Because children raised by single parents or by parents that have to spread their attention across multiple households where they've fathered multiple children are at a huge disadvantage. They are far more likely to wind up neglecting school, falling into troublesome social circles, and becoming caught up in crime and substance abuse. Don't pretend for a second that you don't understand that reality.
"I'm making an observation about yet another person's lazy deflection and ad hominem rhetoric used to avoid addressing the actual issues being raised." i.e. taking offense.
What? You consider pointing out the truth to be "taking offense?" I supposed it's possible you may have your own personal feelings wounded by talking about the substance of the matter, but it's more likely you're using all of your projected umbrage to continue, again, to avoid actually talking about the matter at hand. Aren't you even a little embarassed?
Why are you taking offense?! He didn't say anything negative about Fox did he?
I'm not taking offense, I'm making an observation about yet another person's lazy deflection and ad hominem rhetoric used to avoid addressing the actual issues being raised.
How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you use terms like "lazy left"
Because in my experience, that sort of lazy ad hominem is most frequently practiced by people on the left of the political spectrum. The reflexive Fox! Fox! Fox! is a classic example.
I'm willing to bargain that they are subject to more racism than whites are on a daily basis
Depends on the location and the people involved. In some cases, no - absolutely not the case. But in places where it's true, videos of white idiots chanting something racist are universally held up to ridicule and condemnation in the media (including on Fox! Fox! Fox!), whereas the Sharptons of the world who go out of their way to foment that sort of crap going the other direction are rewarded with high-paying media jobs, lots of slack on their huge tax evasion, etc.
Racist rants should be universally held up for shame, but the media - especially the proudly left-leaning outlets - are absolutely duplicitous on that subject.
So, again, here's you refusing to even dabble in a discussion about the points raised, and simply responding with the classically lazy left ad hominem. So predictable.
Let's try again. Would you say that, as mentioned above, black culture in the US has a different license to rant and chant racist nonsense without the same consequences as other groups? Yes or no. Do you concede that there is a double standard, or will you just say Fox! Fox! Fox! in order to avoid addressing that unfortunate reality?
In other news, strictly black-only frats and sororities have all also been disbanded for being racially exclusive, even when they have new pledges march around in militant formations chanting Nation Of Islam sayings and trying to intimidate white students on campus. Oops! That hasn't happened, and never will. Funny about that.
I guess the proto-Republicans don't fall far from their daddy's apple tree.
Remind me again which party was the one perpetuating segregation and doing everything possible at the legislative and executive level in the south to prevent the progress of the civil rights movement? Oh, right, it was democrats. Remind me again which movement was championing mandatory sterilization of inferior women, eugenics, and other charming Master Race type strategies? Oh, right, it was the founding Progressives - a group that to this day is absolutely obsessed with labeling people, keeping minorities in low-class government dependency, and anxious at every turn to lock down free speech when people don't agree with them.
The inheritors of those groups - contemporary Democrats and Progressives - haven't really changed their outlook a bit. They're entirely about thinking the least of minorities, and proclaiming their own elites as the group best suited to tend to them, like zoo animals, through the establishment and maintenance of an elaborate nanny state that knows best how to nurse them along. It was odious from the beginning, and still is. Jackass frat boys deserve the scorn they earn. Truly insidious left power mongers deserve a lot worse for the decades of misery they're proud to perpetuate.
Why blame Obama? This is the FAA, an independent authority.
Because that agency's directory is part of his political appointee group, and answer directly to him. They (the FAA) were tasked by law, in congress, to act on this a long time ago, and they (the FAA, as directed by Obama's appointee Huerta) have been deliberately and thoroughly dragging their feet. They're just getting around to looking for comments on part of a body of regulations in this area that the law required them to already have in place, done, finished and usable by commercial operators this year. Considering Obama's willingness to "use his pen and his phone" to issue executive orders that directly contradict the law and the constitution, he should have no problem calling up the guys who reports to him in DoT and FAA and saying, "Obey the law and wrap up these new regulations on time" - because untold billions of dollars and thousands of new jobs and businesses are being held back.
