What A Dumb A$$

How Hillary Clinton and Her Team Decided to Throw Out 31,830 Emails (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-team-decided-throw-31830-emails/story?id=29587746)

"Clinton said on Tuesday she deleted all of the personal emails because she felt she “had no reason to save them.”

Move along people, move along. Of course there would never be a coverup here. Why do you think the Clintons had a personal email server anyways, lol.

How Hillary Clinton and Her Team Decided to Throw Out 31,830 Emails (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-team-decided-throw-31830-emails/story?id=29587746)

"Clinton said on Tuesday she deleted all of the personal emails because she felt she “had no reason to save them.”

Move along people, move along. Of course there would never be a coverup here. Why do you think the Clintons had a personal email server anyways, lol.

Jeb Bush is hiding about 2.5 plus emails from his time as governor. Where is the outrage? hypocrisy (http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/mar/13/american-bridge-21st-century/liberal-pac-says-jeb-bush-edited-his-own-emails/)

What do you think that Clinton sent out an email proving that she is working with Kim Jong Un, to spread ebola over Arkansas, using the plane from flight MH370?

You loons, State Dept releases less emails than any other Dept including CIA, DHS, or DoD. If she wanted to prevent you from seeing them, she should have used State's system.

It is not an uncommon practice to use an email outside of unofficial one and this is only getting blown up because to only person crazy right wingers hate more than Obama, is Hilary. That and she is a shoe-in, to wipe the floor with anyone the GOP throws out there. This is less of a story than the last 10 things Faux News accused he of doing.

Jeb Bush is hiding about 2.5 plus emails from his time as governor. Where is the outrage? hypocrisy (http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/mar/13/american-bridge-21st-century/liberal-pac-says-jeb-bush-edited-his-own-emails/)What a good example you provide of Tu Quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque), Hijinx. But from your own link:

"Governor Bush complied with Florida’s broad public records laws for more than 15 years, beyond what was even required by the law," Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell. "His emails related to state business have been available via requests to the state for that entire period of time."

Available for request, versus Clinton flat out deleting them. Big difference there.

And big difference between withholding something requested by Congress, and withholding what state law allows you to. Hint, one may be a crime, the other isn't.

Again from your own link:

"But while American Bridge tried to draw a parallel between Bush’s self-selection and Clinton’s current dilemma, we found nothing to suggest Bush’s editing had violated Florida’s Sunshine Law. State statute allows officials or an authorized custodian to determine which emails go into the public record based on whether they pertain to state business. The state archives only receive and preserve them.

Another big difference is that while Clinton was not open about her private email use, Bush was transparent about the fact that he was using a private account, according to First Amendment Foundation president Barbara Petersen.

"There’s nothing in the public records law about personal accounts," Petersen said about rules in Florida. "Some agencies have policies discouraging the use of personal accounts, but that was after Bush left office."

If there is any question that emails had been left out of Bush’s disclosure, a person or group could make a public records request and file a civil suit if they think something’s missing, she said. State law does allow private inspections of electronic devices if warranted to find missing texts and emails. But no one has made that challenge of Bush, Petersen said."

What do you think that Clinton sent out an email proving that she is working with Kim Jong Un, to spread ebola over Arkansas, using the plane from flight MH370?What a lovely Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) you have there, Hijinx. You might want to wipe that froth off the corner of your mouth.

You loons, State Dept releases less emails than any other Dept including CIA, DHS, or DoD. If she wanted to prevent you from seeing them, she should have used State's system. Are you saying the State Department would arbitrarily edit and destroy a documents pile requested by Congress? Like Clinton did?

It is not an uncommon practice to use an email outside of unofficial one and this is only getting blown up because to only person crazy right wingers hate more than Obama, is Hilary. That and she is a shoe-in, to wipe the floor with anyone the GOP throws out there. This is less of a story than the last 10 things Faux News accused he of doing.So there are 10 worse things that Hillary Clinton has been accused of lately? What are they?

My point about Bush was that, he runs 2 separate emails as well. And this is much ado about nothing, as usual. And you only have Jeb's word that emails aren't missing. And I would trust the word of any crack addict over a Bush.

Maybe you can tell me how Benghazi is a real scandal? Every 6 months the crazy conservative press comes up with some Bullshit, that Hillary is up to some nefarious scheme. You guys can only cry wolf so much.

I know it angers people on the right that she is going to be president, but the making of false scandals only goes so far.

You can hate J. Bush all you want and excoriate those on the right as going fishing. Fine.

The bottom line, however, is that, for good reason, Clinton was expected - by law - to maintain a government email account and to communicate her State business through that account. She did not.

The legal requirement very obviously serves the beneficial public purpose of ensuring that the maintenance of official government correspondence is done by a third party, not the official whose correspondence may be subject to later scrutiny. Thus, the email can't be "sanitized" by the individual subject to scrutiny.

Instead, in this case, we must trust that Clinton will fully identify each and every relevant email (even if not ultimately produced) from her private email account rather than have a server that can been reviewed by a judge or other independent third party, to determine if all relevant electronic correspondence has been identified. While I don't ascribe to her the evil intent some do, I also do not trust Ms. Clinton's honesty and integrity any more than you do Mr. Bush's.

