SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Anyone who follows American politics will have heard of Hillary Clinton's email server. Rather than using an official State Department address, she chose to use a private server for her official email. Federal law requires all official email to be archived on government servers. Armchair lawyers have pointed out that it doesn't require the use of government servers to send and receive the email, but the archival requirement is clear. This requirement was clearly violated in this case: in response to a subpoena, Hillary Clinton's private staff extracted emails from her private server and turned them over to the government. The contents of the server itself were never made available to the government, and now she has had the server erased:
Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.
“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.
As Popehat tweeted:
@Popehat
I ask you, who among us hasn't wiped a server clean after its contents were requested by subpoena?
I naively wonder why she isn't in jail, but that's just me. Comments and views from those interested in American politics?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @12:12PM
Your knee-jerk opposition to anyone who self-labels as non-Wrong Wing simply demonstrates that your father beat you excessively when you were a child.
I can't stand Hillary either.
To "Liberal" voters, I say if you want a Republican, vote for a self-labeled Republican.
Why support a warmongering Neoliberal Blue-Dog Republican-Lite?
Why choose someone with no respect for government transparency laws?
Alternatives?
Elizabeth Warren is a first-term senator.
(Declared Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is also a first-term senator.)
Warren has a governmental philosophy of "The most good for the most people".
I see a great future ahead of her.
Cruz, OTOH, is a demagogue--a notorious liar and manipulative clown with ambition beyond his abilities.
I don't think either of those 2 is electable to the top job this cycle.
Warren appears to know that; Cruz doesn't care.
Among those with viable credentials and an interest in the job, Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent) of Vermont is currently closest to what the Democrats and the country need.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:43PM
Alternatives?
Elizabeth Warren is a first-term senator.
Except she's not running.
But Martin O'Malley [vox.com] is.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @10:30PM
-1 Redundant
I already indicated that Warren knows she doesn't yet have the gravitas and the organization required to win at the national level.
+1 Informative
Yes, former Maryland governor O'Malley supports several New Deal ideas.
-1 Offtopic
No, he hasn't declared his candidacy.
No Democrat has declared as a presidential candidate thus far.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:38PM
Warren is slightly better than Clinton. With Clinton, they are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel. Warren floats in the muck a couple inches off the bottom of the same barrel.
I don't expect that either party will nominate the best of all possible women (or men) in America. Politics are politics, and the best people stay the hell out of politics. The people most qualified to rule or lead are just about the least likely to want the job!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:41AM
Principle of the least-bad option: If it's a choice between a warmongering neo-liberal beholden to an anti-war party base and a warmongering neo-conservative beholden to a pro-war party base, you want the one who's at least going to have some internal opposition.
Strategically, though, my rule is always to vote for the least-bad option in a close election between least-bad and absolutely-terrible, and vote for the candidate I really want that has no chance of winning in non-close elections. That's one reason in my state the Green Party candidate for governor polled higher than that party ever has before in that state.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.