Then Congress ordered them to pass regulations, which they have grumpily done.
No, they have NOT done it. They have been piddling around it, and have just started one aspect of it, very late. Meanwhile companies with billions to invest aren't allowed to even hover a quadcopter in their parking lot to test out a new camera or agricultural sensor system because there are no federal permits to be had, only nearly impossible to get waivers that include such nice features as all of the engineers who want to put a 10-pound multirotor 10 feet in the air having to each have actual pilots licenses. That sort of FAA insanity, allowed to fester by the agency's director, who sets policy priorities and who reports to Obama, is a completely self-inflicted wound on the US economy. Inexcusable. Meanwhile, a kid who wants to fly a DJI Phantom for fun to look at the roof of his house can do so because it's a "model," but if he steps 50 feet to the right and does it at his neighbor's request to check their roof gutters for $20, he faces a nice $10,000 fine from the FAA. The Nanny State paradise hard at work making everyone's lives better.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)'s 2009 requirements include Section 1236.22: "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."
Clinton did not do this. Congressional investigations (run by Democrats) into affairs like the Benghazi mess concluded - after interviews with her office, among others - that they'd reviewed all records at State that might bear on the matter. They didn't know, and Clinton completely avoided mentioning that all of her email at the time was conducted from a private server in her own house, and that the State Department had none of those records, since she hadn't disclosed their existence, or passed them along. She didn't hand over any email until she was told do, as fallout from the congress finding out about her secret, non-archived system.
And now we find that there are large date-range gaps in what she provided to State. Including, of course dates that included her travel to Libya, during which she's famously pictured hammering away on her Blackberry. Shocking, huh.
I also know that you're prejudiced against her, since your arguments are largely based on her personality and your suspicions.
No, she has earned my distrust by her well-documented conduct during years of public life. Stonewalling for years on the provision of subpoenaed records from her Rose law firm... only to have those records mysteriously materialize in a tidy stack in the White House residence much later. Her getting fired from her job during the Watergate investigation, specifically because of her unethical behavior. Her atrocious conduct during the "travelgate" mess in her husband's administration, and her refusal to disclose who was involved, on the public dime, in her husband's empowering of her to come up with a (catastrophically foolish, and of course completely spurned) replacement for the nation's health care system. It goes on and on. She has a well-documented track record of secrecy even as she preached transparency. This is just another incredible example of her terrible judgement and duplicitous behavior in her quest for power.
The question isn't whether I'm biased, the question is how on earth you're not feeling the same way? What made you such a fan that you're willing to overlook all of that - was it her incredibly shrewd "reset" program with Russia, complete with cheesy button prop? Russians are probably still laughing themselves silly over that one. Or perhaps it was some other accomplishment? Please, name a few!
Your 'Climate Skepticism' (global warming denial) is very thinly veiled. Top points for smugness, though.
No, your 'Agenda Denial' is very thinly veiled. Trotting out your straw man about someone "denying" climate change is the lazy way to avoid addressing the real issue. The real issue is that people are making specific claims about "settled science" model predictions of exactly X number of inches of ocean change, or Y change in temperature or precipitation in a given area, or Z change in glacier or sea ice, which clearly means that Policy A and Tax B and Redistribution Of Income Model C are clearly required and should be run by newly established International Entity D staffed by newly needed bureaucrats E, F, and G, all of whom stand to gain the power to steer vast sums of money to their own cherry-picked NGOs, contractors, and kickback-powered corrupt third world governments.
The biggest backers for calling the models correct and science "settled" are those who have a vested interest in a huge new government-layer middleman operation with enormous reach into daily lives and cash flow across all industries and societies. There are a class of people who really see themselves as perfect for that role, and look for every opportunity to mandate the existence of such.
The main denial in play here is the denial that such people and such a fervently wished-for agenda exist.
If the two of us ever get into a fight to the death, I'll gladly be the loser walking away.
This.
