Hilary Clinton emails - Explain please

[hollyisalovelyname]

I have no idea what the Hilary Clinton emails 'scandal' is all about.
Could wiser Mumsnetters please explain it to me.
Thank you.

Pluto30 Hasn't she been cleared in court of Benghazi?

I had no idea the FBI was such a partisan organisation.

The fact that people are prepared to vote for a sex-abusing man over a woman says so much about our society.

I suspect that's the size of it.

Sexual assaulting a vagina is fine. Having a vagina, not fine.

I don't believe she's disliked because she's a woman. I think it's more to do with her husband and their past, along with the fact that she is supposedly "funded" by certain nations that don't even like women or consider them second class. I think it's more to do with that. Just my opinion.

Locked No, Benghazi is ongoing. The FBI have reopened the email case as well.

Hillary was not responsible for Benghazi.

The U.S. diplomatic outpost at Benghazi was attacked by a hundred or so armed men. A few extra security guards would not have prevented this. As usual, it has been blown out of all proportion by Republicans. And parading the parents of a Benghazi victim at the GOP convention was exploitative.

Er, yeah she was.

Sure, multiple people were responsible, but that doesn't exonerate her of responsibility. Security was her role. She failed. There are would-be Democrat voters who don't like her for her involvement in, and shirking of responsibility for, Benghazi.

There were 13 similar incidents like Benghazi under George W, but he didn't face the same level of scrutiny.

It was a small outpost in Libya, there are hundreds throughout the world, poorly staffed and liable to be attacked at any point.

How would extra security have prevented hundreds of armed madmen breaking in? It wouldn't have. Therefore, there's nothing she could have done.

So? I'll be the first to criticise George W Bush for all of his innumerable failures. He will go down in history as one of the worst presidents the US has ever had. I'd say he's faced a fair amount of scrutiny. He's the man who's still mocked for his poor pronunciation of nuclear; the man who had a shoe thrown at him; the man who had Dear Mr. President written about him; who faced international criticism from one of his shoe-in supporters, the Dixie Chicks etc. If you really think he didn't and doesn't face criticisms for his abject, miserable failure of a presidency, I'm not sure which rock you've been hiding under. People are infinitely more vocal about him than they've been about Clinton.

Then what's the point of having someone in charge of securing these places? If it's not possible, then there's no use for the role or responsibility. We're talking about an event that occurred 4 years ago and which is still being dealt with formally. If it was just a "shit happens, couldn't have been prevented" situation, it would've been over and done with by now.

Explain how extra security at Benghazi would have prevented the four deaths, though. I believe there would have been more dead US officials had there been extra security. How would a few extra men have repelled 100 odd armed militants? They wouldn't have.

I'm not comparing Hilary to George W. I'm saying that many US diplomats have been murdered in a similar fashion on a different watch.

It was a premeditated, not spontaneous attack (Clinton etc. lied about this for months). For a country that is supposed to have the best intelligence and security in the world, they sure do have a disproportionately high number of incidents that should've been foreseen (and, arguably, were): 9/11, Benghazi, shit, even Pearl Harbour etc. Either the intelligence or the security let them down. I'm not necessarily saying that more security would've prevented the issue, but there were multiple failures involved in the incident, and Clinton has to take responsibility for her role, not brush it off as a "shit happens, lol" thing.

You said Bush didn't face scrutiny. He's faced scrutiny over every aspect of his presidency.

I would argue that it is a 'shit happens' situation, albeit a sad and tragic one for the families. If you work in Libya, you run the risk of being murdered by militants. Accepting that you're essentially unprotected is part and parcel of the job.

I said Bush didn't face scrutiny over the 13 attacks on US outposts, not that he didn't face scrutiny. Although he did get elected for a second term, so it could be argued that the US media gave him an easy ride. And I can't imagine a bunch of hanging chads ever going Hillary's way.

