Using Private Email, Hillary Clinton Thwarted Record Requests

I'm voting this one up although I have concerns the article could end up in some kind of partisan BS here.

So let's be clear about the root of the problem: government regulations demand that public officials have recordable conversations as part of their duties. This allows openness and inspection. (It also allows political shenanigans)

It's a very, very similar situation to where we are with government spying on the citizens. The government, for whatever reason, has decided it wants to record everything you do of type X. As a subject of the government, you are not given a choice. To record some information in some contexts might be reasonable, in other contexts it might not, but all we're given is blanket requirements.

What we're seeing with Hillary -- and probably with anybody else that has any common sense -- is just blowing off the law and "making things work" without regards to whether it is legal or not. For what it's worth, and I am a member of neither political party, I'd do the same thing.

You can try to make this into an election-year deal about Hillary, or stand on a soapbox and talk about government accountability, and you wouldn't be entirely wrong. But the real issue here is that the freaking government is trying to collect too much information about everybody. It's not just limited to public servants. And the proper response to a government that refuses to act in a reasonable manner is non-violent non-participation.

Having said all of that, I fully expect that point to be completely lost by folks on both sides of this issue.

How is this supposed to be a scandal exactly?

The issue seems to be that she could of hid something in her personal emails by not turning everything over. But couldn't any official have just used their gov email for "official business" and use their personal email for stuff they want to hide? Doesn't every politician actually do this?

The fact that Clinton is letting personal correspondence mix with government correspondence indicates to me she has less to hide, not more.

The only issue that has the possibility of being legitimate in is the Benghazi stuff. Technically, it could have been a deliberate move to make emails related to Benghazi un-searchable during the investigation. Of course, this only actually matters if those emails contain anything significant/damning, and they probably don't.

You really don't get why? Read some of the comments on here and catch a clue.

I don't understand this story -- according to the smoking gun report, there's only evidence that this one guy sent her emails to her person account ( possibly by an autocomplete or address book oversight? ) and not any evidence that she sent any emails of replies back. If she wasn't sending emails from the account, and just one person was using her person address as the recipient, it seems just like a one off minor oversight from one of her advisors.

I don't blame the public for this. I blame the media. Elections aren't won on the votes of principled liberals or conservatives. They're won based on the easy-votes of people who haven't dedicated the time to investigating whether there's substance behind any of the marketing claims of the two major parties.

So what happens to these people during election season? Candidates are hidden from them, some candidates are given more time to speak during debates, and some major candidates aren't even discussed. Someone who doesn't pay attention to politics and is looking for a quick answer just simply will not get an honest view of the situation from the press.

Jon Stewart had a good piece about an example of this a while ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDJ6Ay4QMw