Back To The 1990s
I guess the easiest way to begin this column is with the most probable presidential headline for next year: "Clinton Versus Bush." Which is really somewhat of a cheap trick, since (to be fair) the 1990s were two Bushes and one Clinton ago, really. Still, if this is the way the next election pans out, it will indeed have somewhat of a time-machine flavor to it. It's technically not "back to the future," but instead the flip side: "forward to the past."
I say this all as a preamble to the media frenzy surrounding Hillary Clinton's press conference today, where she finally addressed questions about her email use. For the older political spectators among us, it had a familiar feel to it. Younger viewers might not have had the same experience, since it has indeed been 15 years since a Clinton occupied the White House. Many now voting came of age after the Bill Clinton era, so they may not have personal memories of the times.
Here's a quick quiz, to see which group you fall into. Do you remember who Ken Starr was? How about Vince Foster? If you see the word "Whitewater," would you wonder why it is capitalized? If you heard someone use the initials "V.R.W.C." in relation to Hillary Clinton, would you wonder what was being talked about? Know who Richard Mellon Scaife was? While everyone likely knows who Monica Lewinsky was, how about Linda Tripp? Gennifer Flowers?
I bring all of these things up not to rehash old scandals and conspiracy theories, but to remind everyone that while Barack Obama has indeed faced some rather over-the-top criticism during his time in office, he certainly wasn't the first Democratic president to have to deal with rabid opponents. It's become almost conventional wisdom in politics that Obama's opposition has been unprecedented in scope and intensity, but this is just flat-out wrong. Bill Clinton, after all, was impeached during his second term -- a fate Obama likely won't ever have to face.
As we get closer and closer to the heart of the 2016 campaign season, the Republicans are going to pivot from attacking President Obama to aiming squarely at the likely Democratic nominee: Hillary Clinton. The email kerfluffle this week is merely the opening act of this drama, folks.
Republicans and Democrats both are forgetting some history, in their expectations of how this is all going to play out. Democrats seem ready to brush off any ginned-up "scandal" when it comes to Hillary as nothing more than tempests in a teapot. But they may have forgotten how relentlessly Bill was attacked -- when one "scandal" proved not powerful enough to bring Bill down, there was always another one waiting in the wings. This history is entirely likely to be repeated. Republicans have a deep-seated fear of seeing another Clinton in the White House, and they are going to hurl everything including the kitchen sink, the dishwasher, the lead pipes connecting them, the stove, the fridge, and the microwave at Hillary's campaign. And that'll all happen in the first month, most likely. By the end of the campaign, Republicans will be hurling whatever rubble is left at Hillary, in a neverending attempt to take her down. It's never going to stop, in other words, whether the "scandals" are justified or not. So the belief of Democrats that "she'll move on past this" is going to be very short-lived, since next week it'll be something else she'll have to get beyond.
Republicans, however, are experiencing a bit of a memory lapse themselves. What they're going to forget is that no matter how much they attacked Bill Clinton, he always came out of it stronger. Don't believe this was true? Consider that his public approval rating hit its highest point right after his impeachment. He left office with a higher approval rating than anyone since World War II. This was largely because the American public just got tired of the relentless attacks after a while. The Republicans were the boys continually crying "Wolf!" and people eventually felt more sympathy for Clinton than they did outrage over anything he was accused of. This could very well happen again for Hillary. Especially since the public has already largely grown weary of Republican attacks on President Obama.
The "out" party hating the fact that they lost the White House is nothing new in American politics. I'm sure if I were a conservative, I'd have remembered plenty of slights to George W. Bush while he was in office from the Democrats. Since I'm not, I tend to remember the vitriol flung at both Obama and Bill Clinton more (call me biased, I don't mind). It's been said before many times: American politics ain't beanbag.
Many, especially those too young to remember the recent past, tend to characterize all of the attacks on Obama as racism, pure and simple. But to me it's not that simple. Oh, sure, some people attacking Obama are undoubtedly racists. Just as some who will attack Hillary Clinton are bound to be misogynists. But that's too easy an explanation -- or, perhaps, too complicated an explanation. The political divide in this country cuts deep, and almost always has. Opposition to a candidate (or an officeholder) usually stems from this deep-seated revulsion of the other party's agenda. That's my belief, anyway, which I base on no real empirical data or anything.
