and money wasting POS. As someone else said above, if it wasn’t emails or Benghazi!!!11!!!, it would be something else.
Yeah, yeah, it was arrogant and stupid to set up a private server. Does THIS make HRC unfit to be POTUS?
Shorter A: No.
Why morans on the right so enjoy the tedium of this water torture re the Clintons is way beyond my pay grade to figure out.
“Does THIS make HRC unfit to be POTUS?”
Voters will make their decisions on who is fit to be POTUS for a lot reasons including this one.
NYTimes decision [emphasis added for clarity]:
2008:
2016
More gagworthy than the above IMO:
See Bernie didn’t have all those years of experience being First Lady of the US and AR. (Never mind that he was actually in public office for all but two years during the same period.) Yeah, and Bernie didn’t get on board with all the cool policy positions of the “brilliant” Bill Clinton and GWB for that matter (which even the NYTimes is too embarrassed to mention).
After the Clinton’s went through Whitewater, Vince, Foster, Monica, etc., etc., etc. continuing thru the 2008 Obama juggernaut someone — whoever had the job of making sure that Hillary didn’t ever wear a sperm suit really screwed the pooch here.
They (The Clinton team) have made whatever wall they had to climb to get back to the White House 3 times higher with this email fiasco.
It doesn’t matter if there’s any there, there.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
And Trump will rub America’s nose in it EVERY moment of every day. I can just hear him saying “I’m not going to debate a criminal”.
Stoopid with a capital ST.
System at State. I ask because Rice, Powell, and Clinton all used personal email accounts to conduct business. Generally I wouldn’t do that because the email system where I work is up to date.
Still one time a colleague of mine in Asia was trying to send me something and it wouldn’t go through due to some temporary glitches (temp being a day or so) in the system. Because of that I had her send it to my personal address as I needed it immediately.
The fact that three SoS used personal email accounts is is telling to me. It says that there were some serious performance issues with the system itself and that is the real scandal. Our government officials should have the tools they need to do their jobs without having to resort to using a gmail account.
Yep, you can’t white-wash this latest find of TOP-SECRET emails on her personal server. Somenone will take her to task on this major gaffe as Secretary of State.
This change of narrative is on the same level of stupidity. HRC doesn’t niet an opponent, she steers her campaign ship on the rocks like the Costa Concordia off Isola del Giglio in Italy.
And she told us over and over that this was not a problem.
In addition, someone is going to get ahold of those emails. And they will be leaked at a “good” time for the leaker. Like Oct 31.
I’ve said she was unelectable on several occasions. She’s unelectable. I don’t give a shit if she is leading the Democratic Party sheeple. Elect a Clinton, you get 4 years of Clinton SHIT. Day in, day out, it’s one scandal after another.
I no longer support Obama. However, I give him credit for not being the generator of scandal after scandal. Democrats forget the continual shitstorm that a Clinton administration generates.
○ The Des Moines Register: The six questions Hillary Clinton answered in Iowa