2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumStop Digging The Hole, Secretary Clinton - Ruth Marcus/WaPo
Stop digging the hole, Secretary ClintonBy Ruth Marcus - WaPo
August 21 at 8:21 PM
<snip>
Dear Secretary Clinton:
Your e-mail problem has mushroomed from a self-inflicted nuisance to a self-inflicted wound. The reason is simple: At every decision point, you and your staff have made the wrong choice about how to proceed, erring on the side of secrecy and self-righteousness.
The damage can’t be entirely undone. But some of it can be mitigated by doing what doesn’t come naturally to you: admitting some error and accepting that not all the criticism has been fueled by partisan attackers in league with media enablers.
So, Madame Secretary, cut out the Snapchat jokes about your spiffy new account in which “those messages disappear all by themselves.” Yes, political opponents are out to get you. Yes, we in the media thirst for controversy.
Still, those “everyday Americans” you talk about have understandable qualms about your conduct. It’s not at the top of their agenda. It may not stop them from voting for you. But their concerns are real, and legitimate. This probably won’t interfere with your winning the nomination. It could be a general-election problem.
This is sounding like “That ’90s Show.” You want to wave off the whole thing as the “same old partisan games we’ve seen so many times before.” That may be therapeutic. It’s not politically smart.
The original mistake — deciding to conduct official government business through a private e-mail account for the sake, you say, of convenience — can’t be undone. But you ought to stop — now! — with the unconvincing claim that you did nothing different from your predecessors as secretary of state.
The relevant universe of predecessors during the era of e-mail is precisely two. Condoleezza Rice rarely used e-mail but employed a government account when she did. Colin Powell did employ a private account for what he described as “the then-newfangled” technology.
<snip>
More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/stop-digging-the-hole-secretary-clinton/2015/08/21/8f40c684-4824-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)She identifies as a liberal with the Democratic party.[5]
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Fuckin' classic. 
cali
(114,904 posts)Please delete.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a21896/the-bushes-bloom-again/
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2015/06/ruth_marcus_is_the_latest_libe055872.php
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2009/10/22/ruth-marcus-responds-sort-of/156025
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/13/1291639/-The-Right-Thanks-WaPo-liberal-Ruth-Marcus-for-Article-on-Equal-Pay
.
.
.
.
Not my kinda liberal....
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Just sayin...
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Just not interested in anything Villager Scold Marcus has to say...about anything. The false equivalence crap alone is enuff.
ETA: so, you didn't take the time to read any of the links, just made a judgment based on an off-the-cuff comment at the end? OK.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Posted my personal opinion of Ruth Marcus and gave some reasons why. Have a nice evening.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It isnt.
Certainly, Hillary Clinton hasnt come out in favor of it. In fact it seems like it's one of the few things she wants to talk about LESS than her email server.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)but I think we can agree that the war on marijuana in particular has been a failure and a human disaster of epic proportions. Ruth Marcus accepts that...and then she goes on to opine that while the laws are dumb and wasteful, they shouldn't be changed, because she has kids? It is that sort of fatuous nonsense that leads me to doubt both her liberal convictions and her brain power...and whether Hillary Clinton agrees with her or not, or is willing to say, or not, is immaterial to me.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But that doesn't make her a right-winger. It makes her wrong on the drug war.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)that alone doesn't make her a right-winger...there's other things, as my post above noted. At the very least I'd call her a Villager, another brave defender of the power structure status quo--which, in this day and age, does make her a right-winger. Imo.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)so bad that she is afraid that her kids will "run off the rails" the first chance they have to smoke some pot?
Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but I really feel strongly that eliminating most of the "war on drugs" laws - like repealing prohibition - would vastly eliminate (or at minimize) much of the violence we see - so much of which is "turf wars".
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/ruth-marcus
I was too lazy to fetch a link when I also tried to make the point that she's a centrist, at worst. I would peg her as a moderate-type Democrat, in fact just the kind of person who would normally support someone like Hillary.