In 2008, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama led an intensely-fought campaign against each other. But it is worth remembering that all of the attacks against Hillary came from a fellow Democrat. Since she didn't win the Democratic nomination, she never had to face the full-force gale of withering criticism from the Republicans. For the most part, they just hung back and watched Hillary and Barack punch it out in the primaries.
This time around is going to be very different. Hillary, at least at this point in time, stands virtually alone on the Democratic side. She is going to be a very convenient foil for pretty much every Republican contender out there. They're all going to target her in one way or another, and indeed they'll vie for who can rip into her the fiercest. There will be scandals galore served up by Republicans, from now until the race is over. If the emails don't bring her down, they'll think of something else next week, that's almost a certainty.
I don't say all this in defense of Hillary, mind you. And I still think it's too early to be predicting eventual outcomes of a race that hasn't even really gotten started yet. I merely point it out as a historical lesson. It's pretty easy to see that Hillary Clinton is going to be just as controversial a figure (especially among Republicans) as her husband ever was. It's also pretty easy to see that all the energy Republicans have been spending on attacking President Obama will be pretty easily redirected at Hillary Clinton, as will increasingly happen over the next year or so.
But none of it is exactly unprecedented. Those old enough to remember have seen this movie before. Because we're all about to take an extended trip back to the 1990s.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
While it's easy to go all sympathy for Hillary Clinton, just keep one thing in mind..
She is the cause of all her problems..
Or, more accurately, her attitudes are the cause of all her problems..
I have listed them before, but will do so again...
"Rules are for thee and not for me.."
"Let them read my decrees in 140 characters."
"Answering questions is for common people, not for royalty".
What's going to be a fascinating dynamic is to watch which Democrats leap to her defense constantly and which Democrats actually hold her accountable..
Michale
ahhh carp! CW, would ya mind?? :(
But let me say this.. It's not going to be "Back To The 90s"....
The press today is a LOT different than the press in the 1990s.. Back then the press was relentless but still respectful.. They were pit bulls, but they still had some semblance of decency..
The press today is a LOT more "in your face" and a LOT less "with all due respect"....
It appears that Hillary is going to use her 1990 tactics against a 2015 press...
That will be a BIG, a HUGE mistake...
But the show it produces will be fun to watch...
Get yer popcorn ready and buckle up, people.
It's gonna be a great show and a wild ride..
Michale
““Trotting out David Brock to demand a correction from the New York Times for a story that didn’t need a correction, or trotting out James Carville to talk about the right-wing conspiracy, might have worked in the 1990s.
But what has changed is that now there are 300 million reporters and researchers; everyone with a laptop and Internet service now has more information at their fingertips than I ever did in 1998. And they’re deciding on their own whether this a right-wing conspiracy or a left-wing conspiracy, or whether or not it’s right that Hillary Clinton took public emails and kept them in her basement.
The 1990s tactics won’t work in an age where you can’t possibly spin and intimidate 300 million people.”
-Ron Fournier
THAT's why it's going to be different this time around.
And THAT is why Hillary will ultimately get pounded and turned to dust..
Because, as Fournier puts it...
"She is a Pay Phone Candidate In An Iphone World"
Michale
So, basically...
Clinton said that she didn't want to use two emails , one for personal, one for government.. That was too hard for her..
And this lady wants to be PRESIDENT!!???
If she can't master using two different email accounts then I don't want her ANYWHERE near the phone when that 0300 call comes in...
Hell, I manage 12 different and distinct email accounts and I don't break a sweat...
Granted, Hillary is likely a lot busier than I am, but she can't handle 2!???
Obviously, Hillary is not cut out for the job and should just give up her POTUS ambitions before she destroys whatever legacy she has left..
Michale
Let's further dissect Hillary's story..
She was SecState for 4 years...
According to her, she used NO OTHER email but her personal email account that was run on her personal mailserv..
And in her entire time of SecState, she NEVER, not ONE SINGLE TIME, sent a SINGLE classified document via email..
Once again...
I was born AT night... Not LAST night.. :^/
There's your crime.. There's your illegal acts...
Michale
I scored 100% on the quiz! Speaking of cheap tricks, do I get bonus points for remembering the band Cheap Trick? Which I seem to remember goes back to the '70s, so more bonus points for me! In the true spirit of the modern citizen journalist I'm going to be too lazy to fact check this date, but I still want my bonus points! If you agree with my citizen journalism, kindly plagiarize it and distribute to 100 friends via Facebook or a chain E-mail. Or just vilify me if you don't, I'll never know who you are. That's the spirit!
