NEWSWEEK: The email "scandal" is still "NO SCANDAL." (It's HYPE. Bullshit HYPE.) Read on:

[RBInMaine]

Anyone interested in DETAILS and not silly BULLSHIT corporate media HYPE can read this NEWSWEEK piece and get some FACTS.

The email thing always was and still is BULLSHIT CORPORATE MEDIA HYPE. Yes, BULLSHIT.

Here you go:

THE SCANDAL OVER CLINTON’S EMAILS STILL ISN’T A SCANDAL

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414

[TheSarcastinator]

1. Newsweek is Smarter than the FBI, after all...

I mean, Newsweek is a more appropriate source for this type of thing than the FBI itself, so that's it then.

The derp, it burns.

[RBInMaine]

5. Try "Berning" a calorie and read the article. Try actually learning something.

[TheSarcastinator]

9. Thanks for confirming it! Newsweek > FBI

Keep that up, you'll go far.

[emulatorloo]

17. Has the FBI report been released?

How can one know what's in a document that has neither been released of leaked?

Until then it is all speculation. Which is fun.

[CrowCityDem]

2. People paying attention have always known it will amount to nothing.

[JonLeibowitz]

3. Someone (You?) should tell the NY Times, they all but admitted that Clinton is lying.

[RBInMaine]

6. READ THE ARTICLE. Editorial boards often do not really dig for facts. It's BULLSHIT.

[JonLeibowitz]

19. Well, since you said it in all caps, I guess I agree with you.

[ciaobaby]

4. You found an article you agree with - so go with that !

[RBInMaine]

8. READ THE ARTICLE. Try "Berning" a few calories for a change.

[TheSarcastinator]

11. this Hillbot is stuck on repeat

Someone please hit restart, wouldya?

[TCJ70]

18. Must be getting hacked...

...better turn it off for a few minutes to fix everything up...

[ciaobaby]

21. I read it honey, it's basically an opinion piece.

and it's OK to agree with someone who has the same opinion as you.
If you really wanted to offer up "facts" you would have attached a link to the report itself.

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. Newsweek. Isn't that the magazine that sold for a buck?

[RBInMaine]

10. Try "Berning" a calorie and read the article. Try actually learning something.

[TheSarcastinator]

12. keep repeating that: it's working, you swear

Epic fail. Hindenburg Hillarians are Hillarious!

[BootinUp]

14. They will ignore it. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. So it isn't then?

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. LOL!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512069590#post20

[RBInMaine]

28. Try actually reading the article and learning something.

[BootinUp]

13. Article is well researched and written. I am sure that means the detractors

and Bernie Supporters will pretend it doesn't exist.

[StevieM]

31. Yep. They are determined to believe that she did something wrong and won't let the facts

get in their way.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

20. +1000

[ProgressiveEconomist]

22. Server was BILL's

before it became Hillary's. It's not as if Chelsea went to Sears and had a self-set-up gift package delivered to Mom.

IMO this important omitted fact needs wider attention. A server set up by a recent President for his own use very likely was much more secure than a likely obsolete government server.

[pmorlan1]

23. There is nothing new here

and it's a nothingburger. Gee where have I heard this before?

Third, does anyone—including the inspector general—read the many documents that have already been released regarding this topic? A lot of the information in the new report was disclosed in a February letter by the IG—a fact not mentioned in most of the current news articles—and answers to questions the IG said it could not resolve are in documents disclosed by congressional investigators last year.

And finally, why do partisans waste time on nothing-burger Clinton “scandals”—emails,

[d_legendary1]

24. This article is full of nothing

Last edited Fri May 27, 2016, 09:37 PM - Edit history (1)

"Does anyone in their right mind think that a department head will read all 100,000,000,00 emails they receive on a daily basis..."

No one is arguing how much email she has to read on a daily basis. What's being argued is that she violated the Federal Acts Records by not preserving her emails which believe or not are government property when one works for the government. This is highlighted on the IG report.

"Second, does anyone really believe voters will base their decisions at the ballot box on whether the documents in question were preserved strictly following the mandated procedures?"

We had War Bush for eight years raising his middle finger to the law. What do you think?

"Third, does anyone—including the inspector general—read the many documents that have already been released regarding this topic?"

They don't have to read shit. All they care about is the date and time of those emails in order to archive them. When they start having gaping holes in their chronology and ask the person in charge to turn over government property and they say no, its a problem. And you're wondering why the American public has trust issues.

"has been a horrifically underfunded, understaffed and ineffective group for many years, starting long before Clinton arrived at the State Department..."

And yet instead of letting the government assume responsibility for the inefficiencies caused by these problems, she decides to take on those responsibilities by buying a spiffy server and being in charge of government property by conducting her business on it. Genius of the year award goes to...

"Lots of Jargon about who was where and who handled what."

No one cares about Joe Blow talking to Joenita Blew about government inefficiencies. Its got nothing to do with propping up private property and running state business on it and failing to turn it over when your tenure is over. A waste of three paragraphs.

"The inspector general writes that Clinton never sought permission from legal counsel for the email arrangement, nor did Powell or Rice's senior staff. After all, when you go to a new job and the technology specialists set up your systems, do you then run to the company’s lawyers to make sure what they are doing complies with the rules?"

Talk about spinning this out of control. The real questions that should be asked are: Do people who are assigned a computer at their current job bust out with their home lap top and conduct company business on it? And are they allowed to not to turn over their work that is prevalent to the business? Is it okay for them to make their own arrangements without consulting their bosses first? When things are made in perspective, you'll get much more of an idea why this sucks.

This thing is just a poor attempt to downplay the seriousness of breaking federal law.

[StevieM]

30. The article made outstanding points about the fake email scandal and demonstrated why it is

incorrect to say that she broke the law.

[d_legendary1]

32. Such as?

This thing is filled with ad hominem attacks (those damn liberals), red herrings its the gubbermint's fault), she deleted and consensus fallacy (the Republicans did it too). Not to mention the friend fallacy (I'm not a Clinton supporter but...)

So what exactly is true in there? The fact that you want this to go away?

[catnhatnh]

25. Playing "does anybody"...

Does anybody sign a document stating the federal penalties for not following the procedure outlined and then sign that paper intending to violate the agreement? Yes-it seems somebody did.

[bkkyosemite]

26. She fricken did not use a password...totally open and unsecured...a danger to our Country

[StevieM]

27. Excellent article. I just saw the Star Trek: TNG episode "The Drumhead." It is about the witch hunt

mentality that often takes root in a society. It reminds me a great deal of what is being done to Hillary with this fake email scandal, like the way she was savaged over Benghazi.

[msanthrope]

29. It's a Benghazi-redux. nt.