Further, had she simply complied with the law, this particular stink would not have even occurred. Right Wing Nut Job Request: "State Department we are making a FOIA request for Ms. Clinton's emails while serving as Secretary of State; particularly those relating to the Benghazi attack." State's Response: "Here you go, 4,000 emails. Based on national security, we had to redact their content, to whom they were sent, and when they were sent. Enjoy." Sure they could have filed a suit, but given the discretion granted on issues of national security, it likely would have been thrown out.

I don't give a damn about the actual content of the e-mails. I do care about the accountability and compliance with rule of law. Consistent with her approach to governance, however, neither of these issues appear to concern Ms. Clinton.

You can hate J. Bush all you want and excoriate those on the right as going fishing. Fine.

The bottom line, however, is that, for good reason, Clinton was expected - by law - to maintain a government email account and to communicate her State business through that account. She did not.

The legal requirement very obviously serves the beneficial public purpose of ensuring that the maintenance of official government correspondence is done by a third party, not the official whose correspondence may be subject to later scrutiny. Thus, the email can't be "sanitized" by the individual subject to scrutiny.

Instead, in this case, we must trust that Clinton will fully identify each and every relevant email (even if not ultimately produced) from her private email account rather than have a server that can been reviewed by a judge or other independent third party, to determine if all relevant electronic correspondence has been identified. While I don't ascribe to her the evil intent some do, I also do not trust Ms. Clinton's honesty and integrity any more than you do Mr. Bush's.

Further, had she simply complied with the law, this particular stink would not have even occurred. Right Wing Nut Job Request: "State Department we are making a FOIA request for Ms. Clinton's emails while serving as Secretary of State; particularly those relating to the Benghazi attack." State's Response: "Here you go, 4,000 emails. Based on national security, we had to redact their content, to whom they were sent, and when they were sent. Enjoy." Sure they could have filed a suit, but given the discretion granted on issues of national security, it likely would have been thrown out.

I don't give a damn about the actual content of the e-mails. I do care about the accountability and compliance with rule of law. Consistent with her approach to governance, however, neither of these issues appear to concern Ms. Clinton.


If by law then why did no one notice ?As was said before she violated no laws and I will say here I have no problem with J Bush he is not the moron his brother is .This email thing is nothing but a wild goose chase .

My point about Bush was that, he runs 2 separate emails as well. And this is much ado about nothing, as usual. And you only have Jeb's word that emails aren't missing. And I would trust the word of any crack addict over a Bush. Running 2 separate emails isn't the problem. Clinton as a government official deleting emails requested by Congress, is. I said this to you before.

Maybe you can tell me how Benghazi is a real scandal? Every 6 months the crazy conservative press comes up with some Bullshit, that Hillary is up to some nefarious scheme. You guys can only cry wolf so much. The Obama administration's initially saying it was because of a youtube video, and subsequent finger-pointing, was sleazy but politics as usual. As with Watergate, it's the coverup afterwards that is the major issue.

I know it angers people on the right that she is going to be president, but the making of false scandals only goes so far.If you deliberately destroy evidence in a government investigation, it's not a false scandal.

Donald Trump: 'I am the only one who can make America truly great again' - Richmond.com: Ap (http://www.richmond.com/news/national-world/ap/article_1fdcc9c8-cd77-11e4-af51-93f570f89c9a.html)

Cant have this thread without Trump

Donald Trump: 'I am the only one who can make America truly great again' - Richmond.com: Ap (http://www.richmond.com/news/national-world/ap/article_1fdcc9c8-cd77-11e4-af51-93f570f89c9a.html)



Cant have this thread without Trump


Mr. Dumbass himself.

I never understood the Benghazi thing.

What could any Pres or Sec of State done differently? Im pretty sure decisions as to embassy security probably fall to someone lower than the Pres.

Did Obama or Clinton call back those marines who were 5 hours away? That would have gotten there after the fact anyway and leave what they were protecting vulnerable?

Just think of the republican backlash if marines had been ordered to go to benghazi then what they were protecting was attacked?

Does it really fucking matter if the pres or state dept uses the word "terrorist" in a briefing a few hours after an incident when facts are still being gathered?

after the cartoon attack in France fox news was all over the fact that the WH didnt say the word "terrorist attack" right away. what does that matter? is fox news implying that the WH is protecting or coddling terrorists? why not cover the actual news story instead of spinning it into an attack on Obama somehow?

mountain out of mole hill media stunts by some republicans are just tired, played out and a big part of their party problems.

focus on real issues and solutions and not trying to politicize everything in a negative, fear mongering way.

god forbid Obama didnt announce an ebola czar. like naming someone with that title would change anything or suddenly cure ebola. fox was non stop running talk about how obama was jeopardizing the american people with a genocide epidemic. .. .. he is not a leader .... he is no reagan ... obama should have armed the syrian rebels (who ened up being ISIS and al qaeda by the way ....



i feel dumber for venturing in here . . .