It was during the Clinton years that the rightwing discovered and began to perfect their all-slander-all-the-time tactics. I think it was almost accidental -- there was a desire to damage and delegitimize Bill Clinton; there was Richard Allen Scaife with some money to spend; there was this relatively new cable news landscape in need of stories (and, eventually, Drudge) and there were Repubs prepared to be dirty. They found that if you threw enough mud at the walls it didn't matter what stuck, if anything. There didn't have to be any merit to accusations because there were outlets willing and waiting to repeat any slander and all sorts of operatives who got off on appearing on TV and blowing more smoke.
At the same time we saw Media Consolidation take hold and independent News and actual reporting began their slide to irrelevancy, while "news as Entertainment" and "news in support of the Corporate 1%" began it's ascent.
The repubs found that its easier to destroy things than it is to improve or fix or advance things, plus there's several billionaires who hate the New Deal prepared to spend money so why bother serving the public when you can get rich, get on TV, and create millions of little Michales who believe everything you put out there and consistently vote for people who will happily screw them? There are suckers born every minute and it's so much easier to play them than it is to actually DO anything useful.
Hillary is in a no-win situation. It doesn't matter what she says or does or doesn't do there will be constant scandal-mongering. Validity is utterly beside the point.
However, ANY Democrat will receive the same treatment. Repubs tried their damnedest with Obama. They will do the same to whoever rises to the top. In Hillary's case it's just that there's a lot of old discredited dirt that operatives can take out for another spin -- saves labor. Why invent new un-scandals when you can recycle old ones?
"I manage 12 different and distinct email accounts and I don't break a sweat..."
"Who'dve guessed???? :)
How exactly is EmailGate a "old scandal"??
Don't you find it somewhat ironic that you would slam and attack and vilify Republicans because they slam and attack and vilify Democrats?? :D
I'm just sayin'.... :D
And, by the by... Validity is EXACTLY the point..
Validity is why DEMOCRATS have told Hillary she needs to step up and address EmailGate...
Michale
New York Post Headline..
DELETER OF THE FREE WORLD
Now THAT's funny!! :D
Michale
The one question ya'all have to ask yourselves is this..
Is THIS how you want it to be???
Another Clinton Circus day in and day out?
Michale
Eugene Robinson over at WAPO offers the best take yet on Hillary Clinton and the the personal email account.
Short, no reading required.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/editorial/why-do-the-clintons-continue-to-act-guilty/2015/03/10/b2ebac9a-c77b-11e4-bea5-b893e7ac3fb3_video.html
Eugene Robinson over at WAPO offers the best take yet on Hillary Clinton and the the personal email account.
Short, no reading required.
So, what you (and Robinson) are saying is that with the Clintons there is always smoke, but there never ever EVER will be fire so the American people should give the Clintons a pass because they are, after all, The CLINTONS...
Does that about sum up your's and Robinson's position??
Keep in mind that the Clintons always said there was "nothing there" with Monica Lewinsky...
And yet, we now know different...
So, the claim that there is NEVER a fire with the Clintons is the same claim as "{Crooked Finger} I did not have sex with that woman"...
Michale
I wonder what Democrats would say about private email use by Republicans??
Oh wait.. We don't have to wonder..
“You know, our Constitution is being shredded”
-Hillary Clinton commenting on the Bush Administration use of private email accounts..
So, once again...
What's perfectly OK for a Democrat is a "Constitution Shredder" for a Republican...
Hypocrisy much???
Michale
And the plot thickens..
Did three Hillary Clinton aides use the private 'clintonemail.com' server while she ran the State Department? Two news outlets say it's so
Weekly Standard says State Dept. has evidence Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, Clinton's top two aides at State, used 'clintonemail.com' addresses
Gawker claims Abedin had one along with Phillippe Reines, Clinton's top communications strategist while she was in Washington
Public records on Nexis show Abedin used her clintonemail.com address but the other two haven't been confirmed
Clinton is still embroiled in controversy over admissions that she exclusively used a private, non-government email server while in office
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2990404/Did-three-Hillary-Clinton-aides-use-private-clintonemail-com-server-ran-State-Department-Two-news-outlets-say-s-so.html
So let's see all THOSE emails as well!!