Plus her husband Jon Leibowitz is without question a Democrat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Leibowitz
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
MBS
(9,688 posts)only a political one.
however, it's a BIG political one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/making-hay-of-a-non-scandal/2015/07/27/dbd968a4-348b-11e5-adf6-7227f3b7b338_story.html
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)It's always the cover-up that makes it x10 worse.
cali
(114,904 posts)You also apparently think the private server is no big deal, and on that point I disagree. She may have violated the Federal Records Act and FOIA, not that I think she'd be prosecuted because I seriously doubt that would happen.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)beginning by putting everything out there. She should have. Now she looks untrustworthy which raises her negatives. Stupid stupid move.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Thanks. This is going to be a long long primary season. 
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Thanks for that. Well, we've boarded the ride. 2000 was a nightmare. 2008 a really great ride. 2016 has just begun to unfold, but I agree this primary is shaping up to be an E ticket ride.
oasis
(53,693 posts)As for "jokes" about the e-mail, Hillary's correct at scoffing at the whole media manufactured blow up about minor league bullshit.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)She looks like a hack herself, and is going to put the party in danger of losing the white house.
oasis
(53,693 posts)
840high
(17,196 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Darwin would have loved her.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)(does not mean Secretary of State, just in case)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)short circuit
(145 posts)
madville
(7,847 posts)If he jumps in, he'll easily pull at least 10% off Clinton's numbers. By the first debate it could be a three-way race with Hillary, Joe, and Bernie all just separated by a few points.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It makes Bernie's job all that much easier.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I think Ruth Marcus needs to STFU.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)It is not whether she was trying to hide anything from us illegally or the like that is the issue (that certainly is what the right wing is trying to make it out to be with their Benghazi propaganda paranoia fetish, etc.)
The big question is WHY did you move your mail to a private server? What was the problem with using the government run server dedicated to this work, that SHOULD have adequate security for you to do your business without fear of political or other kinds of sabotage happening to you?
You may have had some perfectly legitimate reasons for doing so:
1) Perhaps political spies from the other party or other entities were able to hack through its security and leak information out that shouldn't be.
2) Perhaps the NSA was spying on many government officials and building blackmailable dossiers on everyone to keep them from being put under control. Wouldn't surprise me with the way they've been working lately.
3) Perhaps simply the security wasn't adequate and even non-insiders could get access to mails, etc. that they shouldn't and be a threat too.
ALL of these kinds of problems would provide you a defense if you were to have publicly come out at the time to announce you were moving mail to a private server at the time you did so. And follow that up through either back room channels or even in public if it was something that could be made public, your complaints of what problems exists with the existing IT infrastructure that needs fixing and ask that it be fixed before you move your mail back on to the server.
Then it would be VERY hard for the right wing to translate your move as an effort to "cover up" something that you didn't want made public showing some sort of wrong doing, that many on the right are concluding as a result of your secretly doing this and not doing the above.
If you were to come out now with your real concerns (if you really don't have anything to cover up, which I'm not predisposed to think there is anything necessarily you are covering up), and say something like, "I had a real concern about this, and at the time, I didn't feel like I should have made this public then, when it could be damaging to the rest of our government IT infrastructure, not just my own mail security. I've since that time notified those behind the scenes what needs fixing (and this be based on some truthful actions, not made up stories), and I'm letting the public know now that I did this in the interest of both providing security of my work, and also ensuring that our government IT infrastructure is brought up to necessary standards to prevent any kind of abuse or hacking that could put our government and our country at risk."
Doing that, and there still might be time to do this, if you are truthful about this, would really help put this mail controversy aside. The longer you wait though, you put more ammunition in to the right wing's hand that this was an effort to cover up something, and has even the Democratic Party base wondering too.
oasis
(53,693 posts)
MBS
(9,688 posts)So is the DC judge (appointed by Bill Clinton) who said "we wouldn't be here today if the employee (Sec of State Clinton) had followed government policy." He is right.
