O’Malley: Clinton email server questions 'legitimate'

[Ichingcarpenter]

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley on Sunday touted his political experience while saying that questions about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of State were "legitimate."

The Democratic presidential candidate said that Clinton and her lawyers could answer questions surrounding whether she sent classified e-mails using a personal server.

"You have a legitimate question to ask and Secretary Clinton and her lawyers can answer it," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/251240-omalley-mum-on-clinton-email-server


I didn't see this news in GDP ....
He also said two days before that it was a distraction

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/251014-omalley-clinton-email-server-a-distraction

We shall see

[elleng]

1. O’Malley argued that Sanders’s populism will not help him win their party’s coronation next election

“I think he does a very good job of expressing the anger we’re feeling that people are working harder and not getting ahead,” he said of Sanders’s appeal.

“No great nation ever built its foundation on anger,” O’Malley added. “My track record as an executive — as an executive, not a legislator — is one of being relentless, forging a new consensus and getting things done.”

“We were very successful on that at both the state and city level. I look forward to doing it for the American people as the next president.”

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. Way to change the subject

and attack Sanders........

[elleng]

4. I promote O'Malley, I do not attack Sanders.

The quote came from the article you cited.

'“I think he does a very good job of expressing the anger we’re feeling that people are working harder and not getting ahead,” he said of Sanders’s appeal.'

[delrem]

8. OK. I don't agree with O'Malley's spin.

Sanders' supporters aren't building their case on "anger", on "being angrily opposed to Clinton", for example.
All the Clinton scandals are just a pile of boohuckey red-herring, mixed with stream of consciousness creativity.
Oh, certainly, the scandals *exist*. But opposition to them isn't the foundation of Bernie Sanders' support.
Sanders' support rests on shared *ideas* and *principles*, on a shared search for new and more peaceful, more ecologically compatible, standards.

That isn't a search based in anger, elleng. It's a search based in what us, as human beings, as socially conscious individuals want to make more real.

[elleng]

9. We are all/both angry

about corporate/$ control of everything, and Clinton 'scandals' only tangentially feed flames for some.

'the anger we’re feeling that people are working harder and not getting ahead,” he said of Sanders’s appeal.'

[delrem]

12. I see a unity of purpose. Not anger. I see determination.

And I like Martin O'Malley.

To tell the truth, I sort of classify Hillary Clinton along with Jeb Bush and the Republicans, as being "out of context". They are all way the same. I can't recall the last time I found a post on DU, written by a supporter of "centrism", in any way substantially intelligent. In contrast, both Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders do speak a language I at least understand.

O'Malley's supporters have had a hard time being heard in DU, what with all the recent fun and games.
I look forward to the debates.
I just wish that it wasn't so obvious going in, that the debates will be fixed.

[elleng]

47. Yes but also frustration with the status quo.

O'Malley did use the word 'anger,' but surely didn't focus on it. He surely is determined.

I agree about 'out of context,' and surely do look forward to the debates!

[tularetom]

29. Um, some of us are "angrily opposed to Clinton"

Partly, it's personal, she's such a fake plastic person.

But mostly its because she's so closely linked to the people, institutions and policies that have so damaged this country and its middle class over the past three decades.

[elleng]

50. Yes, some are.

Can't say my feeling rises to 'anger,' but 'strongly opposed,' for sure, and not for plasticity but for the linkages you list.

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. Slate: State Department Suddenly Finds 18,000 Clinton-Era Emails It Had Said It Didn't Have

Here's a fun story, with lots of dramatic twists and turns, about government recordkeeping!

In September 2012, Gawker filed a Freedom of Information Act request for email correspondence involving Philippe Reines, a longtime Hillary Clinton adviser and spokesman who was a deputy assistant secretary of state during Clinton's time as Secretary.

In July 2013, despite some of the emails of the type that Gawker requested having already been made public through other channels, the State Department responded that "no records responsive to your request were located."

In March 2015, Gawker sued the State Department over its failure to find the emails.