It's going to be a LOOOOOONNNGGGG 18 months, eh?? :D
Michale
M -
Here's another quick clip I think you'll like, by Chris Cillizza
Robinson was dead on, Cillizza is a grazing hit that was just a bit off the bulls eye.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/politics/why-clintons-private-e-mail-address-is-bad-news-for-her/2015/03/03/ec3eba54-c1c8-11e4-a188-8e4971d37a8d_video.html
If you sense a Trojan Horse rolling up to your gate, well first, it's an enormous rabbit, and second, put these two clips together, sand lightly and you have my take on what makes The Clintons The Clintons. I'll get to that later, previous commitments got in the way tonight.
TS,
You can poo poo it all you want..
But the simple fact that Clinton was forced to address the issue BY DEMCORATS shows how much legs this thing has...
Clinton committed a crime when she deleted emails from the server..
It's a toss-up as to whether or not she will campaign for POTUS..
Or be indicted..
Michale
Senior Democrats are increasingly worried that Hillary Rodham Clinton is not ready to run for president, fearing that the clumsy and insular handling of the nine-day fracas over her private e-mails was a warning sign about the campaign expected to launch next month.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-democrats-are-alarmed-about-clintons-readiness-for-a-campaign/2015/03/11/36c0763a-c818-11e4-aa1a-86135599fb0f_story.html
Like I said, TS....
It's not Republicans who are pushing the meme that Hillary is not ready to be POTUS..
It's Democrats...
Michale
If you like, we can FACT CHECK Clinton's Email-Gate presser.. :D
Michale
Oh, I forgot..
FACTS and Fact-Checking are only for Republicans..
They don't apply to Democrats..
Silly me....
Michale
Opposition to a candidate (or an officeholder) usually stems from this deep-seated revulsion of the other party's agenda.
Agenda? I think it's more about identity.
M-
Following up from 17. This is long, but should provide you with material for 10-20 counter posts : )
Robinson's natural history of the Clintons:
1) Perpetual defensive crouch
2) The crouch looks bad, rumors and theories circulate
3) When facts are checked, there is nothing, or at least nothing provable, to most of the rumors and theories.
Robinson basically asks, "Why do they do this?" Why not be more forthcoming, and less defensive?
Cillizza provides a mechanism behind Robinson's observations:
1) The Clinton's don't believe the rules apply to them.
2) Their staff are enablers
3) Everything they do is political
I think Cillizza's observations are basically correct, but they don't explain THE CLINTONS because they apply to pretty much EVERY professional politician that rises through the local, state and or federal system. Therefore, Cillizza's observations have little explanatory power.
Here's what I think is different about the Clinton's:
1) Most modern politicians and their operatives view politics as an exercise in public relations. The Clintons see politics as navigating law and regulations in order to change policies. They recognize the law is complex, often vague on key issues and often internally inconsistent. The Clintons take a very lawyerly approach to politics and aren't afraid to navigate in shallow water if it's the shortest distance to port and the winds and tide seem right. They know where the legal teeth are and where the regulatory gums are. They also clearly distinguish the difference between law and social norms. This is a wonky approach, and difficult to explain in 15 second segments. Do it enough, and you strike bottom a few times. The Clintons are risk prone, most politicians are risk averse.
2) The Clintons are social climbers. They are acutely aware of the class system in American Culture and American Politics. Remember the phrase "America's first black president?"
The Clintons have climbed high and their grand goal is to strike deals across the class system. This is bold, because the higher you are in the American Class System, the more likely you are to deny it exists...to insist the very notion is un-American...hurrumph, hurrumph. The Upper Class is stocked Republican. The lower classes are well aware of the Class System. The lower classes are stocked Democratic.
The Clintons hobnob with the mega rich who will have them because that's where the money is, and money is political power. In doing so, a Clinton runs the risk of appearing a traitor to his/her political constituency. There is a basic tension to Clintonian politics. It's a high wire act, in a high wind. Who wouldn't be nervous and defensive?
3) The Clinton's take on public relations is simple (Carvillesue) and ,once again, very lawyerly. Keep it brief, keep it vague, parse your word very carefully. Don't be your own prosecutor by talking too much. Have plenty of fall back legal defenses. Remember, the law is convoluted. A strong defense is also likely to be convoluted. Let the prosecution peel the onion. As the prosecutor does, he/she begins to look just as lawyerly as you do and is unable to demonstrate there is any there, there to a legal standard. You won't win over everybody, but as long as you win over your base and enough undecideds, you stay in power. Scarred, but in power. This strategy has usually worked well for Clintons in the past (Obama foiled Hillary), and they believe it will work for them in the future. We'll see.