Very interesting links I don't think Hilary is hated because she's a woman, it's because she's seen as part of the ruling political elite who, in America, believe they are untouchable and above the law hence the outrage at using unsecured servers and deleting emails. Hilary haters take this as evidence of underhand behaviour and don't require much further proof. As a feminist I loath her, her treatment and collusion in Bill Clinton's sexual exploitation was gross and vile. Trump is vile but honestly I'd vote for him over Hilary if you held a gun to my head as a billionaire playboy he said and possibly did some unpleasant stuff but not on the same scale as a political elite that Hilary did. If I was American I'd abstain from votingI think. We are in the last days of Rome politically none of them have the country's best interests at heart.

The FBI have reopened the email case as well.

They are investigating emails found on a device used by her aid as part of an unrelated investigation into her aid's husband. According to reports they haven't looked at the emails yet so nobody knows whether they are relevant to anything.

On the other hand Trump is yet to provide evidence that he has the vaguest idea of how the US health system works, let alone how to handle matters of national security. We can however say that he doesn't listen to critical advice, and that he rushes to Twitter at the slightest provocation.

On the basis of 'anyone but Hilary', my dog would make a better president than Trump. No political record in the US and unlike Trump no opposable thumbs so not got with buttons and can't open suitcases.

they have the option to vote for an independent, might be a tempting option.
my issue isn't with Hilary as a person but i'm getting a bit suspicious of families being involved in high level politics time and time again; Kennedy's Bush's and now this Clinton's. way more of a club than lets say graduating from the same school.

being involved in high level politics time and time again

Trump has no problems promoting his family and his sons are scary.

Can't understand the OBSESSION with these bloody emails !

Hillary may not be popular but it's the bigger picture that needs looking at for the future. The hate & violence stirred up by Trump & his supporters has incited a level of bigotry & evil not seen since Hitler.

You can't vote for personality but who has the experience for the job & the statesmanship to do that on the world stage.

Voting for a third party is effectively a Trump vote. Scary times.

Dory Because 30,000 emails is no mistake. Why, if she wasn't sharing confidential information, would she send 30-fucking-thousand emails from a private server? And then delete them?

The violence predates Trump's involvement in this election. The problems in the US go far beyond either candidate, and I'm certain neither would do anything to improve situations.

The fact that people are prepared to vote for a sex-abusing man over a woman says so much about our society.

I despise Trump but Bill Clinton's history with women isn't exactly exemplary. What does this say about HRC?

HRC and Trump are as bad as each other. There's some interesting sound-bites (and a brief yet surprising interview with HRC in the 80's) on 13th about the incarceration rates of the US and the so-called war on crime. I'm not sure anyone in the US actually wants a winner in this race.

They also neglected to mention that there were women in the audience at the 3rd debate who claimed that Bill had sexually assaulted them, AND a man who claimed to be his son, so.

I would've vote for either. Neither is the lesser evil.

HRC and Trump are as bad as each other.

No, they really aren't.

Trump has provided no evidence that he knows anything about domestic or foreign policy.

He cannot formulate a sentence.

He tweets rambling incoherent nonsense at the smallest perceived slight.

He is a reality TV star with a sideline as a troll.

There is no reason to believe that he would even understand what people were saying at any international meeting or conference. However, there is every reason to believe that he would send a random offensive tweet because somebody had put his nose out of joint.

And people are worried about Hillary's emails?????

They also neglected to mention that there were women in the audience at the 3rd debate who claimed that Bill had sexually assaulted them, AND a man who claimed to be his son, so.

Bill Clinton is not running for president.

"A man claimed to be his son?"

So?

Even if you feel you can write off all of Trump's deranged boasting about groping women, he was caught because he couldn't resist the desire to boast to Billy Bush while wearing a microphone. People are actually complaining( Trump's wife for one) that a man running for president was a entrapped by Billy Bush????

Again, and you worry about the security of Hillary's emails?

His wife, who wants to talk for days about Trump's sexual assault allegations, is running for president, and that makes it relevant. Stay with a potential abuser, but talk shit about another potential abuser.

I just said I wouldn't vote for him, not sure how you managed to skip over that part.

I just said I wouldn't vote for him, not sure how you managed to skip over that part.

No, in an election you have to choose the lesser evil.

They don't rerun the election with different candidates when people don't vote.

Not voting might seem like an easy way to avoid responsibility, but it isn't.