Because you haven’t heard this absolutely everywhere else already
ABC reports: Hillary Clinton Was in Violation of State Dept. Policy for Nearly 6 Years
First, the big guns, and from one side of Hillary’s mouth, at that:
Back when she last ran for president, Clinton was vocal about other government officials who use private emails that circumvent automatic government archiving.
“Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts,” she said at an event in 2007, indirectly indicting the Republican administration. “It’s a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok.”
Then, directly addressing the third biggest beef I’ve got with her (first being her neoliberal inclinations, second being her abundant mendacity, which is a matter of record at this stage), her failure at basic PR. As I see it, the Secretary of State is essentially the head honcho of US PR, and she rather sucked at it. Now that she has a candidacy on the line, she hasn’t improved even a little.
A spokesman for Clinton did not respond to ABC News’ requests for comment.
This is no two-bit blogger she’s ignoring.
Clinton tweeted late Wednesday that she has asked the State Department to publicly release all the emails she turned over, but she has otherwise remained silent on the controversy.
Maybe our esteemed Dr. Smith can weigh in on whether or not this is how a damaged brand runs damage control.
If this is what we get out of Secretary of State Clinton and erstwhile all-but-coronated soon-to-be Candidate Clinton, just imagine what a President Hillary would have in store for us over the course of four years of more neoliberal hijinks, blatant lies to the public, hypocrisy, and the arrogance of acting out a belief that rules are for all those other schmucks. I can only barely imagine a scenario where she even qualifies as a lesser evil. Give me President Gohmert any day. At least he’s so goofy as to be a lame duck from day one.
Reblogged this on Ars Skeptica.
IT’S AMAZING how you and the NY Times have included half truths in your writing. All major news outlets – except FOX News – have rounded out the story by including facts that were omitted from previous reporting. 1) The law requiring the Secretary of State to utilize a government assigned email was passed AFTER she left office. 2) She followed precedent established by previous Secretaries of State who also utilized private email. 3) This ‘revelation’ was ‘uncovered’ during the Benghazi hearings when her emails were subpoenaed. 4) Secretary of State Clinton’s emails were, in fact, archived and also turned over when she left office (all of them). 5) The transmittal of sensitive and classified material is RARELY done through any email – government or private. This story is another example of poor research masquerading as a newsworthy ‘headline.’
Thank you for your comment. Since ABC apparently doesn’t count as a major news outlet, I’m not sure what to make of the quality of the remainder of your reasoning. A trustworthy news outlet? I’ve got my doubts. Major? Undoubtedly. You make strong claims but don’t back them up with citations. Personally, I’m about to be traveling for several days and won’t have the time to pick nits for a bit. After that I’ve got four whole days of planned downtime, so I’ll commence with the nitpicking then.
In any event, I welcome disagreement. It makes for a far better discussion than *crickets* any day. Here’s hoping this topic gets the discussion it rightly deserves.
Hmmmmm. Not sure this is a big deal, but there are many reasons to be uncomfortable with Hillary, not the least of which is the problem of dynastic U.S. politics–we could have three Bushes and three Clintons before this is all over. Having said that, there does seem to be some misogynism on the part of the media re Hillary.
Have you seen the mash up where Bill and Hillary used the same speech, word for word? At one level, it’s no big deal. Pols re-use speeches all the time (and all the pro’s will tell you this is a good idea.) Basically BO got to Prez with one speech. But they usually re-use their own, not each other’s.
Flying out in a few hours, but here’s a couple of links for consideration.
1) Via ABC (with a somewhat more cautious hed): Hillary Clinton Emails: A Timeline of What Rules Were Allegedly Ignored
2) Via The Guardian (and indicative of why I think this is a huge deal): Hillary Clinton email scandal: five burning questions that need answers
I haven’t dove into this in detail yet because it will have zero bearing on my vote, but when I do I’ll likely be ignoring any and all US mainstream media. That Guardian link is where I’d start. They’re about a million times more trustworthy than all the American networks combined.