Watch House of Cards. It grocks the Clintons.
My beef with Robinson's position ( and your's incidentally Don't want ya to feel left out. :D) is that it postulates that, with the Clintons, there is always smoke but no fire..
But, as we have learned, there IS sometimes fire... Think of all the denials regarding Lewinsky...
As to the latest scandal, we have ONLY Clinton's word that she did nothing wrong...
But her word isn't worth a tin-plated nickel. Fact check her EmailGate presser..
Are you aware of the legal definition of "co-mingling" funds???
Clinton co-mingled private and government email..
That makes ALL of her emails, every last one of them that went thru her private server, GOVERNMENT email...
She gave up her right to claim privacy when she co-mingled her emails..
She committed a crime when she deleted her alleged "private" emails..
These are the facts..
Now, I get it. She's a Democrat so she is not held to the same standard that ya'all hold Republicans to...
I get that. I understand that..
But fer chreest's sake don't come off with the condescending "nothing ta see here, move along"...
There IS plenty to see. There ISN'T just smoke, there IS fire...
At least be honest and concede that...
Michale
This strategy has usually worked well for Clintons in the past (Obama foiled Hillary), and they believe it will work for them in the future. We'll see.
To be more precise, that strategy has ALWAYS worked with Bill Clinton but has NEVER worked with Hillary Clinton..
The mistake that she is making, the mistake that YA'ALL are making, is assuming that Hillary is the consummate politician that Bill is..
Hillary has all the negatives of a politician but none of the warmth or charm that makes Bill successful...
Michale
Following up from 17. This is long, but should provide you with material for 10-20 counter posts : )
Yea, it's long but basically says one thing..
Other than being defensive, the Clintons never do anything wrong..
And THAT is complete felgercarb...
Clinton did PLENTY wrong...
Do you know how I know??
Because if it had been a GOP SecState ya'all would be making MY exact arguments...
True or False??
Michale
M - The Lewinsky case boiled down to just short of shtupping the help. Bill walked. See 1) "They also clearly distinguish the difference between law and social norms."
As for Hillary, make the case in court. I'm pretty sure she'll win. She knew what the law was...Clinton's are very lawyerly.
This will/should be adjudicated at the ballot box. You don't like violation of a social norm? By all means don't vote for her. BUt, if we strictly enforce social norms on politicians we'll empty the Halls of Congress, White House and Supreme Court. It could be fun...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZegQYgygdw
Because if it had been a GOP SecState ya'all would be making MY exact arguments...
True or False??
I know ya'all think I'm a broken record with that argument, but there is a reason why I use it all the time.
Because it's 10000% true and factual...
If Dick Cheney had set up his own private mailserv and run ALL of his correspondence thru it, ya'all (and the entirety of the Left) would have gone absolutely bat-shit crazy with hysteria...
Is that not an accurate assessment of a comparable situation??
I use the argument a lot because it works...
Simple as that..
Michale
Dick Cheney would have walked. Tremendous discretion to define/change what is classified. Loosely written "serving suggestion" regulations.
If I were to nominate a Republican analog to the Clintons, it would be Chris Christie. Very lawyerly, if not quite as careful about parsing his words. In the end, I expect he'll walk from any prosecution.
M - The Lewinsky case boiled down to just short of shtupping the help. Bill walked. See 1) "They also clearly distinguish the difference between law and social norms."
Regardless... Bill and the entirety of the Democrat Party said, "There is nothing there. Trust me"
And yet there was...
So, the idea that nothing is ever "there" with the Clintons is demonstrably false..
This will/should be adjudicated at the ballot box.
Yes it will... And I am already sure of the outcome..
Hillary actually being the Dem Candidate guarantees a GOP POTUS, even more so than Hillary NOT being the Dem Candidate..
About the only thing that would give Hillary/Whoever a chance in hell is the minting of millions of new Democrat voters...
The point here is not whether Hillary will be our next POTUS.
She won't..
The point here is to get ya'all to concede that Clinton is NOT just a victim of a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"..