And Mr. "There is no winnable war" needs to re-examine even some recent history. Does he really think that reborn, modern economies like Germany's represent the outcome of a war not won by those who reacted to that country's earlier aggression? Does he really think that the communists now running Vietnam didn't win their conflict? Does he really think that the rebels in the American colonies didn't win their war with the British crown?
Gaseous platitudes about such things made in an attempt to wish away groups like ISIS (if we just say that wars can't be won, they'll stop lopping off people's heads, right?) are ridiculous. War is horrible, but they can and have been won. Ask the Imperial Japanese Navy.
Since she handed over a large number of emails, there's no reason to conclude she didn't hand over all the ones she was required to hand over.
No. The fact that she set up a home-brew system to avoid the State Department's record keeping in the first place, and the fact she's been stonewalling requests for official mail for years, and is her own gatekeeper on the message she decides State should be allowed to see - combine that with her long history of obfuscation, ethics problems, and working with her husband's supporters to engage in seriously sleazy tactics - the burden is very much on you to explain why you think her private stash has been delivered in whole and intact to State when everything in her history and everything about this entire scenario screams the exact opposite.
In fact, to plow through her "official" mail (you know, the stuff she couldn't be troubled to mirror in her department's archiving system the way that the 2009 regulation required her to do), she used employees of her family's business - and that operation is funded in large part by big contributions from foreign governments and other entities from which she solicited money while she was wandering the world as Secretary of State.
We know Kerry is doing things differently, due to a change in the law.
Both Kerry and Clinton were subject to 2009's regulation. But you already know that.
It is hilarious, though, to play back her nagging lectures about other people using private email at all, and to know that, for example, an ambassador from her department was given the axe for using private email.
The fact that you seem to anxious to write off her behavior as completely reasonable says nothing about her, but a whole lot about your very strange world view.
A significant portion of people looked at her address and understood exactly what she was doing form the start.
Just not her boss, the guy who promised the "most transparent administration in history?" He's what... just too obtuse? Or perhaps just too disingenuous? No doubt a lot of people DID infer that her obvious motive for running her shadow State Department comms system was her interest in doing things like peddling her influence in exchange for huge donations to her family business from foreign governments, and were quite pleased to have those sorts of interactions off the record.
But that doesn't mean that her routine back and forth with other US government email correspondents was making those other people think she was deliberately avoiding passing copies along to the State systems as the 2009 regulation required. I suppose people who know her personally know how evasive and dishonest she can be, and they just saw Hillary being Hillary, but with the blessings of Obama.
why not send her to the prison so that she can enjoy some big hungry guys doing terrible things to her? Would this qualify as wellness or just punishment?
How about her party finally just acknowledge that she's not to be trusted, and stop presuming she's the next POTUS.
I suppose all these other foreign ministers that she was talking to, should have made a documentary donation to US congress too or else get bombed into stone age as it should be, or?
The legal issue is the fact that she was using a personal email to evade record keeping requirements. That much would be obvious to someone by the fact she was using a personal email address.
But what couldn't be obvious to everyone else was that despite perhaps being in an e-mail swap with her and assuming whatever they might about that, she didn't even have (and thus use, even for forwarding/mirroring) an official government mailbox to use as the legally required dumping ground. A reasonable person might assume that she was keeping up with the 2009 regulation to store her correspondence on a government system by more indirect means - but she was carefully avoiding compliance with that reg.
known only to the select few of anyone with whom she exchanged email.
You really think that everyone swapping email with her knew that their communications were being stored on a poorly configured server kept in her house? So far, the general level of panic being displayed by her many party confidants and lots of people in the business suggests that yes, indeed, the completely absurd circumstances were indeed a secret.
No, she eventually turned over only those emails that she and her personal advisors decided to hand over. Because she chose to conduct her official government business off a badly secured server in her own house and without any IT governance from her agency, we actually have no idea whatsoever what she's decided to leave out. If she'd been actually using the system that her own underlings told her she should use in order to secure and archive her communications, FOIA requests could tell us the story. But instead, we have to trust a person who - the day she was sworn in - immediately set up a system to keep her official communication off the record.