On August 13, the State Department said in a court filing that after it looked really hard, it had actually found an estimated 17,855 emails that could be considered "responsive" to Gawker's request.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/17/philippe_reines_emails_clinton_press_secretary_s_correspondence_turns_up.html

[leveymg]

26. Like the Federal Records Act, FOIA is another toothless law she intentionally avoided with a private

server. She simply thought she's above such legal requirements, and since her lawyers knew there were no potential criminal consequences, she simply decided she wouldn't comply.

Her unlawful retention and destruction of classified materials, however, have potential criminal consequences.

[sabrina 1]

32. He is doing a great job of representing the people, iow. That is what a candidate is supposed to do.

And the candidate who best represents the people, will get their support. Which is why Sanders is now in a place where the experts predicted he would never be.

[delrem]

5. That doesn't respond to the OP. nt

[elleng]

6. Filling in some 'blanks' about Governor O'Malley,

as so much about him appears to be ignored.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. I nominate some of his treads on GDP

he is my second choice.

[leveymg]

27. Same goes for many of us.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

23. Anger and fear are how almost every national Republican in national office today won their job.

So I think he's wrong when he says anger won't help anyone win an election.

[elleng]

48. There is something to that

but he doesn't want to focus on anger; it's not part of his personna, imo.

[catnhatnh]

25. “No great nation ever built its foundation on anger,”

...It's kind of a strange quote to make in a country who's mythology absolutely begins with angry patriots tossing tea into Boston Harbor and then kicking English asses off the continent. And I don't remember any occasions of consensus building being mentioned...

[elleng]

49. I'm kind of splitting hairs here, cat, but was it ANGER,

or seen as a practical way to get attention for a perceived civil 'wrong?'

And he said 'built its FOUNDATION on anger,' (emphasis mine.) Tea party wasn't foundational, was it? (OH THE IRONY, given today's tea fools!!!)

[HFRN]

53. Third way does not like populism

[delrem]

3. Yah, well, I suppose SO.

Lordy ... and if what she did wasn't illegal then any democracy must IMMEDIATELY make it illegal.
Because such secrecy and total personal control of what is known about top gov't executives isn't consistent with democracy.

Oh bloody well no, I do not want her elected POTUS. I really don't.

[ericson00]

7. yawwwwwnnnnnn

Martin O'Who???

[elleng]

10. Goodnight.

[delrem]

14. Martin O'Not-saddled-with-Hillary's-scandalous past/baggage.

That's one that you'll never understand, in your lifetime.

[ericson00]

17. Clinton's past has "baggage" like Obama's past has "baggage:" as in

manufactured unproven bullshit. "Whitewater," "Filegate," "Travelgate," are just as true and useful to the American people as "ACORNgate," "New Black Panthergate," "Fast-and-Furiousgate," etc.

Shame I have to hear GOP talking points here.

[delrem]

18. No. You can't equate Hillary's past with Barack's.

That's just fucking creepy.

Barack Obama is, in my opinion scandal free.
He is, in my opinion, exemplary - as a leader and guiding light.

He is especially so in his second term.

Don't you try to dump the entire history of Clinton family scandal on Barack Obama!
That's just out of line.

[ericson00]

19. Why can't I?

please, elaborate.

[delrem]

20. Because to do so is dishonest.

The Clinton family and the Obama family are very different, with entirely different histories and on different trajectories. Obama isn't saddled with the Clinton family past, or the "scandals" and "looks askance at's" that face Hillary Rodham Clinton in this election cycle. There is no "scandal" attaching to Pres. Obama that is in any way similar to the kind of scandals that the Clintons have brought upon themselves.

You're engaged in an exercise of dissembling, to suggest otherwise - and that's why you shouldn't do it. It's OK to try to ride on Pres. Obama's shoulders, but it isn't OK to try to bring him down to your level to do it.

[ericson00]

21. You're gonna give real examples of baggage

where are they? I don't know what you're hiding, unless you're a GOP troll.