The Benghazi stuff is nothing. I'd submit that most of the fuss about classified information is nothing. As are other pseudo-issues raised by the Republicans about the content of particular email missives.
But Hillary's original, mind-boggling decision to use a private email server for all her State Dept. business, against the explicit Obama White House policy, and against any sort of political common sense, was a BIG strategic (not to mention ethical) mistake and is, and will continue to be, a BIG problem for her politically. I agree that that original bad decision cannot really be undone, but perhaps it can at least stop growing if she would explain herself honestly.
The problem for me, is that this email arrangement blurs the lines between her personal (not just personal life but dealings with the Clinton Foundation, etc) and professional concerns. Using the same server for both her personal and professional correspondence blurs these two in ways that are ethically challenged, at best, and politically damaging in almost every way, in that those blurred lines play into every Clinton meme out there, and hands the Republicans a lethal weapon to attack her integrity and credibility, and to distract voters and pundits from other matters.
Even more than ethics issues, it calls into question the quality of her political judgment. I absolutely cannot understand why someone so intelligent, with such long political experience, and with clear presidential ambitions, would not go out of her way, from Day One, to conduct her State Dept business completely by the book (that means, at minimum, using governmental email servers only, for all her governmental business, except in the cases of emergency; and being extra careful to minimize conflicts of interest in her State Dept conduct, as well as that of her long-time staffers who followed her from the Senate and the 2008 campaign, and in activities of the Clinton Foundation as it affected foreign countries) so that there could never be any question of her honesty and integrity. It is so clearly in her long-term interest to do so. (Short-term interest , too: all the extra work and extra staff time to transmit those files to the State Department. . )
If she could not see the folly of this herself, where were all her legal and political advisors?
Just unbelievable to me that they could make such a politically suicidal decision.
--
Also, FYI, Marcus is really a centrist, not "right-wing"; and in her columns she's gone out of her way to state her admiration for Hillary. And even more liberal columnists in the Washington Post (Eugene Robinson, EJ Dionne) have criticized Hillary on the email issue.
--
For context, I'm undecided in the Dem primaries, but firmly committed to voting for the Democratic candidate in the general election. What I want, above all, is for the Democratic candidate to win. Until this email thing started, I'd assumed that the most viable, winnable candidate would be Hillary. But I'm not so sure about that any more.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm not undecided but I haven't commented on the email scandal until now.
I have the same concerns about the way this was handled from the start.
Well said.
840high
(17,196 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Dismissing any and all criticism as right wing propaganda is not going to work this time.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)are sure to be used in attack ads. I can just see it now.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)We all know what's coming, I'm surprised her handlers didn't warn her about that.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)The same ones that thought this was a non-issue and it would be soon forgotten.
They have an excellent record of getting it wrong. Courtesy Lanny Davis back in March.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They'll have to do better than that if she wins the primary.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)He goes on CNN in July complaining that people are leaving out information, edits something out at around 8:00 and posts it to his youtube account. I wouldn't be proud of this appearance.
and it didn't look any better on MSNBC
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Lanny can't even keep his cool with the msm.
Ay yi yi.
840high
(17,196 posts)
zeemike
(18,998 posts)They know it could get bad and they can't leave Bernie as the only alternitive...That would make TPTB unhappy.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie's not just a threat to rich powerful Republicans.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)not going away.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)that HRC worked out with Obama before the Convention. She may have thought this was a way to assert her own channel of communications free of prying eyes in the WH and elsewhere in the USG. She seems to have taken that metaphorical equality way too far.
Petraeus presumed too much, as well, and he paid the price.
MBS
(9,688 posts)I'd guessed different timing f (I'd thought her recruitment was after the election, rather than after the nomination)-- but. . yeah.
DURHAM D
(33,054 posts)This was a hearing about Huma's employee records because Judicial Watch (Larry Klayman) is demanding them. You a big fan of his?