The fact that she did something that would be illegal if she did it now is irrelevant.
It was illegal before, too. It's just illegal on more than one front, now.
And of course we have congressional subpoenas looking for exactly this sort of communication now because they're now aware it exists, despite earlier investigations concluding that there was no email like this at all, and she and her staff - who knew exactly what they were looking for - didn't say a peep about the existence of tens of thousands of them.
Let's be realistic... Most high level government officials don't use email at all
That's just factually incorrect. Take for example Obama's special hot-rodded Blackberry, which he apparently uses for all sorts of direct personal e-communication. And of course there's the issue at hand (Hillary's email) which numbered in the tens of thousands... but those are just the ones that her staff, after the fact, had laundered and decided under her direction were OK to pass along to the systems at State so there'd be copies. Thousands and thousands of emails is the opposite of "don't use email at all."
The newer law about such officials having to forward ALL such correspondence to their official mailboxes within 20 days is a direct result of it being apparent just how much government officials DO use email, all day, every day. It's why it's so fascinating to see tens of thousands of them being brought back to life from the abyss after the new director of the IRS swore there were no backups of Lois Lerner's comms during her supervision of the politicized treatment of non-profit applications. People in the bureaucratic food chain AND those at the tops of agencies and branches use email constantly, since they can do that asynchronously (compared to elaborately timed phone calls).
But Obama campaigned on changing every aspect of such things, and said that he would guarantee the most transparent administration in history. And here we have a person that he trusts enough to put in the line of succession to his office (Secretary of State) that - on being nominated - didn't just flub her way through a crappy email backup system (a la the career IT people in the WH during Bush, which were not appointees - these are permanent staffers, which you do understand, right?), but rather she immediately went about setting up a system to prevent her communications from being part of the official record.
Then she went around the world doing things like posing with giant plastic "reset" buttons to make everything wonderful with Russia and whatnot, even as she was soliciting millions in donations from foreign governments for use by her personal family foundation. But we'll never know what those emails looked like, and how such things might have been tied to or tangled up with her official duties, because she shielded all of those messages from FOIA requests by never having an official box. And when pressed, she had her own loyalists go through some of the message, and pass along those that SHE considered appropriate for the public archive.
Completely pre-meditated obfuscation of her communications as a senior official. No Sarah-Palin-style cluelessness about using her Yahoo account, no career IT people in the White House having a lame backup system... no, the completely planned in advance absence of any records except those that Clinton decided, later, should be present. Today we see reports that the IT people in the State Department warned her that her not having an official State mailbox was going to endanger compliance with record keeping laws, but that her completely casual personal mail server was a huge, huge security risk. So we have not only premeditated law breaking to avoid transparency and accountability, but we also have horrible incompetence in understanding the risks of conducting top-level international diplomacy via a mail server set up by some guy with a fictitious name, paid in cash. One really can't make this stuff up.
Actually, she did. The law requires all official communication to be archived by the government. She deliberate set up mechanism to avoid that. That legal requirement was in place long before it was further enhanced by a later bill that spoke directly to the issue of personal email accounts and the timeliness of forwarding personal mail to offical mailboxes. She HAD NO OFFICIAL MAILBOX, because she didn't want that record keeping to even happen in the first place. She set up a personal platform so that she, and only she, could decide what content, if any, might eventually be passed along to a platform subject to FOIA requests, etc.
She was both nefarious AND wrong, and in every way that matters here, acting deliberately outside the law for her own purposes. And she paid cash to someone operating under a false name to set it up, just to make sure we'd all eventually realize just how sleazy she was really being about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is that a problem?
Because children raised by single parents or by parents that have to spread their attention across multiple households where they've fathered multiple children are at a huge disadvantage. They are far more likely to wind up neglecting school, falling into troublesome social circles, and becoming caught up in crime and substance abuse. Don't pretend for a second that you don't understand that reality.