[delrem]

22. I really don't know what you're on about.

I said that you can't equate Hillary Clinton's baggage with that of Barack Obama, as you tried to do.

For that you're labelling me as a "GOP troll".

WTF?

[seabeyond]

38. good point. if not for the rw hate, what would the baggage even be for clinton. bill, ya. hillary

i cant think of any.

[Comrade Grumpy]

55. My problem with Clinton isn't scandal, it's policy. She's a warmonger.

Voted to give Bush permission to invade Iraq.

Lobbied Obama successfully to fuck up Libya. Now it is a failed state and ISIS training ground.

Lobbied Obama unsuccessfully to do the same in Syria. Thank goodness Obama had more sense than that.

[seabeyond]

67. i do not see her as a warmonger. sanders too voted on military action.

i am pretty ok where obama sits. sanders is probably a little let and clinton a little right.

[leveymg]

28. Whitewater was the watered-down version of BCCI. Filegate was her BCCI billing records she withheld

from House and Senate investigators. If you read the Kerry Commission report, you will understand that there really was something to BCCI (Hillary represented the Stephens, key figures in that scandal), which also involved Iran-Contra, S&L looting, and Saudi funding of Pakistan's nuclear program and terrorism. Travelgate was pure, stupid Republican spite.

The GOP, however, are so incompetent they screw up massive scandals and turn them into easily dismissed crap. One could conclude that they actually perform a useful distraction and disposal function.

[seabeyond]

11. Bummer. I am for omalley but bummer he went there. Nt

[delrem]

15. You are not "for omalley". You are for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

So don't respond to a post with a flat out lie.

And yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter, everyone on the planet has equal right to discuss Hillary Rodham Clinton's past.
If you can't stand the heat, don't fire up every burner in the kitchen to breaking point and then try to stonewall it.
Use your common sense.

[seabeyond]

35. i am so damn tired of certain people telling others who they are rooting for..... just foolish

[Raine1967]

33. seabeyond —

If you can. watch what he said in the interview, it is much more benign than is being portrayed in the OP. Here is a link to the transcript: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12812371

DICKERSON: So, is this funny now, this issue of the e-mails?

O'MALLEY: I think the most important issue is whether or not we still have the ability as a people to make the choices that make wages go up for Americans and make our economy work for all of us.

I'm sure that you have a legitimate question to ask, and Secretary Clinton and her lawyers can answer it. For my part as a candidate, I intend to put out the ideas and the policies that make college more affordable for more people, that expand Social Security, that get wages to go up again for a majority of us who are all working harder, instead of down.

So, that's what I'm going to talk about, John. And I will leave to you ask Secretary Clinton those other questions.

DICKERSON: Well, it's great, because you are doing exactly what her campaign says, which is, the e-mails are not about trust, people don't care about. What they care about is whether or not they trust to you take care of those issues. So, do you agree with that splitting of the way the electorate looks at the e-mail question?

O'MALLEY: I think the electorate actually looks at candidates in a very holistic way.

They ask, which of these candidates has the independence, the proven ability and experience and ideas that will actually serve our nation and move us forward. I have done that. I'm the only candidate in our party with 15 years of executive experience, not just talking about progressive goals, but actually achieving things like the best schools in America, more affordable college, the highest median income of any state in America.

These are the things that people care about and these are the things I'm going to talk about. And within that, voters will draw their own conclusions about ability, about integrity, about trust, and who should lead us forward as a nation.

I think he answered the question just fine.

