As they say "What's in it for her?"

I'm pretty well-versed in certain corporate and computer trickery but neither I nor anyone that I know personally (some of whom have substantial political experience) can explain just why -- that if these allegations about Hillary Clinton are true (I'm not saying they are), then what would have been the benefit to her that would justify the risk she was taking? I highly doubt that it was a case of "Oh, I'm just going to behave in a highly negligent or even criminal manner over email just for fun!"

I personally think that the using of private email at the State Department may have been a way to engage in insider trading or secret intervention into a blind trust, but I'm not sure how that would work per se (besides, doing that over email is just stupid anyhow.) Does anyone have any more realistic knowledge of this?

Thanks.

Clintons knew there was a risk in her using it but not as bad as the next (Republican) administration just having access to it and saying, "Wait? You actually wanted Gaddafi out so you could flood Europe with immigrants? Woo, you swear to the wahhabi oath?"

As long as Obama is in the office, the more damaging details of the emails will never get out. I think the bit about making fun of Great Britain was leaked out to keep the limeys in check.

>>2
You didn't answer the question in any way, shape, or form. Not even a single word of your post concerned my question.

Freedom. Or uppityness. It's always one of those two.

More importantly: why should we give a shut?

http://i.imgur.com/bv7W2x3.gif

Good rednecky answer!

More importantly: why should we give a shit that you feel that one shouldn't give a shit?

That's a good attitude though, actually. You could be my "boss" or parent anyday!

I'm not saying we shouldn't give a shit. If you notice, I'm asking why we should give a shit, which you don't provide an answer for. This all seems like typical 24-hour news cycle filler type bullshit.

This all seems like typical 24-hour news cycle filler type bullshit. Ah, not really. It's in the mainstream establishment press quite a bit as well. The main significance of this story is its secondary effect on the Clinton campaign. So, anyone interested in politics is going to be interested in that.

Moreover, like I was implying with my "parent or boss" comment above, (and I'm not all about rules myself, in fact, I've done prison time in the last fifteen years), but you know, for people in positions of responsibility, there are rules, and not even hard rules to follow. In the Mafia, if you break the rules, you get whacked out. In the State Department, breaking the rules (or at least a strong suspicion thereof) means you get investigated at least. Furthermore, this is obviously not a solely politically motivated investigation. Now the federal courts and FBI are involved.

All of this is magnified due to Clinton's frontrunner status. I agree, if she was a retired private citizen right now, one probably wouldn't give a shit, as you say.

Watergate does not bother me. Does your conscience bother you?

Tell me true.

Another example of a facially "who cares?" type deal that became significant because of its political consequences was the Whitewater/Lewinsky scandal of 1998-99. I'm sure you remember that. So one would say "who gives a shit" that the President got sucked off; but you can't say "who gives a shit" to the scandal itself, which pretty much overwhelmed the second term of Clinton, led to his impeachment (Not even Nixon got impeached), and may have put Bush in the White House. (One of the many little things that cost Gore the election.)

The current political situation really highlights the hypocrisy of those who identify as "Democrats". They held demonstrations during the Iraq war, perhaps rightly so, but nonetheless the war was held against those who publicly cried out for the death of America (Saddam Hussein, and the generals who now lead ISIS). But when Obama is in power, in league with Turkey to mainly make sure the Syrian government, who should be considered the last outpost against ISIS, is defeated, no protesters can be heard. Obama was determined to take out Assad, Putin interwined, that deed was put on hold, now wait for a couple of months and nobody cares. They are directly and indirectly making sure the Syrian government can never win against ISIS, the civilian death toll from the US lead attacks equal and surpassing anything during the Iraq war. This was the guy USA could have dealt with, not a rabid dog such as Saddam Hussein. They are going to take him out anyway in order to have a bit more "sustainable" Islamic state on the ruins of Damascus with America getting a percentage of the oil.

Perhaps a chance that the access to her gov issued e-mail is cumbersome and it was just quicker and easier to use her own e-mail?

I for one, have had to use remote access for current and past jobs and it's always been a nightmare. It can literally take 3 or 4 minutes to log in which seems like 10 when you're staring at your computer and waiting for connections and pages to load.

It's sometimes shocking to realize what people do every day for the "quick" , "easy" or "convenient" route vs what is required or appropriate.

Another "obvious" thought is she didn't want her messages monitored.

Just a random thought, but we'll surely never know.

Perhaps a chance that the access to her gov issued e-mail is cumbersome and it was just quicker and easier to use her own e-mail?