Hilarious. Really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
"I'm making an observation about yet another person's lazy deflection and ad hominem rhetoric used to avoid addressing the actual issues being raised." i.e. taking offense.
What? You consider pointing out the truth to be "taking offense?" I supposed it's possible you may have your own personal feelings wounded by talking about the substance of the matter, but it's more likely you're using all of your projected umbrage to continue, again, to avoid actually talking about the matter at hand. Aren't you even a little embarassed?
Why are you taking offense?! He didn't say anything negative about Fox did he?
I'm not taking offense, I'm making an observation about yet another person's lazy deflection and ad hominem rhetoric used to avoid addressing the actual issues being raised.
How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you use terms like "lazy left"
Because in my experience, that sort of lazy ad hominem is most frequently practiced by people on the left of the political spectrum. The reflexive Fox! Fox! Fox! is a classic example.
I'm willing to bargain that they are subject to more racism than whites are on a daily basis
Depends on the location and the people involved. In some cases, no - absolutely not the case. But in places where it's true, videos of white idiots chanting something racist are universally held up to ridicule and condemnation in the media (including on Fox! Fox! Fox!), whereas the Sharptons of the world who go out of their way to foment that sort of crap going the other direction are rewarded with high-paying media jobs, lots of slack on their huge tax evasion, etc.
Racist rants should be universally held up for shame, but the media - especially the proudly left-leaning outlets - are absolutely duplicitous on that subject.
So, again, here's you refusing to even dabble in a discussion about the points raised, and simply responding with the classically lazy left ad hominem. So predictable.
Let's try again. Would you say that, as mentioned above, black culture in the US has a different license to rant and chant racist nonsense without the same consequences as other groups? Yes or no. Do you concede that there is a double standard, or will you just say Fox! Fox! Fox! in order to avoid addressing that unfortunate reality?
In other news, strictly black-only frats and sororities have all also been disbanded for being racially exclusive, even when they have new pledges march around in militant formations chanting Nation Of Islam sayings and trying to intimidate white students on campus. Oops! That hasn't happened, and never will. Funny about that.
I guess the proto-Republicans don't fall far from their daddy's apple tree.
Remind me again which party was the one perpetuating segregation and doing everything possible at the legislative and executive level in the south to prevent the progress of the civil rights movement? Oh, right, it was democrats. Remind me again which movement was championing mandatory sterilization of inferior women, eugenics, and other charming Master Race type strategies? Oh, right, it was the founding Progressives - a group that to this day is absolutely obsessed with labeling people, keeping minorities in low-class government dependency, and anxious at every turn to lock down free speech when people don't agree with them.
The inheritors of those groups - contemporary Democrats and Progressives - haven't really changed their outlook a bit. They're entirely about thinking the least of minorities, and proclaiming their own elites as the group best suited to tend to them, like zoo animals, through the establishment and maintenance of an elaborate nanny state that knows best how to nurse them along. It was odious from the beginning, and still is. Jackass frat boys deserve the scorn they earn. Truly insidious left power mongers deserve a lot worse for the decades of misery they're proud to perpetuate.
Wow, that's almost word for word the talking points Fox puts out.
What's more interesting is that you can't be bothered to address the substance of the comment, but instead say Fox! Fox! Fox!
Typical.
Why blame Obama? This is the FAA, an independent authority.
Because that agency's directory is part of his political appointee group, and answer directly to him. They (the FAA) were tasked by law, in congress, to act on this a long time ago, and they (the FAA, as directed by Obama's appointee Huerta) have been deliberately and thoroughly dragging their feet. They're just getting around to looking for comments on part of a body of regulations in this area that the law required them to already have in place, done, finished and usable by commercial operators this year. Considering Obama's willingness to "use his pen and his phone" to issue executive orders that directly contradict the law and the constitution, he should have no problem calling up the guys who reports to him in DoT and FAA and saying, "Obey the law and wrap up these new regulations on time" - because untold billions of dollars and thousands of new jobs and businesses are being held back.