It's to get you to concede that she frak'ed up...
Michale
Now, if the message had been, "Yea, I boff'ed the help.. So??" THEN there would have been "nothing there"..
But that wasn't the message now was it??
As for Hillary, make the case in court. I'm pretty sure she'll win. She knew what the law was...Clinton's are very lawyerly.
The law is not on her side in this regard. Again, research the legal concept of Co-Mingling...
Strictly from a LAW standpoint, she is as guilty as sin...
Dick Cheney would have walked. Tremendous discretion to define/change what is classified. Loosely written "serving suggestion" regulations.
Again, you miss the point..
The point is not what would have actually happened...
The point is would ya'all be making the exact same arguments I am making??
And the answer is a clear cut and unequivocal HELL YA...
If I were to nominate a Republican analog to the Clintons, it would be Chris Christie. Very lawyerly, if not quite as careful about parsing his words. In the end, I expect he'll walk from any prosecution.
I don't see the same entitlement and "Rules are for thee and not for mee" that I see in Hillary..
Michale
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/03/10/back-to-the-1990s/#comment-57961
OK, that was kinda tortured..
But I think ya get my point..
:D
Michale
Clintons take a lot of foolish political risks that offer modest political payoffs. I'd make that argument. I think she probably met the letter of the law. Had it researched. The law was weak. It's been tightened, possibly needs to be tighter.
I'm not a lawyer, but my hunch is your co-mingling argument is leaky.
It's to get you to concede that she frak'ed up...
You mean like Karl Rove and other senior members of the Bush team did when they used PRIVATE RNC servers and millions of emails spanning years went missing?
GT
You mean like Karl Rove and other senior members of the Bush team did when they used PRIVATE RNC servers and millions of emails spanning years went missing?
Yes...
If it happened that way, then EXACTLY like that..
THAT is my point...
The Left castigates Karl Rove (who wasn't even a Cabinet Member) yet gives a Dem SecState a pass...
THAT is exactly what I mean..
TS,
I'm not a lawyer, but my hunch is your co-mingling argument is leaky.
Why exactly is the co-mingling argument leaky?
I know a little bit about this legal issue...
If a corporate officer is caught co-mingling personal and corporate funds in an account, guess what??
The ENTIRE account is considered corporate..
How is that any different in this regard where Hillary co-mingled personal and government email??
You say my argument is "leaky"...
I invite ya to elaborate.. :D
Michale
You mean like Karl Rove and other senior members of the Bush team did when they used PRIVATE RNC servers and millions of emails spanning years went missing?
I assume that's the incident where then Hillary Clinton said that the Bush Administration was "shredding the Constitution"...
So, why is it such horrible violation when it's Bush but it's "all smoke" and "nothing there" when it's Hillary??
The blatant and un-acknowledged hypocrisy is exactly my point..
Michale
So, why is it such horrible violation when it's Bush but it's "all smoke" and "nothing there" when it's Hillary??
A lot of hysteria in this matter but I am wondering if we follow the history side bar back to your posts of 2007 when the Rove email thing came to light, will we will find outrage and pages of posts about it or silence?
You accuse us of bias and favoritism of the left but isn't that hypocrisy if you show the same to the right? We may very well be hypocrites but not any more so than you...
M -35
I invite ya to elaborate.. :D
Well, to start, I suspected you weren't a lawyer.
Then I Googled your theory and got no hits. That further raised my suspicions.
State Department is not a corporation. Applying corporate law to it seems a mite iffy to me.
A lot of hysteria in this matter but I am wondering if we follow the history side bar back to your posts of 2007 when the Rove email thing came to light, will we will find outrage and pages of posts about it or silence?
I am wondering the same thing..
By all means.. Have at it..
But there are differences. Rove was an advisor, not a SecState and (possible) future POTUS Candidate.... That right there would not bring it up to the same level...
But that's a minor nit pick...
Feel free to find those comments and let the chips fall where they may... :D
You accuse us of bias and favoritism of the left but isn't that hypocrisy if you show the same to the right? We may very well be hypocrites but not any more so than you...
The difference is you ASSUME that I am being hypocritical..
Whereas since no one here is willing to call a spade a spade with regards to Clinton, the hypocrisy is self-evident...
Michale
Well, to start, I suspected you weren't a lawyer.
And yet I have a wealth of experience in this particular issue :D
Then I Googled your theory and got no hits. That further raised my suspicions.