MBS
(9,688 posts)but, even if it were about Huma, the judge's assessment still applies even more to Huma's boss.
Hillary's foolish decision to use a private server for her government business is what started and/or magnified almost every aspect of this mess. For me, his comment is an apt one-sentence summary of the origin and continuing basis of the problem. It all comes back to the use of the private server, and the mindset that led to the decision to use that server.
If nothing else, this unfortunate, and potentially tragic, situation ( tragic, that is, if the fallout derails a Dem presidential victory in 2016) highlights the reasons WHY there are those rules about using government servers, and why the Obama White House has explicitly adhered to that policy:
1. to minimize or (ideally) eliminate convict of interest, and all APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. This consideration should have been at the top of the list for Hillary Clinton, because of her many ties to the Clinton Foundation and to many important people in and out of government, and the standard Meme out there (unfair or not) about the ways in which the Clintons tend to "push the envelope" on these kinds of issues. And conflict-of-interest certainly (and properly) is a fierce concern of legal counsel in non-partisan arms of the executive branch, including the State Department. Use of a private email account and server is , to put it mildly, not a good way to ensure absence of conflict of interest.
2. more generally (an extension of #1), to keep personal and official government business separate. For instance, in addition to the real problems about using private email for government correspondence (which plays into conflict of interest issues), it's also not OK to use a .gov email for personal business , as it lends a misleading "imprimatur" to pst personal correspondence, since it would suggest, improperly, that the government is behind whatever that correspondence is about.
3. To ensure transparency in government transactions. Again, this should have been a prime concern for Hillary and her advisors, given the other Meme Out There (unfair or not) of her concerns for privacy (understandable) so fierce that it borders on secrecy (not OK). Use of a private server, and her reserving to herself the choice about what to delete or not delete plays right into that meme. Ironically, her use of a private server has actually ended up in invading her privacy more than would have been the case had she done things by the book and use a government email account for her government business.
4. issues of confidentiality for confidential matters. This has been covered ad nauseam, so no need to belabor this further, but this consideration applies not only to top-secret or classified files, but to many other sensitive issues.
5. archiving of correspondence for the public record. This has also been covered ad nauseam, but I'd point out her use of a private server greatly complicated her compliance with this rule, and has caused huge amounts of extra work, both for her staff and for State Dept. staff.
Which brings me back to my continuing question: why oh why did Hillary - with her intelligence and long experience - and her equally experienced advisors choose to handle her State Dept correspondence this way, when it was so clearly NOT in either her short-term or long-term political interest to do so?
ericson00
(2,707 posts)meh.
840high
(17,196 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)or The Washington Post.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)i dont want him, either- but he has every right to run and is an obvious, formidable choice.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)would be causing trouble for the Clintons, who actually have worked for the nomination for the last 7 years, instead of Biden who just went along with the Obama ride as a net zero on the ticket. His only accomplishment as veep was being Obama's wind sock on marriage equality so Obama, like Hillary, could evolve. Even after the ridiculously poorly worded "should Joe Biden run," which was just Dems being nice in their answer, he was below Sanders, and has been for months as he's been included in polls.
Joe also had 2 turns to run for prez, and failed miserably. It's Hillary's time now.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If Hillary actually led during those years, and before, she wouldnt have needed a wind sock to tell her when she was allowed to support marriage equality.
Sanders didn't.
But it is saying something that I want Biden less than Hillary. He needs to account for his years as captain drug war, and the atrocious RAVE act.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)So now if Obama's Vice President decides he would like to run,
he's 'butting in'?
I guess no one else should have been allowed to run against Hillary, either.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)People shpuld be grateful that we're even allowed to have the appearance of a primary.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Both are third way neocons, just like Hillary. She's lost her closest ideological allies. She will lose the election. Time to step aside.
shenmue
(38,598 posts)Because they were so friendly to her in the 90s.
Give me a break.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)How else would you describe the general policy of HRC and that paper?
