Discussion: Hillary Clinton Reveals She Did Not Save Trove Of Personal Emails

Discussion for article #234167

Traitorgate trumps this silliness…


…“the federal guidelines are clear”…? The federal guidelines say don’t do what you did. So do tell what your definition of clear is. If includes the words “when it suits me and my aspirations”, you might not be clear on its meaning.


Did you delete the one that said, “Let the terrorists attack the compound at Benghazi so they can kill my friends.”?


This “controversy” is pretty much BS but Clinton’s defense needs to be much better.

Saying you set up an outside server for “convenience” is pretty weak tea given that it is damn easy to have multiple email accounts on yer smartphone. Then saying your official emails were preserved because State Dept employees received them is also pretty weak, especially when one of your top aides, Huma Abedin, was using your personal email server as well.

Lest we forget why we want folks using their official email accounts: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/03/emails-white-house-doesnt-want-you-see


TomTom the ManKochian Candi-ass is creaming his jeans with anticipation …


Translation - FUCK YOU.


But that is why you have and need to use an official email address. That way you can keep (and retain) your official emails separate from your personal ones…like Chelsea’s wedding. Your way can obviously be abused–whether you did or didn’t. I certainly wouldn’t want to give a prospective conservative SOS that discretion.


This is a totally inside the Beltway scandal. Go to your local watering hole and see if anybody cares. Those who like Hillary still like her and those who hate her always will.


Hillary Clinton Reveals She Didn’t Save Trove Of Personal Emails

What constitutes a “trove”. Did Hillary actually use this quaint-sounding Victorian word? How does that differ from a “bunch”, “a pantload” a “hoard”, “a stash”, a plenitude? Can it be quanitfied: a “gazillion”, “tons”? Can we have that information in yottabytes?


Life cycle of a Clinton ‘scandal’:

-Hillary Clinton broke the law and she’s trying to cover it up. We demand to see her work emails!

-Well, Clinton didn’t actually break the law, but her lack of a response to the allegations is the real scandal.

-Well, Clinton didn’t break the law, she gave an appropriate response to the allegations, and she wants her work emails published, but the real scandal is that she won’t let us see her personal emails.


For any government employee, it is that government employee’s responsibility to determine what’s personal and what’s work-related.

Indeed. But everybody on the teevee is telling me that while sure, she’s done nothing every other Federal official hasn’t done, we all know the standard is different with Hillary, so even though it may not be fair, hey, we gotta keep at this. Our. Journalism. Is. Killing. Us.
(Oh, and TPM, it’s not “her” server; it was set up for Bill. And nice picture of her, btw.)


Regardless of what she says, the right will make up some BS over her emails, until the next non-scandal comes along. Fact is, they re afraid of her.


The “real scandal,” for those who demand one, will be “how do we know that she handed over the real Benghazi emails!!!??!??”

Basically, it would have been better to have used separate acc’ts… and she acknowledged that. So now it comes down to: if you believe, without any actual evidence, that everything Hillary does is a nefarious plot and constant coverup, then the “real” emails must be missing. If not, she admits she could have handled the acc’ts better, but there’s really little else to say.

The idea that this somehow disqualifies her from being president is comical. People have been hunting for Hillary scandals for more than two decades… and this is the best they can come up with?


In the minds of many, simply being a Democrat and a woman ipso facto disqualifies her from being president.


What federal guidelines are you referring to? The ones that didn’t go into effect until after Clinton left State?


Next up: Logan Act prosecutions


She talked about traitorgate at first but nobody asked any follow up questions.


I really hate to be the fly in the ointment again on this, but we’d better start looking at this through the prism of “appearances” and “transparency”.
-The 55,000 emails that she has directed the State Department to release are those that she and her staff have provided presumably after examining for substance.
-She’s admitting here that she has deleted a good amount of material irretrievably, and according to her own judgement of what was demanded by law.
-She has delayed addressing this directly and then drops this little nugget on a Tuesday afternoon with traitorgate on the front page.

I wouldn’t accept this from a Republican and as my Irish cousins would say, “Oh, I believe her, but there’s millions wouldn’t.”


Yes, that was right after “I wish I were attractive enough that tough, manly men like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh would call on me.”