In 2009 as Hillary was creating a unique domain, I had 4 email accounts on ONE iPhone.

[NYC_SKP]

So really this crap about convenience is just a convenient excuse. Fuck. Seriously, Hillary. Fuck!!!

We should feel insulted that we're supposed to accept that as the whole truth.

Examining the registry information for "clintonemail.com" reveals that the domain was first created on Jan. 13, 2009 -- one week before President Obama was sworn into office, and the same day that Clinton's confirmation hearings began before the Senate.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/02/hacked-emails-indicate-that-hillary-clinton-used-a-domain-registered-the-day-of-her-senate-hearings/

Private domain is one thing, making matters worse is that the server (the actual equipment that manages websites and emails) was in their private residence.

Tuesday, Clinton said the server was set up for her husband, former president Bill Clinton, at their house in Chappaqua, N.Y. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/security-of-hillary-clintons-private-e-mail-server-comes-under-scrutiny/2015/03/10/fcccfb78-c737-11e4-aa1a-86135599fb0f_story.html

Hey, Hillary:
You can put multiple addresses on a single device, even back in the day, so your excuse is rank bullshit.
What the HELL were you thinking in creating a unique domain name AND using your private family's server to manage OUR fucking national security business.

You, Ma'am, are disqualified and unfit for office, any office, and especially the highest office of this land.

[upaloopa]

1. Don't accept it then

Geesh
She will be a great President




I wonder how much of this goes back to the days were some folks just couldn't handle a strong woman.

[jehop61]

4. You betcha

Even some DUers are sooooooo scared of a woman who'll take no prisoners.

[arcane1]

105. Prove it.

Put up or shut up.

[TwilightGardener]

6. If this is how she conducted herself as SoS, how would she be a great President?

She flunked her audition.

[840high]

43. As a former Hillary

supported I say she has flunked.

[NYC Liberal]

76. She conducted her herself fantastically as SoS. And that is why she will be a great President.

If her “audition” was SoS then she passed with flying colors.

[TwilightGardener]

79. She herself admitted that her email server was a mistake. She performed as SoS with

her eye 100% on her Presidential run, rather than on her duties and responsibilities, and that's why she sequestered her email communications. Her Presidency will probably be even more opaque and mismanaged. No thanks.

[NYC Liberal]

80. And she did a fantastic job as SoS.

Vote for whomever you want if you don’t want her as president.

[TwilightGardener]

85. How so, did she do a fantastic job? You mean "We came, we saw, he died?"

Where's Libya now? Going good?

[antigop]

110. and how about that TPP? nt

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

132. Bill Kristol is behind this story is what I heard, well done rightwing and their

little helpers all over the internets

[NYC_SKP]

141. No. Hillary Rodham Clinton is behind this story, she's the "decider" who decided to do this.

She's unfit for office and I wouldn't want her on the board of my Homeowners Association, or my nonprofit educational institution, or on city council.

Can't be trusted to tell the truth, can't be trusted to gauge in advance what her actions might look like, can't be trusted to protect the worker or the poor.

And she's kind of embarrassing the way she uses womens' issues to promote herself.

Give me Warren.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

142. No, it is Kristol and the rightwing, and they are VERY Well represented here at DU

You cant have Warren, she isnt running.

You can have Walker though

[NYC_SKP]

143. Did Kristol set up the private server and domain name FOR Hillary Clinton???? I did not KNOW that!

No, she did these things to herself and she's going down, and doesn't care if the election is lost to a Bush or some other tool.

She's doing this, you might want to start holding her accountable for her actions.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

144. BASH BASH BASH (Hillary, run for cover, DU is NOT friendly for you, if only you were a

Democrat, Hillary)

[Orrex]

2. Yeah, but you weren't trying to torpedo your own Presidential campaign.

Big difference!

[Capt. Obvious]

49. Heh heh

[leveymg]

3. I also noticed that whopper, yesterday.

Besides, Hillary usually has enough pockets for half a dozen Blackberries.

[Agschmid]

11. What's the added picture for?

[leveymg]

16. To illustrate her abundance of pockets. n/t

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

133. Misogyny? Bill Kristol has people working all over the internets it seems

[pnwmom]

18. Sexist.

Her clothes are not the issue.

[leveymg]

42. Sexist? Nonsense. She had pockets. Lots of women have pockets.

At least two. Often, a lot of them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Ha./NT

[uponit7771]

86. +1

[Agschmid]

117. Yah even I agree on this one.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

134. Of course it is sexist, and it is gonna get WAY WORSE

NObody shows a man in a suit when the issue of pockets comes up

DU is now known for racism, homophobia and sexism

[JaneyVee]

23. What whopper? The OP is wrong on tech aspects.

[leveymg]

46. Not wrong on tech aspects. My pre-2012 Blackberries had multiple email accounts.

[B2G]

51. So did the pre 2010 iPhone

the issue was with Exchange accounts, which was solved in 2010.

[leveymg]

60. So you agree that the OP is essentially correct?

Do you know whether the use of multiple email accounts on Blackberries of that vintage presented a security vulnerability? I read something that indicates it did, which may be why gov't people had multiple Blackberries.

[B2G]

64. Yeah I do.

Not sure about security vulnerability. But even if BB did only support one email, what prevented her from setting up her .gov email account on it and using yahoo, Hotmail, etc. for private emails?

All you would have to do is open a browser and log in, right?

Unless it was government issued that it was so locked down you wouldn't be able to do that. Which I would find hard to believe.

[leveymg]

69. Your reasoning makes sense. Please share that.

Also, as Janeyvee pointed out below, there are two gov't systems. One is for classified data and that didn't allow for remote access. The regular .gov domain, however, I believe has been in use on cell phones for email.