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)How can she be both a Kissinger acolyte, charges made here regularly, and a neo-con?
And it's clear to me the way people throw that term around they have no idea what it means.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Yes, I agree, the term is often misused, but neocon can readily be applied to both the WaPo and HRC. There is very little to distinguish them in terms of their shared policy preferences. They are Center-Right Democrats with a strong authoritarian and militaristic bent, irrationally partial to Israel, and prone to covert intervention and occasionally, American boots on the ground in the Mideast.
I've also been aware of the Commentary and Encounter and Chicago School crowds since before they bore that label, along with the Jean Kirkpatrick type of Reagan Democrats. The Wurmser/Feith/Wolfowitz circle advising Bibi and the Republicans are archetypes, but not by any means the only variety.
You may be referring to the phenomenon of Kissinger's occasional resistance to Israel's excesses in war and its perpetual twilight struggle and expansion, and that Hillary as SOS has had to play the same mediating role. That is referenced here by Richard Cohen: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-john-micklethwaits-misreading-of-henry-kissinger-on-israel/2014/09/15/e28a7d20-3cff-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html But, don't confuse that for a fundamental difference on goals with the neocons. There isn't one.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)HRC was never going to win among RWers anyway,
dsc
(53,397 posts)I look forward to you linking all the positive things she has written about Clinton since say 2013. I eagerly await the links. Links to videos of her saying positive things will do.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 23, 2015, 10:59 PM - Edit history (1)
Marcus may not like Hillary but they agree about Israel and US intervention in the Mid east. That's what makes them both neocons.
It's clear that Ruth Marcus dislikes Hillary Clinton around the edges but it is also clear that they are both unwilling to criticize Israel for its military excesses and fundamentally agree that nothing should be done to change its essential policies.
dsc
(53,397 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Since she resigned as SOS, she's rarely criticized Israeli policy, and has practically nothing to say about the Palestinians.
Until it was bought out by Bezos, the WaPoCo was a family-owned business. Ruth Marcus is the daughter of a WaPo editorial board member. She's also to the Left of most of the paper's management.
dsc
(53,397 posts)in point of fact he literally told one of his constituents who was criticizing Israeli policy to shut up. I admit to having no earthly idea what Marcus' views on Israel are.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)In mid-July 2014, Sanders was one of just 21 Senators not to co-sponsor a resolution expressing support for Israel in the conflict with Hamas. The resolution passed on July 17 by unanimous consent, meaning that no roll call vote was taken on the measure.
In the video of the August 2014 town hall, recorded while the conflict was still ongoing, Sanders was more equivocal than in the statement now on his website. While asserting that Israel had “overreacted,” and that the bombing of UN facilities was “terribly, terribly wrong,” he also noted that Hamas was launching rockets from populated areas.
“This is a very depressing and difficult issue,” Sanders said at the town hall. “This has gone on for 60 bloody years.”
Months after the conflict, in February 2015, Sanders was the first Senator to announce that he would skip Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of Congress. “[Netanyahu] doesn’t have the right to inject himself into an American political discussion by being the speaker before a joint session of Congress to criticize the United States,” Sanders said on CNN.
Sanders did not respond to multiple requests for an interview made through his presidential campaign, nor to a specific request for comment on whether the 2014 Gaza conflict had constituted a turning point in his thinking.
Read more: http://forward.com/news/national/310087/is-bernie-sanders-a-lefty-except-for-israel/#ixzz3jk3JIicf
MBS
(9,688 posts)One thing to have the Republicans pounce on this (and, as usual, kind of miss the point by emphasizing non-issues such as Benghazi)
It's another thing entirely to be criticized by both moderate (Marcus, etc) and liberal (Eugene Robinson and others) Democrats, for what I consider to be the truly substantive issue: her decision to use a private email server for all State correspondence, in opposition to Obama White House directives, against political and ethical common sense and in contrast to ALL the other Obama cabinet officers.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)I wish the email thing had been handled differently from the start, if only to avoid this overblown scandal. But I don't think there's anything wrong or illegal in what she did.