Strange.. I got 198,00 hits...
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=corporate%20co-mingle
State Department is not a corporation. Applying corporate law to it seems a mite iffy to me.
The concept of "co-mingling" is the same whether it's corporate or not..
Hillary thought she would be cute and hide her government emails amongst her personal emails..
There has also been numerous cases where military people have been charged because they "co-mingled" classified data with their personal computer data...
So, the precedent would not be hard to establish..
Of course, one would have to ignore political ideology to take that step...
Michale
TS,
I get what you are saying...
That co-mingling personal email and government email is not illegal..
In the strictest sense you are correct. There is no specific law..
However, the concept of co-mingling would certainly apply... If Hillary's personal email server is also her government email server and the EXACT same account was used for BOTH, then by law, Hillary needs to preserve ALL the emails...
Put another way...
If Hillary had used the government email account, as she SHOULD have, for government business as WELL as personal business, then would there be any doubt that ALL of the emails should be preserved, regardless of whether or not they were "personal"??
Of course there would be no doubt. They would ALL have to be preserved..
Hillary supplanted the required government account with her own personal account.
As such, the same requirements exist...
ALL emails must be retained..
Michale
James Carville: Bobby Jindal And Louisiana Legislators Are Like 'Dry Humping' Teenagers
The Carville had been released!!!!!!!!! Oh, Joy, The 2016 Presidential Campaign has OFFICIALLY begun!!!! I'm logging it a 14:15 hrs, 3-12-15, temperture 52 degrees, winds from the East at 13mph. Carville saw his shadow. Hillary.gate will last another 8 weeks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/james-carville-bobby-jindal_n_6850842.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
RE - 40. Well, that was pretty general search. Generally pointless. Add Clinton and e-mail search terms. Zip. Strengthening my believe that corporate law doesn't apply to this situation.
According to the NYT, there are multiple precedents for use of private accounts at State. Nothing was ever made of it. I'd add a link, but it's one per post.
Even if ya ignore all the subterfuge and even if there is no illegality to this whatsoever..
Do ya'all really want a POTUS candidate who can't handle more than one electronic device???
I mean, honestly....
Michale
Like I said yesterday, I sense the air is going out of this particular balloon.
Cue sound effect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXXwssdBRYY
This illustrates why YouTube is valued somewhere in the vicinity of $40 Billion :)
Like I said yesterday, I sense the air is going out of this particular balloon.
That sounds like wishful thinking more than anything else..
But don't worry... Even if you are right and the air DOES go out of this particular balloon, there will always be a new balloon just waiting in the wings..
Eventually one of those will be the balloon that breaks the camels back...
Michale
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/12/hackers-probing-clinton-server-cite-security-lapses/
How can this be!???
Hillary said her mailserv was "completely secure" because the Secret Service was guarding it!!
Are you people SURE you don't want to fact-check her Email-Gate presser??? :D
I can't imagine why ya'all wouldn't....
{/sarcasm} :D
Michale
Bruce F. Webster, an IT expert with 40 years of corporate experience -- the last 15 spent testifying on IT issues in civil litigation -- raised the question of whether Clinton's server has been moved at some point. On his blog, "And Still I Persist," Webster entitled his latest post "No, we still don't know where the Clinton server is, was, has been." In an email to Fox News, Webster referenced suggestions that the server remains in Chappaqua, where it was first registered, and stated: "I consider that the least likely location at this point."
Just the original decision to use a private email account, with Clinton’s own surname embedded in it, has baffled the hacker community. The analyst with experience in the intelligence community, a “white hat” hacker -- the kind corporate firms retain to conduct “penetration testing” that exposes businesses’ cybersecurity lapses -- told Fox News: “If we learned that the foreign minister of a major foreign country was using her own private server to send and receive emails, and was relying on outdated commercial software to operate and protect it, that’d be a hallelujah moment for us.”
Yea... Nothing to see here..
Our Secretary Of State was relying on security measures that were nothing more than stone knives and bearskins...
What could POSSIBLY be wrong with that, eh?? :^/
Michale
You accuse us of bias and favoritism of the left but isn't that hypocrisy if you show the same to the right? We may very well be hypocrites but not any more so than you...
I assume from your lack of response that you did not find any evidence of my alleged hypocrisy...
Apology accepted.. :D
Michale