HEre is a link to the video: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/martin-omalley-on-the-american-electorate/

[seabeyond]

36. thanks. it was late, on the way to bed and on the iphone. twice. twice....

in all omalley stuff and time, twice, i have LIGHTLY questioned omalley.

what i am is tired of the bullshit of telling people who they are supporting. the first time bigtree acknowledge what i said, affirmed i was correct, and sent me tons of info on omalleys position on women. yea.... that made me feel good, about omalley and supporting omalley.

this time YOU took the time to let me know, kindly, it was not a big deal. so i stopped and read, and you are correct. the exchange is nothing like what i preceived the title made it out to be.

thank you. i appreciate that.

this

They ask, which of these candidates has the independence, the proven ability and experience and ideas that will actually serve our nation and move us forward. I have done that. I'm the only candidate in our party with 15 years of executive experience, not just talking about progressive goals, but actually achieving things like the best schools in America, more affordable college, the highest median income of any state in America.

this is his strength. he is so right on here. and when i think about the candidates, this is makes me really want the opportunity for omalley.

thanks raine. i appreciate it. and i have not even had my coffee yet, and all this talking....

[Raine1967]

39. You are very welcome, Seabeyond.

There is indeed, a lot of talking — glad you had a chance to listen!

Enjoy that cuppa cawfee!

[seabeyond]

37. I'm sure that you have a legitimate question to ask,

and you know, cutting out the full sentnece changes it too.

the difference from saying "I'm sure that you have a legitimate question to ask, : and syaing you have a legitimate question

is different too. to there was manipulation in the article to make it just that

[Raine1967]

40. Yup, it changes the context altogether. eom

[elleng]

54. YES!

[seabeyond]

42. i also like how omalley started when the guy said he wanted to talk about clinton emails

and omalley said, sure you do. or whatever. reading this thread, the person who wrote the article and many in this thread want to absolutely change what the reality was of that video, very interesting. thanks again. once i realize a manipulation, i just gotta explore. what bullshit. he was great. he handled it the way all three are handling media trying to create attacks.

thanks again. went beyond what was written cause of the manipulation in print story and needed video.

[elleng]

62. Sure did!

[ismnotwasm]

63. Thank you

He certainly did. I thought that the OP title was out of character for him--he answered it just as he should have.

[NYCButterfinger]

24. It looks like O Malley is ruining his chance to be VP

[leveymg]

31. That is all to his credit, assuming HRC gets the nom. He just went up another notch.

[tritsofme]

34. You can't ruin a chance you never had!

O'Malley was never on the Clinton short list. As a Northeastern white male, he would bring literally nothing to the ticket.

[Jester Messiah]

51. How lovely that that's how we decide who is best suited for an office.

It's not what can you do or how well you can do it, just which boxes do you tick. Sickening.

[NYCButterfinger]

66. O'Malley would bring youth and maybe Pennsylvania Catholics

[Raine1967]

56. Problem is, those links are misrepresenting what was said.

I posted to another DU'r about it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=526910

Context matters. The links at the OP do not bring in context.

[still_one]

30. He is right, email server questions are very legitimate. The problem I see interspersed with those

stories is that some of the stories intentionally misrepresent the facts.

[FSogol]

41. This entire thread acts like O'Malley has attacked HRC. On every show (MSNBC or not) that O'Malley

Last edited Tue Aug 18, 2015, 02:14 PM - Edit history (1)

appears he is prompted to bash HRC. He is saying, that if you want to ask questions about HRC, ask HRC.

I see nothing wrong with that attitude.

[seabeyond]

44. the article and hte op created to make it look like something it wasnt. need the video to see

how stupid all this is.

from the start of the video the guy says, i would like to talk about clinton and her emails

and omalleys response.... i am sure you would (or whatever) made it clear omalley was not into this.

shame in the misrepresentation.

[elleng]

52. YES!

[Raine1967]

57. It's really disheartening to be honest.

O'Malley aid nothing of the sort.

I see a lot of Sanders supporters seemingly wanting to believe otherwise but it is simply untrue.

A legitimate question for the interviewer to ask of the Hillary campaign is not the same as what these OP's are trying to indicate.

O'Malley actually agrees that is are a distraction from real policy debates.

Seriously, here is video:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/martin-omalley-voters-dont-want-to-hear-about-hillary-clintons-emails/

[TwilightGardener]

43. Of course it's legitimate. And he needs to start taking swings. This is how it works.

[RiverLover]

45. Finally! A leader in our party admits to this. Distraction? RW hit?

No. Its her own dirty dealings. Over 300 emails now flagged for having top secret info in them.