I am for Bernie, but I am not about to beat up on Hillary.
ALBliberal
(3,339 posts)She will always be heavily scrutinized! It is for these very reasons that I can't believe Hillary Clinton made this choice on email. Following email protocol is an easy thing. Especially with the her aides to help her. Why didn't she do this easy thing above reproach. We worker bees out here in the "real world" are subjected to email protocol at our jobs and if we don't follow we could lose our jobs. And we wonder... Why did Hillary shrug it off? As Secretary of State with all our lives and trust in her hands? And for her to act flippant with no humility? Yes it boggles the mind.
There's been lots of talk about Gore blowing the 2000 election because he didn't include President Clinton on the campaign trail. I agree he should have. But I blame Bill Clinton more. He lost that election for Gore and our party when he had the affair. Gore should not have had to worry about whether or not to campaign with Clinton. Should have been a no brainer. That's on Clinton not Gore in my book. Result: Eight years of W. And war etc.
I find the email error and Lewinsky error oddly the similar. Unforced errors. Let's hope we don't get 8 more years of Bush!
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Either way there will be a copy on goverment servers and a simple
SQL search should find them all, they will show up eventually, its not SOS Clintons fault state department cant find them
@state.gov > @clinton.com
@clinton.com > @state.gov
State Dept Claims Staffer’s Emails Don’t Exist, Later Finds 17,000
http://www.mediaite.com/online/state-dept-claims-staffers-emails-dont-exist-later-finds-17000/
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Slate
8/20/15
.....
Wouldn’t those emails already be in the system given many of them were sent to or from people who had their own government accounts?
That’s what Clinton’s team has argued.
That, however, relies on her colleagues using the same type of .gov address that she herself avoided—something we have every reason to suspect some of them didn’t do.
At least one of her top aides, Huma Abedin, is known to have had her own clintonemail.com address, making it difficult to believe that all of Clinton’s government business was logged on government servers. That defense also conveniently ignores any emails Clinton may have exchanged with foreign leaders or private parties outside the U.S. government.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/20/hillary_clinton_email_scandal_explained.html
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)and government-issued Blackberry phones were unable to access multiple email accounts
AbedinH@state.gov
MillsCD@state.gov
BlackBerry devices the State Department issued to former Hillary Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin have likely been destroyed or sold off as surplus, a State official said in a court filing Wednesday.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/08/state-department-mills-and-abedin-official-blackberries-212627.html
http://foia.state.gov/Search/Results.aspx?collection=Clinton_Email
randome
(34,845 posts)...it's bullshit posts like this that start to make me root for 'your' side to lose out. If this indicates the ethics and mettle of Bernie Sanders supporters, it isn't something I want.
Since Sanders has virtually no chance of winning the nomination, my like or dislike of his supporters means little but fwiw, if you insist on making enemies, you may get your wish.
Stop digging your own hole.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
WillyT
(72,631 posts)All of Washington saw it... yet you don't want it posted here ???
What exactly do you think this forum is about ???
I think she should stop digging that hole too... it's the first rule of holes.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Playing victim is as unbecoming for a liberal as a con.
MBS
(9,688 posts)The relevant universe of predecessors during the era of e-mail is precisely two. Condoleezza Rice rarely used e-mail but employed a government account when she did. Colin Powell did employ a private account for what he described as “the then-newfangled” technology.
The more reasonable question is: What did other Cabinet secretaries in this administration do? No others, to my knowledge, relied solely or even primarily on a private address.
The reasoning that applies to other cabinet officers' use of government email would apply 10X more to the Secretary of State, whose position is more sensitive than most of the other cabinet officers.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Cut the damage control! Its not helping her campaign! Its only going to make things worse.
WillyT
(72,631 posts) Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Then what a clusterfuck the Hillary administration would be. Opaque, tone-deaf, accountable to nobody.