Clinton: "secret email accounts" are shredding the Constitution

[Santander]

It really sickens me that national security and transparency concerns have to be framed by whether you have a D or an R next to your name.

I'm sure you felt the same when Bush and Cheney deleted thousands of e-mails and nobody bothered. 

I don't remember Bush and Cheney setting up personal, private email servers and making themselves responsible for which messages they decided to share with the public. But yes, if Bush and/or Chaney did that, then they too should face legal consequences, as that's what we mean by "rule of law" (in case you were wondering).

Cheney deleted massive amounts of emails before he left office.

So did Colin Powell.

If you are seriously comparing Colin Powell's use of personal email during a time when the State Dept. had no rules against it and was still stuck in the last century with the abuses of Clinton and Cheney, you are out of your mind.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Well I mean, you can't say she isn't experienced.

"Experience" is a tricky term, though. If we're talking about resume then yes, but (no, I'm not making comparison here) so was James Buchanan's resume.

I don't consider her to be particularly accomplished in public office. She spend 8 years as a no-record Senator (all she did was basically preparing for the 2008 run), and as Secretary of State her record is mixed at the very best.

[Ebsy]

It really sickens me that national security and transparency concerns have to be framed by whether you have a D or an R next to your name.

I'm sure you felt the same when Bush and Cheney deleted thousands of e-mails and nobody bothered. 

I don't remember Bush and Cheney setting up personal, private email servers and making themselves responsible for which messages they decided to share with the public. But yes, if Bush and/or Chaney did that, then they too should face legal consequences, as that's what we mean by "rule of law" (in case you were wondering).

Cheney deleted massive amounts of emails before he left office.

So did Colin Powell.

If you are seriously comparing Colin Powell's use of personal email during a time when the State Dept. had no rules against it and was still stuck in the last century with the abuses of Clinton and Cheney, you are out of your mind.

Well considering that the IGO report deemed his actions as just as egregious as Clinton's, I'm not sure how it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.

[SillyAmerican]

It really sickens me that national security and transparency concerns have to be framed by whether you have a D or an R next to your name.

I'm sure you felt the same when Bush and Cheney deleted thousands of e-mails and nobody bothered. 

I don't remember Bush and Cheney setting up personal, private email servers and making themselves responsible for which messages they decided to share with the public. But yes, if Bush and/or Chaney did that, then they too should face legal consequences, as that's what we mean by "rule of law" (in case you were wondering).

Cheney deleted massive amounts of emails before he left office.

So did Colin Powell.

If you are seriously comparing Colin Powell's use of personal email during a time when the State Dept. had no rules against it and was still stuck in the last century with the abuses of Clinton and Cheney, you are out of your mind.

Well considering that the IGO report deemed his actions as just as egregious as Clinton's, I'm not sure how it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.

You are absolutely right: clearly Cheney, Powell, and Clinton should all be eliminated from the possibility of holding the highest office of the land.

[Mr. Reactionary]

It really sickens me that national security and transparency concerns have to be framed by whether you have a D or an R next to your name.

I'm sure you felt the same when Bush and Cheney deleted thousands of e-mails and nobody bothered. 

Yes. Hillary Clinton is just like Bush and Cheney. Good comparison. Everyone keep that in the back of your minds. Hillary Clinton = W and Dick Cheney.

[Virginiá]

I'm a bit rusty on this issue, but wasn't Bush's issue far more severe? Wiki says: "In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost"

1. Hillary turned over thousands of emails as required

2. Hillary wasn't POTUS (personally I hold POTUS to a higher standard than SoS and I expect Hillary not to be shady about it after this whole mess)

3. 22+ million emails deleted is far, far worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm a bit rusty on this issue, but wasn't Bush's issue far more severe? Wiki says: "In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost"

1. Hillary turned over thousands of emails as required

2. Hillary wasn't POTUS (personally I hold POTUS to a higher standard than SoS and I expect Hillary not to be shady about it after this whole mess)

3. 22+ million emails deleted is far, far worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

To paraphrase Richard Nixon: "When a Republican do does it, that means it is not illegal."

[MK]

I expected of her to shred the Constitution.
I just believe the people are not going to let her.

The 2nd amendment will surely be shredded. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

I expected of her to shred the Constitution.
I just believe the people are not going to let her.