This could be. If that's the case, perhaps she should just apologize and move on, if she can do so without getting indicted. That would also stave off the ominous speculation about

Another "obvious" thought is she didn't want her messages monitored.

Why?

Because her predecessors as SecState, Republicans Colin Powell & Condi Rice, did exactly the same thing.

And Powell & Rice used private email during the planning, run-up and execution of a U.S. invasion/occupation of a foreign (enemy) power.

And apparently, none of this -- during the tenures of Powell, Rice and Clinton -- was illegal.

John Kerry is the first SecState to exclusively use government email since the advent of the digital age.

How come Fox News and the GOP weren't concerned -- at all -- about Powell & Rice?

And apparently, none of this -- during the tenures of Powell, Rice and Clinton -- was illegal.

If what you are saying is true, then Clinton has an absolute defense to the allegations, right?

Powell gave an interview on one of the networks within the last two weeks essentially stating (re: Clinton's email), "What's the big deal? I did the same thing the whole time I was there -- and nobody had a problem with it."

Interesting that snippets of that interview aren't getting played (at all), unlike, say, Donald Trump showing up for jury duty.

Snippets are snippets. I'd rather be doing whippets. Or whip-its. Whip it good.

In any case, if she has an aboslute defense to these claims (i.e. it was not improper or illegal at the time) then there is nothing to worry about. There has to be a reason her people aren't stating this. Now the emails have been subpoenaed and there is talk swirling around of an eighteen and a half minute gap stuff, not good!

I've spent most of the afternoon reading all about this issue (I get full Lexis-Nexis through a friend). The main issue of the private email server for all St. Dept. business appears to be in a legal gray area.

The allegation of the "email scrubbing" appears too much like Rose Mary Wooods for anyone that knows about Watergate, that can't be good.

I'm usually wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if this whole "scandal" gets out of control by the end of the year. H-Dogg has enough problems as-is (If she was all that great, she would have won the election in 2008, for instance, yet she loses to some unknown black dude with zero experience.)

modern day watergate tapes

I've had to work with classified information before and everything she did was completely illegal. We could never even use a computer that was not secured, let alone a private server. That would have been grounds for termination and then criminal action.

The amazing thing is she didn't even get caught until Gowdy started the investigation on Benghazi.

If she were not a Clinton, she would be facing serious prison time.

All of the political/government elite are above the law. I don't see anyone prosecuting Bush and Cheney for their illegal torture program or war crimes. As long as you're committing your crimes through the official state apparatus, you're pretty much protected. Otherwise, we'd have to throw most everyone at the highest levels of the Federal government in jail.

My point here is that it's not a partisan thing, it's a class thing. America doesn't prosecute its political elite.

There is a reason why.

Bush went through all the legal channels before implementing EITs.

A more practical reason that Clinton is not being prosecuted is that, even if she did everything she's accused of doing, the acts appear to be in a legal grey area (as of right now.) If the issue were cut and dried (as in Clinton did X and broke rule Y) then she would have been indicted already, as she's unequivocally admitted that she used a private email server for State Department business.

One funny thing I learned today is that Colin Powell is also under a National Records and Achives Department investigation for the same thing, after he also publicly admitted he did the same thing during his tenure. Of course, Colin Powell is not a party frontrunner for President of the United States either.

Colin Powell had his own private server?

And sent and received classified and top secret info?

And had the server wiped?

And allowed people without security clearance to go through it?

If so, he should be under just as much trouble as Hillary.

I don't honestly care. It wasn't even illegal when she did it if anyone actually did their research. I don't care why she did it, don't care that she did it, it's non news just like Whitewater and her "involvement" in Benghazi (Notice I didn't say Benghazi was non news which is what someone will accuse me of).

It wasn't even illegal when she did it if anyone actually did their research.

My god! Why didn't anyone else think of that??? You just cracked the case, Unopened Door! Genius!

I have an idea, since you just blew the case wide open and totally exonerated Clinton and killed the issue once and for all since you "did your research," I'll give you a couple phone numbers to call so you can put this matter to bed once and for all!

U.S. State Department Inspector General Steve A. Linick, (202) 663-0340,

and you might as well call the F.B.I. and tell them the same thing, "no worry, I did my research, everything is okay!"

I really don't have J. Edgar's private office number but I do have their main number, which is (202) 324-3000.

Knock yourself out! Might I suggest also telling the State Department that you "googled it, and yeah, Hillary's in the clear. I did my research, why didn't you do your research, as it wasn't even illegal when she did it if anyone actually did their research."