Then Congress ordered them to pass regulations, which they have grumpily done.
No, they have NOT done it. They have been piddling around it, and have just started one aspect of it, very late. Meanwhile companies with billions to invest aren't allowed to even hover a quadcopter in their parking lot to test out a new camera or agricultural sensor system because there are no federal permits to be had, only nearly impossible to get waivers that include such nice features as all of the engineers who want to put a 10-pound multirotor 10 feet in the air having to each have actual pilots licenses. That sort of FAA insanity, allowed to fester by the agency's director, who sets policy priorities and who reports to Obama, is a completely self-inflicted wound on the US economy. Inexcusable. Meanwhile, a kid who wants to fly a DJI Phantom for fun to look at the roof of his house can do so because it's a "model," but if he steps 50 feet to the right and does it at his neighbor's request to check their roof gutters for $20, he faces a nice $10,000 fine from the FAA. The Nanny State paradise hard at work making everyone's lives better.
so what is that 2009 regulation you refer to
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)'s 2009 requirements include Section 1236.22: "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."
Clinton did not do this. Congressional investigations (run by Democrats) into affairs like the Benghazi mess concluded - after interviews with her office, among others - that they'd reviewed all records at State that might bear on the matter. They didn't know, and Clinton completely avoided mentioning that all of her email at the time was conducted from a private server in her own house, and that the State Department had none of those records, since she hadn't disclosed their existence, or passed them along. She didn't hand over any email until she was told do, as fallout from the congress finding out about her secret, non-archived system.
And now we find that there are large date-range gaps in what she provided to State. Including, of course dates that included her travel to Libya, during which she's famously pictured hammering away on her Blackberry. Shocking, huh.
I also know that you're prejudiced against her, since your arguments are largely based on her personality and your suspicions.
No, she has earned my distrust by her well-documented conduct during years of public life. Stonewalling for years on the provision of subpoenaed records from her Rose law firm ... only to have those records mysteriously materialize in a tidy stack in the White House residence much later. Her getting fired from her job during the Watergate investigation, specifically because of her unethical behavior. Her atrocious conduct during the "travelgate" mess in her husband's administration, and her refusal to disclose who was involved, on the public dime, in her husband's empowering of her to come up with a (catastrophically foolish, and of course completely spurned) replacement for the nation's health care system. It goes on and on. She has a well-documented track record of secrecy even as she preached transparency. This is just another incredible example of her terrible judgement and duplicitous behavior in her quest for power.
The question isn't whether I'm biased, the question is how on earth you're not feeling the same way? What made you such a fan that you're willing to overlook all of that - was it her incredibly shrewd "reset" program with Russia, complete with cheesy button prop? Russians are probably still laughing themselves silly over that one. Or perhaps it was some other accomplishment? Please, name a few!
Change the rules, to make the problems solvable
Ah, Kirk's old Kobawashi Maru strategy.
Your 'Climate Skepticism' (global warming denial) is very thinly veiled. Top points for smugness, though.
No, your 'Agenda Denial' is very thinly veiled. Trotting out your straw man about someone "denying" climate change is the lazy way to avoid addressing the real issue. The real issue is that people are making specific claims about "settled science" model predictions of exactly X number of inches of ocean change, or Y change in temperature or precipitation in a given area, or Z change in glacier or sea ice, which clearly means that Policy A and Tax B and Redistribution Of Income Model C are clearly required and should be run by newly established International Entity D staffed by newly needed bureaucrats E, F, and G, all of whom stand to gain the power to steer vast sums of money to their own cherry-picked NGOs, contractors, and kickback-powered corrupt third world governments.
The biggest backers for calling the models correct and science "settled" are those who have a vested interest in a huge new government-layer middleman operation with enormous reach into daily lives and cash flow across all industries and societies. There are a class of people who really see themselves as perfect for that role, and look for every opportunity to mandate the existence of such.
The main denial in play here is the denial that such people and such a fervently wished-for agenda exist.
What fucking idiot has ever claimed that?