The 2nd amendment will surely be shredded. 

https://youtu.be/Fw0fTmnIVKQ

[JRP1994]

Clinton and Ted Cruz are similar in one regard:

- Both of them are willing to say what they need to say to get power, facts and prior positions be damned.

[Ljube]

Clinton and Ted Cruz are similar in one regard:

- Both of them are willing to say what they need to say to get power, facts and prior positions be damned.

And both of them are willing to do anything to realize their world view, laws and the Constitution be damned.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Clinton and Ted Cruz are similar in one regard:

- Both of them are willing to say what they need to say to get power, facts and prior positions be damned.

As opposed to always honest Donald Trump?

[SillyAmerican]

I'm a bit rusty on this issue, but wasn't Bush's issue far more severe? Wiki says: "In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost"

1. Hillary turned over thousands of emails as required

2. Hillary wasn't POTUS (personally I hold POTUS to a higher standard than SoS and I expect Hillary not to be shady about it after this whole mess)

3. 22+ million emails deleted is far, far worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Per your points:

1. Hillary turned over her server after thinking that she'd wiped things off of it, but of course much of the email messages in question were recovered. To me, the simple act of deleting those may represent an obstruction of justice.

2. Agreed, POTUS should be held to the highest standard. However, the SoS is 4th in line to the presidency, so the standard is still pretty high for that position. And the standard for a potential POTUS must also very be high, and we should understand what candidates have done in the past. (Or are you saying we should not look at how folks have operated while holding other offices?)

3. Agreed. So why didn't the Obama DoJ do something about that? And folks defending Clinton want to point to other people who have deleted emails, which is not the central issue. What is most problematic is the handling of extremely sensitive information in an unsecure fashion. So I liken the issue more to what got General Petraeus in trouble. Per wikipedia info:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

1. Hillary turned over her server after thinking that she'd wiped things off of it, but of course much of the email messages in question were recovered. To me, the simple act of deleting those may represent an obstruction of justice.

True, she did wipe it. Was she required to turn over personal emails as well though? As I understand it, many emails would also be available on the accounts of people she communicated with. Either way, she shouldn't have done this and once again I don't hesitate to call her stupid and without regard for oversight for it, but whatever emails she didn't turn over don't at all compare to Bush's. Not even close.

Bush seemed to have his entire inner circle and many other White House employees using the private email system, creating a situation where he was essentially operating in secret. 22 millions emails is not insignificant. I'm not privy to how many emails the west wing may work with on a yearly basis, but that sounds like Bush/RNC "lost" at least a couple years worth of emails for almost everyone working closely with the president. This is so radically worse than Clinton's issue that almost the only thing they have in common is they involved emails.

2. Agreed, POTUS should be held to the highest standard. However, the SoS is 4th in line to the presidency, so the standard is still pretty high for that position. And the standard for a potential POTUS must also very be high, and we should understand what candidates have done in the past. (Or are you saying we should not look at how folks have operated while holding other offices?)

I'd like to think that the standards increase a little the closer you get to the presidency. However, there have to be limits here. The Secretary of Transportation is also in the presidential line of succession yet I'm not sure I care much at all what he does what his emails (though maybe I should). Also it's worth saying that while SoS is high up in that succession list, the chances of the current SoS being in a situation where they become president via succession is almost nil, and if we do have a situation like that, I would guess we have much, much bigger problems than their email usage. But yes, I do agree with you in principle I suppose.

3. Agreed. So why didn't the Obama DoJ do something about that? And folks defending Clinton want to point to other people who have deleted emails, which is not the central issue. What is most problematic is the handling of extremely sensitive information in an unsecure fashion. So I liken the issue more to what got General Petraeus in trouble. Per wikipedia info:

Not sure. It seems to be a well-established precedent now that unless it just cannot be avoided, succeeding administrations don't investigate (with purpose) previous administrations. Probably so they themselves don't get investigated.

Petraeus was more direct, though. He willfully shared classified documents with someone he knew shouldn't have them, and he acted covertly to smuggle them out of federal buildings. His intention was malicious, whereas Hillary was just being lazy and thoughtless and transmitting documents that either weren't classified at the time and/or to people that were also authorized to have them. They aren't really the same except for the fact that they both involved classified information.