NO APOLOGY NECESSARY SHE DID NOTHING WRONG; why do journalists keep falling into the opposition (Republican) talking points? I didn’t expect this from Catherine.
5 Likes
I could care less if Hillary actively tried to hide her communications from FOIA request. My entire adult life I have watched Hillary vilified and attacked by the right and the concern trolls on the left. I don’t blame her. I would have done the same thing if I was in her shoes.
I don’t know who I am going to support in this primary. I have until the end of March. I hope that all this damn made up scandal business surrounding Sec. Clinton goes away and we can start really debating the most important issue: who is going to tame the Republican House.
4 Likes
Servers are things powerful people have. For the plebes it sounds like buying a farm, just to get some milk for breakfast. Never mind that it made the most sense for thousands of reasons. Never mind that the “cost” for this server was nowhere near the price of a dairy farm.
1 Like
[quote=“MyMy, post:3, topic:25916”]
whole thing is purely to try to put a very undeserved stink on her
[/quote] Well, it’s worked. Most people wouldn’t be caught dead running a super-confidential agency like State out of a private server they set up in their house. Most would not dream of doing such a thing, and can’t imagine how a leader would make such a decision.
I will be one of the sorriest among them. Still can’t get my arms around her bizarro decision-making progress, though.
2 Likes
For god’s sake, she was not “running a super-confidential agency like State out of a private server they set up in their house.” What do you even mean by that? It’s hyperbolic nonsense. The decision making went like this: I don’t want to store my e-mails on the state departments servers, because I don’t want them leaked to Republicans. She calls a Lawyer, who then makes the only decision a lawyer tasked in this would, that is to put a server on Ms. Clinton’s property.
The critique needs to be on the original premises, if anywhere. That is that Ms. Clinton didn’t want to use the State Department e-mail, because she was concerned about it leaking to press or Republicans. I understand that paranoia. Other voters may, or may not.
6 Likes
“What I did was allowed” sounds too much like “there is no controlling legal authority”.
Just say “it was an authorized and effective means of communication with my Department, and it we did not use it to send or receive classified material.”
6 Likes
Doesn’t matter how she explains it or how often, the media will continue doing the Republican bullying for them. Even when their hypocracy and stupidity regarding computer security is explained to them over and over again.
That’s her argument. No one’s buying it, except big pro-Hillary fans. I don’t know how we win the White House now, and no, I’m not any concern troll.
2 Likes
They are a bunch of pussies. Rarely had the President’s back either. Always looking out for their own pussy skins
1 Like
I beg to disagree. This is a republican story being driven very well by the media. The average person who has email understands privacy and personal but not every person (especially in HRC and my age bracket) understand a lot about servers or that she would hire someone to do it.). She did not send classified documents - THERE REALLT IS NO THERE THERE. It is not agains the law to have a private email server for personal emails - especially if you are secretary of state
6 Likes
I thick you are panicking wayy too early. There is no way we are going to lose to these crazy folks. Two reasons, blacks and latinos
3 Likes
I sure as hell hope you’re right!
Don’t believe her about what?
From the vague wording in your comment, I have serious questions you even understand what this “story” is even about. Just heard Hillary and jumped at the change to get your hate on?
“the option of resolving it at any time”…Elaborate on that. Resolve what, exactly?
“Drip drip drip of information” of which there has been absolutely none. Or at least nothing relevant. She did want to know where they stood on a gefiltefish issue, but that’s actually not terribly important. Now there has been a flood of misinformation spread around…accusations of criminal activity…without you know, actually mentioning any crimes…that sort of thing.
2 Likes
There does appear to be some actual wrongdoing – not necessarily on HRC’s part – in the situation involving the staffer who worked on the server for her: Bryan Pagliano, the guy who wouldn’t testify last week on Fifth Amendment grounds.
The WaPo broke that Hillary was personally paying Pagliano, a State Dept IT employee, to work on her server, above and beyond his State Dept job.
This is very problematic from Pagliano’s side: he was required to file an annual financial disclosure form, and failed to report that arrangement, at all. Falsifying the financial disclosure form, as with most such federal forms, could be prosecuted if a US Atty really wanted to.
Moreover, federal employees are under very strict outside income rules. Moonlighting is very limited, and you must go through a formal procedure to get approval within your agency (e.g., through both your immediate management chain and through the agency’s legal office). An overriding concern is that there be no possible way that the employment could be construed as ‘double dipping’, or, not even a job you got because of your federal position. If a NASA astronaut wants to work a shift at Starbucks on the weekend, OK. If they want to work at Starbucks because Starbucks is specifically recruting astronauts for a new frappacino promotion, no way.
In general, the notion of being paid personally by an agency manager to do work at that agency manager’s home would send up big red flags. If that work was vaguely related to your day job, flashing red lights. Federal ethical guidlines would strongly recommend against such an arrangement, lest the manager use their authority over the employee to get a discount on the private home work.
This all even more true for an employee in a sensitive job, which being the guy who manages executive-level email would be.
Supposedly no one at the State Dept had any idea about this arrangement except Clinton, which means the usual outside employment rules were circumvented – but as Secretary she may well have the authority to do so.
2 Likes
“Questions continue to dog Hillary Clinton about her mysterious email server. Trey Gowdy, Chairman of the blah, blah, blah.”
3 Likes
Nope, try again
He was paid to install the server because it was a private server, and the Clinton’s didn’t want him doing it on the taxpayer’s dime…or even the appearance of that.
Which of course if they hadn’t you would be jumping up and down that she was using tax payer resources for private work.
Everything else you are writing is completely hyperbolic. A NASA astronaut working at Starbucks??
Oh, and btw, this has exactly what to do with the eighth Congressional committee’s investigation into Benghazi?
Absolutely. Nothing.
2 Likes
I just want to give you a hug and pat your back and tell you it’s all going to be okay.
She turned over 30,000 emails already and agreed to testify before Congress next month.
How is she trying to avoid oversight?
And how is she in a position to resolve this when she has no control over the media?
1 Like
- No matter what, Pagliano was obligated to disclose that arrangement and the dollar amount paid every year on his financial disclosure forms. He didn’t do so. What possible case is there to justify his failing to do that yet signing the forms anyway?
Again, not fundamentally HRC’s mistake but “Clinton staffer lied to the State Dept about his financial deal with Hillary” is not a helpful headline.
- It doesn’t matter what work he did for Clinton. In general, federal ethics rules would never let a manager hire one of their own agency’s employees to do ANY kind of private work for them, due to the various ways that could be abused by either party.
When you are hiring an State Dept IT email guy to set up your private server to connect to the State Dept email, it sure looks like you chose that particular IT guy because they work for the State Dept. Clinton faced a catch 22 there: if she had him do it on agency money, it’s a clear violation. But it is also a violation for him to accept that job, if Hillary hired him because he was familiar with the State Dept’s email system.
Clinton should have hired someone who did not simultaneously work for the State Dept.
- As I noted, agencies have specific rules on how to get approval for any – ANY – outside employment, which includes review of the proposed arrangement by agency attorneys. If that didn’t happen, that also is an issue.