2016 Postmortem

dlwickham

(3,316 posts) Wed May 25, 2016, 07:51 PM May 2016

State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her

The report released Wednesday by the State Department Inspector General on its email records management is being reported as heavy-duty criticism of former Secretary Hillary Clinton. However, the report has more in it that vindicates Clinton than nails her.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/05/25/state-department-report-on-email-vindicates-clinton-rather-than-nails-her/#726142342c7d

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her (Original Post) dlwickham May 2016 OP

Yes, it does--and that is irritating the hell out of some people~! nt MADem May 2016 #1

That's my read of it as well. But what do i know, i just have a legal background. MariaThinks May 2016 #2

you're obviously not qualified unless you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express dlwickham May 2016 #7

The big misstatement by Forbes: k8conant May 2016 #3

If you are a Clinton, or a Clinton supporter, then of course, two wrongs truedelphi May 2016 #10

It adds quite a bit of new material if you ask me... Bob41213 May 2016 #19

You have several good points there... k8conant May 2016 #22

This article does not address how she thought Americans were supposed to get FOIA's on her stuff Ash_F May 2016 #4

LOL! HooptieWagon May 2016 #5

Gotta laugh with you. The only way the report "vindicates her" is if truedelphi May 2016 #9

At least now we know why they think she's a good candidate - IdaBriggs May 2016 #11

Well, if "Forbes" says so, it must be true. tabasco May 2016 #6

Enormous K & R. Thanks for posting. Surya Gayatri May 2016 #8

you're welcome dlwickham May 2016 #15

No it does not nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #12

Come on. 83 pages? You expect hillarians' attention spans to last? ChairmanAgnostic May 2016 #20

Yep.. thats the way I see it also. DCBob May 2016 #13

kick bigtree May 2016 #14

Sorry, NO. It states that there were MULTIPLE hacking attempts; frightening enough.. but she failed AzDar May 2016 #16

That article was hilarious. Barack_America May 2016 #17

"He did it too" (4 years earlier) is vindication?? jmg257 May 2016 #18

"Vindicates" because the witch hunt was bogus from the start. oasis May 2016 #21

MADem

(135,425 posts)

1. Yes, it does--and that is irritating the hell out of some people~! nt

Reply to dlwickham (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 07:53 PM

May 2016

MariaThinks

(2,495 posts)

2. That's my read of it as well. But what do i know, i just have a legal background.

Reply to dlwickham (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 07:54 PM

May 2016

dlwickham

(3,316 posts)

7. you're obviously not qualified unless you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express

Reply to MariaThinks (Reply #2)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:12 PM

May 2016

like the other legal scholars on here

k8conant

(3,030 posts)

3. The big misstatement by Forbes:

Reply to dlwickham (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 07:55 PM

May 2016

"A report that says so little new against Clinton, amounts to a vindication."

No, it says that what was already known was indeed true and she was wrong to do it. So was Colin Powell.

Two wrongs make a right?

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)

10. If you are a Clinton, or a Clinton supporter, then of course, two wrongs

Reply to k8conant (Reply #3)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:16 PM

May 2016

Make a right!

Bob41213

(491 posts)

19. It adds quite a bit of new material if you ask me...

Reply to k8conant (Reply #3)

Wed May 25, 2016, 11:15 PM

May 2016

Incompetent response to hacking (which wasn't reported as required).

Intimidating witnesses.

That she's been lying about it being ok.

That the server wasn't actually for convenience, it was to avoid the law.

The list goes on.

k8conant

(3,030 posts)

22. You have several good points there...

Reply to Bob41213 (Reply #19)

Thu May 26, 2016, 12:03 AM

May 2016

of course, I already knew she's been lying about it.

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)

4. This article does not address how she thought Americans were supposed to get FOIA's on her stuff

Reply to dlwickham (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:00 PM

May 2016

...if her stuff was not even with the government.

We already know Powell is a criminal. Way to go comparing Clinton to him Forbes!

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)

5. LOL!

Reply to dlwickham (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:03 PM

May 2016

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)

9. Gotta laugh with you. The only way the report "vindicates her" is if

Reply to HooptieWagon (Reply #5)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:15 PM

May 2016

A person casually reads one section of it to find out that the State Department commonly had problems with enforcement of the email situation.

Which doesn't exonerate her at all - since she was after all, the Head of the State Department. It was her job to make sure the place ran in a tight fashion.

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)

11. At least now we know why they think she's a good candidate -

Reply to HooptieWagon (Reply #5)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:21 PM

May 2016

they live in Opposite Land!!!

tabasco

(22,974 posts)

6. Well, if "Forbes" says so, it must be true.

Reply to dlwickham (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:04 PM

May 2016

LOLOL!

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)

8. Enormous K & R. Thanks for posting.

Reply to dlwickham (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:13 PM

May 2016

dlwickham

(3,316 posts)

15. you're welcome

Reply to Surya Gayatri (Reply #8)

Wed May 25, 2016, 10:47 PM

May 2016

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

12. No it does not

Reply to dlwickham (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:22 PM

May 2016

it contradicts her on major points

I just finished reading it. I recommend you do the same.

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)

20. Come on. 83 pages? You expect hillarians' attention spans to last?

Reply to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #12)

Wed May 25, 2016, 11:18 PM

May 2016

Remember, the average comic or coloring book had 46 pages, including ads.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)

13. Yep.. thats the way I see it also.

Reply to dlwickham (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:23 PM

May 2016

bigtree

(85,999 posts)

14. kick

Reply to dlwickham (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 09:16 PM

May 2016

AzDar

(14,023 posts)

16. Sorry, NO. It states that there were MULTIPLE hacking attempts; frightening enough.. but she failed

Reply to dlwickham (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 10:54 PM

May 2016

to take countermeasures, OR report the attempts...which is REQUIRED.
Also revealed: She REFUSED to cooperate, after stating on countless occasions she was doing, and FULLY.

Spin, spin, spin...

Barack_America

(28,876 posts)

17. That article was hilarious.

Reply to dlwickham (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 10:57 PM

May 2016

Let me see if I got the gist of it:

Colin Powell did it too + the worst is yet to come with the FBI investigation + who really cares about State Dept. policy and FOIA = VINDICATION!

Alrighty then.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)

18. "He did it too" (4 years earlier) is vindication??

Reply to dlwickham (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 11:10 PM

May 2016

Not in the report i read.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-emails-state-report-223574

oasis

(49,393 posts)

21. "Vindicates" because the witch hunt was bogus from the start.

Reply to dlwickham (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 11:23 PM

May 2016

Reply to this discussion