Just people like Al Gore, who are making millions off of that assertion.
If the two of us ever get into a fight to the death, I'll gladly be the loser walking away.
This.
And Mr. "There is no winnable war" needs to re-examine even some recent history. Does he really think that reborn, modern economies like Germany's represent the outcome of a war not won by those who reacted to that country's earlier aggression? Does he really think that the communists now running Vietnam didn't win their conflict? Does he really think that the rebels in the American colonies didn't win their war with the British crown?
Gaseous platitudes about such things made in an attempt to wish away groups like ISIS (if we just say that wars can't be won, they'll stop lopping off people's heads, right?) are ridiculous. War is horrible, but they can and have been won. Ask the Imperial Japanese Navy.
Since she handed over a large number of emails, there's no reason to conclude she didn't hand over all the ones she was required to hand over.
No. The fact that she set up a home-brew system to avoid the State Department's record keeping in the first place, and the fact she's been stonewalling requests for official mail for years, and is her own gatekeeper on the message she decides State should be allowed to see - combine that with her long history of obfuscation, ethics problems, and working with her husband's supporters to engage in seriously sleazy tactics - the burden is very much on you to explain why you think her private stash has been delivered in whole and intact to State when everything in her history and everything about this entire scenario screams the exact opposite.
In fact, to plow through her "official" mail (you know, the stuff she couldn't be troubled to mirror in her department's archiving system the way that the 2009 regulation required her to do), she used employees of her family's business - and that operation is funded in large part by big contributions from foreign governments and other entities from which she solicited money while she was wandering the world as Secretary of State.
We know Kerry is doing things differently, due to a change in the law.
Both Kerry and Clinton were subject to 2009's regulation. But you already know that.
It is hilarious, though, to play back her nagging lectures about other people using private email at all, and to know that, for example, an ambassador from her department was given the axe for using private email.
The fact that you seem to anxious to write off her behavior as completely reasonable says nothing about her, but a whole lot about your very strange world view.
A significant portion of people looked at her address and understood exactly what she was doing form the start.
Just not her boss, the guy who promised the "most transparent administration in history?" He's what ... just too obtuse? Or perhaps just too disingenuous? No doubt a lot of people DID infer that her obvious motive for running her shadow State Department comms system was her interest in doing things like peddling her influence in exchange for huge donations to her family business from foreign governments, and were quite pleased to have those sorts of interactions off the record.
But that doesn't mean that her routine back and forth with other US government email correspondents was making those other people think she was deliberately avoiding passing copies along to the State systems as the 2009 regulation required. I suppose people who know her personally know how evasive and dishonest she can be, and they just saw Hillary being Hillary, but with the blessings of Obama.
why not send her to the prison so that she can enjoy some big hungry guys doing terrible things to her? Would this qualify as wellness or just punishment?
How about her party finally just acknowledge that she's not to be trusted, and stop presuming she's the next POTUS.
I suppose all these other foreign ministers that she was talking to, should have made a documentary donation to US congress too or else get bombed into stone age as it should be, or?
What ARE you talking about?
The legal issue is the fact that she was using a personal email to evade record keeping requirements. That much would be obvious to someone by the fact she was using a personal email address.
But what couldn't be obvious to everyone else was that despite perhaps being in an e-mail swap with her and assuming whatever they might about that, she didn't even have (and thus use, even for forwarding/mirroring) an official government mailbox to use as the legally required dumping ground. A reasonable person might assume that she was keeping up with the 2009 regulation to store her correspondence on a government system by more indirect means - but she was carefully avoiding compliance with that reg.
known only to the select few of anyone with whom she exchanged email.
You really think that everyone swapping email with her knew that their communications were being stored on a poorly configured server kept in her house? So far, the general level of panic being displayed by her many party confidants and lots of people in the business suggests that yes, indeed, the completely absurd circumstances were indeed a secret.
