A Tale Of Two Women

Hillary and Phyllis2

Former Univ of Illinois Chancellor
Phyllis Wise

Employed by governmental entity in a position of power.

Required, by law, to conduct all work-related email correspondence via employer-provided email service.

Decided that she was above that law.

Used personal email account to discuss sensitive and controversial issues about hiring, firing, and construction of a new building. As a result, emails were not available for public scrutiny.

 

Forced to resign. Said resignation has since been rejected and she has been  fired. Said firing has since been rescinded and she’s been rehired but demoted.

One of these things…

Former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton

Employed by governmental entity in a position of power.

Required, by law, to conduct all work-related email correspondence via employer-provided email service.

Decided that she was above that law.

Used personal email account to discuss vital matters of national security, some of which have already been verified as classified, some possibly top secret.  As a result, emails may have been available for scrutiny by enemies of the USA.

Poised to accept the nomination of her party in the hopes of becoming the next president of the United States of America.

 

is not like the other.

 

 

Advertisements

About pegoleg

R-A-M-B-L-I-N-G-S, Ram...Blin!
This entry was posted in General Ramblings and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to A Tale Of Two Women

  1. susielindau says:

    Ha!
    The political shenanigans never change.

    Like

  2. dmswriter says:

    How do politicians expect us to believe anything they say? I think Hillary’s been hanging around Bill a little too long…

    Like

  3. As one in software contracts, I am awestruck by the enormity of this. This kind of behavior would come with serious consequences if in conjunction with a corporate contract, you know? That’s commercial business, not top secret anything! To me, this “little” problem reveals enormous cause for concern. If someone can’t be trusted to act in accord with basic confidentiality provisions in one way, what other ones might they be willing to overlook for convenience? I was ready to vote for her, but this troubles me deeply.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Prepare to get a phone call from Roger Ailes. Typically, this kind of clear-headed logic is an anathema to Fox News but I believe he’ll make an exception in this case.

    Like

  5. Al says:

    You’re brave to put something out there that might offend the Hillary lemmings. I, however, liked it.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Carrie Rubin says:

    Now I’d like to see them both with a Trump-style combover. And oranger faces. Over spray-tanning seems to be the latest political thing. 🙂

    Like

  7. Elyse says:

    I’m not a big fan of Hilary’s, and the sheer stupidity of her actions in this boggles my mind.

    That said, I have, on rare occasions, emailed myself sensitive documents from my work address. So the presidency is out for me, too. (Do I hear a collective sigh of relief reverberating throughout Word Press?)

    Liked by 2 people

    • pegoleg says:

      If not having made any stupid mistakes were the litmus test for the presidency, the post would remain ever vacant, or it would have to be filled by a robot or a Martian.

      Neither of these women made a mistake, though – they willfully choice to ignore a law that they didn’t like. When that choice might endanger our country’s security, I find it very troubling.

      If you were working on the Iran deal and emailed it to yourself from a Starbucks, Elyse, I would have to agree that you probably shouldn’t have the Presidential seal embroidered on your bath towels just yet.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. franhunne4u says:

    In fact, if Mrs. Clinton has broken Top Secret -secrecy, she should indeed face a trial for that. All people are equal in front of the law. Why has no trial been brought on?

    Like

  9. Dana says:

    I think Phyllis Wise can put her name on the presidential ballot, too. Or we can write in her name for her! What do you think, grassroots campaign?

    Like

    • pegoleg says:

      Ha! Great idea, but I think she will make more money as a college professor. She would have to take the long view that she could totally clean up in speaker fees after the presidential gig was over.

      Like

      • Dana says:

        But those speaking gigs are where people can throw pies at you, or fly in a drone, with a fake body part taped to it, or stand up and start yelling “Don’t tase me, bro!”

        Like

  10. AthenaC says:

    I just want to underscore here that if you are at ANY risk of handling classified info, you are briefed and briefed and briefed and then briefed some more about appropriate handling and disposition of classified info. It really gets pretty obnoxious to be honest. BUT. The point of all that is to make sure that if classified info is mishandled, it is certainly, 100%, NOT by accident.

    I’m not the type to get bent out of shape by every little piece of mud people want to sling, but this was pretty egregious – she had to have known exactly what she was doing.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. momshieb says:

    Hoo, boy. What can I say?
    Oh, yeah. “Bernie Sanders”

    Like

  12. I suspect she’s calculated the “Benghazi” nuts into this equation. The more fanatical the outrage that is levied against her, the more likely it is she will get away with claiming “it’s just politics.” For me, the bottom line is if she knew it was inappropriate and did it anyway, she lacks the integrity to be president. If she didn’t know it was inappropriate, she lacks the intelligence and good judgment to be president. I don’t think anyone’s ever accused her of lacking intelligence. Ergo. . .

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Thanks for posting this!! I do not want that woman for president.

    Like

  14. Very shrewd observation. I’d rather vote for Donald Trump than Hilary Clinton. She has no ethics whatsoever.

    Like

  15. Not being a fan of either of the Clinton’s I still look at this and think, why? What would cause an otherwise intelligent woman to think this made sense. Could it be the sheer volume of personal e-mail she received and now and then her work life and personal life crossed over, just like many of us. I suspect this is the case.

    I am not making excuses for her, simply looking at it and saying I suspect it wasn’t a server set up for work, but rather for personal use. I do not want her President, never was a fan but I think she gets beat on unaccountably hard.

    Like

    • pegoleg says:

      Since she so obviously IS intelligent, my best guess is arrogance. She doesn’t want people looking over her words, and who would? I wouldn’t, that’s for sure. But given the nature of the words and the laws in place, I would have swallowed my irk and done what I was supposed to. I think she feels above the laws that govern everybody else.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s