Thousands of emails forever destroyed.

Her foundation accepting money from countries while she dealt with them as SoS.

Its all so....republican. It should be shunned by us. We're better than this.

Good on O'Malley!!! May many more start owning up to this.

[seabeyond]

46. except he did not play the rw hit game you think he did. and i say... good for omalley.

[elleng]

61. And good for seab!!!

[Raine1967]

58. YOur OP is misleading. Here is a headline: Voters Don’t Want to Hear About Hillary Clinton’s Emails

here is a link. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/martin-omalley-voters-dont-want-to-hear-about-hillary-clintons-emails/

“All of this stuff about the e-mail server and the top secret e-mails and all of this, these are not the ideas that excite the electorate. These are not the ideas that spark the imagination of the American people…” he continued.

O’Malley went off on another tangent about the economy and job creation. “These are the issues we should talk about, not Secretary of State’s e-mails and those rules. We should talk about the ideas.”

That led Brzezinski to ask O’Malley if he thought the press was “doing a bad job” by asking about the e-mails. “Do you think it’s not a story?” she asked.

But O’Malley said it was the Democratic Party’s fault the press reported on the story, because they weren’t talking about issues like clean energy and the minimum wage. “Until we do, you’re left with nothing but reporting the latest story about email servers and top secret emails. And shame on us as a Democratic Party if we don’t step forward and start offering the issues to serve our country.”

[Ichingcarpenter]

59. NO ......... he said that on Sunday's meet the press

He said the other thing friday on morning joe

I put both stories up and you can't read dates

Friday.... voters don't want to hear it

Sunday ... it is legitimate question

Geez now who is being misleading?.

[Raine1967]

64. O'Malley is not really concerned about the email story.

he's been retry constant about that. The Hill is pushing a meme as though he is. I posted this already in this thread and I am going to post it again, because context matters and the source that you posted took it out of context. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=526910

If you can. watch what he said in the interview, it is much more benign than is being portrayed in the OP. Here is a link to the transcript: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12812371

DICKERSON: So, is this funny now, this issue of the e-mails?

O'MALLEY: I think the most important issue is whether or not we still have the ability as a people to make the choices that make wages go up for Americans and make our economy work for all of us.

I'm sure that you have a legitimate question to ask, and Secretary Clinton and her lawyers can answer it. For my part as a candidate, I intend to put out the ideas and the policies that make college more affordable for more people, that expand Social Security, that get wages to go up again for a majority of us who are all working harder, instead of down.

So, that's what I'm going to talk about, John. And I will leave to you ask Secretary Clinton those other questions.

DICKERSON: Well, it's great, because you are doing exactly what her campaign says, which is, the e-mails are not about trust, people don't care about. What they care about is whether or not they trust to you take care of those issues. So, do you agree with that splitting of the way the electorate looks at the e-mail question?

O'MALLEY: I think the electorate actually looks at candidates in a very holistic way.

They ask, which of these candidates has the independence, the proven ability and experience and ideas that will actually serve our nation and move us forward. I have done that. I'm the only candidate in our party with 15 years of executive experience, not just talking about progressive goals, but actually achieving things like the best schools in America, more affordable college, the highest median income of any state in America.

These are the things that people care about and these are the things I'm going to talk about. And within that, voters will draw their own conclusions about ability, about integrity, about trust, and who should lead us forward as a nation.

I think he answered the question just fine.

HEre is a link to the video: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/martin-omalley-on-the-american-electorate/

[Ichingcarpenter]

65. I didn't say he didn't or did answer the question just fine

just that he said 'hillary's e mail questions are legitimate ......

I'm sure that you have a legitimate question to ask, and Secretary Clinton and her lawyers can answer it

[elleng]

60. 'And shame on us as a Democratic Party if we don’t step forward and start offering

the issues to serve our country.'

[Katashi_itto]

68. K&R!