Apparently she did turn over the relevant emails
No, she eventually turned over only those emails that she and her personal advisors decided to hand over. Because she chose to conduct her official government business off a badly secured server in her own house and without any IT governance from her agency, we actually have no idea whatsoever what she's decided to leave out. If she'd been actually using the system that her own underlings told her she should use in order to secure and archive her communications, FOIA requests could tell us the story. But instead, we have to trust a person who - the day she was sworn in - immediately set up a system to keep her official communication off the record.
The fact that she did something that would be illegal if she did it now is irrelevant.
It was illegal before, too. It's just illegal on more than one front, now.
And of course we have congressional subpoenas looking for exactly this sort of communication now because they're now aware it exists, despite earlier investigations concluding that there was no email like this at all, and she and her staff - who knew exactly what they were looking for - didn't say a peep about the existence of tens of thousands of them.
Let's be realistic... Most high level government officials don't use email at all
That's just factually incorrect. Take for example Obama's special hot-rodded Blackberry, which he apparently uses for all sorts of direct personal e-communication. And of course there's the issue at hand (Hillary's email) which numbered in the tens of thousands ... but those are just the ones that her staff, after the fact, had laundered and decided under her direction were OK to pass along to the systems at State so there'd be copies. Thousands and thousands of emails is the opposite of "don't use email at all."
The newer law about such officials having to forward ALL such correspondence to their official mailboxes within 20 days is a direct result of it being apparent just how much government officials DO use email, all day, every day. It's why it's so fascinating to see tens of thousands of them being brought back to life from the abyss after the new director of the IRS swore there were no backups of Lois Lerner's comms during her supervision of the politicized treatment of non-profit applications. People in the bureaucratic food chain AND those at the tops of agencies and branches use email constantly, since they can do that asynchronously (compared to elaborately timed phone calls).
It's actually quite common behavior.
But Obama campaigned on changing every aspect of such things, and said that he would guarantee the most transparent administration in history. And here we have a person that he trusts enough to put in the line of succession to his office (Secretary of State) that - on being nominated - didn't just flub her way through a crappy email backup system (a la the career IT people in the WH during Bush, which were not appointees - these are permanent staffers, which you do understand, right?), but rather she immediately went about setting up a system to prevent her communications from being part of the official record.
... no, the completely planned in advance absence of any records except those that Clinton decided, later, should be present. Today we see reports that the IT people in the State Department warned her that her not having an official State mailbox was going to endanger compliance with record keeping laws, but that her completely casual personal mail server was a huge, huge security risk. So we have not only premeditated law breaking to avoid transparency and accountability, but we also have horrible incompetence in understanding the risks of conducting top-level international diplomacy via a mail server set up by some guy with a fictitious name, paid in cash. One really can't make this stuff up.
Then she went around the world doing things like posing with giant plastic "reset" buttons to make everything wonderful with Russia and whatnot, even as she was soliciting millions in donations from foreign governments for use by her personal family foundation. But we'll never know what those emails looked like, and how such things might have been tied to or tangled up with her official duties, because she shielded all of those messages from FOIA requests by never having an official box. And when pressed, she had her own loyalists go through some of the message, and pass along those that SHE considered appropriate for the public archive.
Completely pre-meditated obfuscation of her communications as a senior official. No Sarah-Palin-style cluelessness about using her Yahoo account, no career IT people in the White House having a lame backup system
Well, she didn't break the law.
Actually, she did. The law requires all official communication to be archived by the government. She deliberate set up mechanism to avoid that. That legal requirement was in place long before it was further enhanced by a later bill that spoke directly to the issue of personal email accounts and the timeliness of forwarding personal mail to offical mailboxes. She HAD NO OFFICIAL MAILBOX, because she didn't want that record keeping to even happen in the first place. She set up a personal platform so that she, and only she, could decide what content, if any, might eventually be passed along to a platform subject to FOIA requests, etc.
She was both nefarious AND wrong, and in every way that matters here, acting deliberately outside the law for her own purposes. And she paid cash to someone operating under a false name to set it up, just to make sure we'd all eventually realize just how sleazy she was really being about it.