I wish someone here was a gov't Network Admin type who would be able to confirm this.

[B2G]

74. I don't think a gov issued device would be considered to be 'remote access'

so it should have been accessible on a government issued BB. Her example downthread was in relation to personal devices used for work purposes (BYOD) and remote desktop access....like logging into the network remotely.

[tammywammy]

130. I don't find that hard to believe.

I cannot access yahoo, gmail, hotmail, etc with company assets (phone or laptop).

[NYC_SKP]

99. Wrong. My 2007 iPhone had multiple email accounts.

At first three, then four.

Hillary is caught in a problem here because iPhones and other smart devices could handle multiple email accounts at the time.

Note: my screen cap is not my phone and is not from her phone or even from the same model necessarily as I had, but it makes the point of showing in boxes on an iPhone for multiple accounts and is 100% representative of the functionality at the time that HRC was feeling inconvenienced.

[leftofcool]

107. Totally wrong. The Op has no idea what the clintonmail.com server was eally for.

[Capt. Obvious]

112. Do you?

[Atman]

5. I have my own e-mail server. So did Colin Powell.

Why is this such a big deal?

Oh, of course...BENGHAZI! CLINTON! BENGHAZI! CLINTON! BENGHAZI! CLINTON! BENGHAZI! CLINTON! BENGHAZI! CLINTON! BENGHAZI! CLINTON!

[leveymg]

26. Powell also violated the 1950 Federal Records Act. You didn't, unless you head a federal agency.

The violation isn't in using private email, it's in the failure of the Secretary of State to preserve and convey official records to the Archives. The Bushies destroyed tens of thousands of email records, and got away with it because the Act has no teeth. Hillary observed the same legal loopholes, and acted in a similar manner.

[RiverLover]

48. Acc to this, Colin Powell had his private email along with his .gov email for business

Like I have to do for my job.

FACT CHECK: Clinton and Her Emails

CLINTON: "Others had done it."

THE FACTS: Although email practices varied among her predecessors, Clinton is the only secretary of state known to have conducted all official unclassified government business on a private email address. Years earlier, when emailing was not the ubiquitous practice it is now among high officials, Colin Powell used both a government and a private account. It's a striking departure from the norm for top officials to rely exclusively on private email for official business....

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/03/11/fact-check-clinton-and-her-emails

[leveymg]

62. I had read that. I'm referring to the 2007 disclosure that the Bush Admin had erased en mass its

email records of laptops that were distributed to officials along with anonymous email accounts.

Not sure Powell was part of that. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

[RiverLover]

71. I have no idea.

And I wasn't responding to you & if he broke the Federal Records Act or not.

People here are saying Colin P did the same thing that Hill did. He didn't. And even if he did, saying she did the same as a rethug sure doesn't make it ok.

[Atman]

111. How long has email been in existence?

Seriously, how long. These references are going back DECADES. Of course, Richard Nixon's or LBJ's secretaries weren't preserving their emails. We have a different way of looking at this now...it's like damning someone for not making CD dupes of their 40 MB hard drive in 1958. Technology moves forward. Idiocy tends to mark in lock step.

[JaneyVee]

7. iphone didn't allow multiple accounts until 2010.

[4139]

10. Just bookmark them on the Internet.... Real easy

[JaneyVee]

21. Bookmark what? They need network security.

[pnwmom]

12. And the OP's screen shot was from 2011, not 2009.

[JaneyVee]

17. And Blackberry didn't do it until 2013.

Iphone didn't allow it until ios 4.0 released in Dec.2010

[pnwmom]

20. And by then she already had her system in place and Obama obviously didn't care. nt

[JaneyVee]

25. Yup, the only option she had was her own server.

[leveymg]

29. My three phones before 2012 were Blackberries, and they all allowed multiple email accounts.

I set up both my preexisting commercial account as well as the carrier's account. Can't attest to any security vulnerabilities attached to that, however.

[JaneyVee]

38. It wasn't until 2013...

it wasn't until 2013 that RIM unveiled a feature called BlackBerry Balance meant to separate personal information, including personal e-mail accounts, from work data, which can be managed by corporate security administrators and protected by encryption.

[leveymg]

50. Don't spread disinfo. I had Blackberries with multiple email during that period.

I know. I set up my own email on my own phones.

[JaneyVee]

56. Blackberry Balance introduced January 30th 2013

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_10

Click features section.

Also, this isn't about multiple accounts, she stated she opted for convenience of carrying one phone.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

57. That's MDM and containerization--a very different thing than permitting multiple email accounts. nt

[JaneyVee]

61. They would need network security which wasn't available

The government uses two networks, SIPRNET and NIPRNET, the former of which is used for classified communication. A report just last year indicated that the Defense Department was still working out how to allow SIPR access on a bring-your-own-device basis (meaning, not on a government phone); it wasn't until the end of 2013 that it had a system allowing remote SIPR access from desktop devices. 

[leveymg]

66. HRC said she didn't use her phone for classified info, so pre-'13 SIPRNET access doesn't factor in.

If that's the case, it appears she could have run nonclassified .gov email on her Blackberry along with Clintonemail.com email.

[JaneyVee]

72. Not securely though. Also, she stated she opted for convenience.

It is what it is. You couldn't have 2 accounts on one phone with WH and State Dept until 2011-2012, eventually there was an app that changed that.

[NYC_SKP]

145. She's kind of screwed either way: Either she could and didn't, or couldn't and was snooty.

Too snooty to be bothered with carrying two devices.

SMH! I still can't believe she allowed herself to use that excuse....

[B2G]

45. I believe you could have multiple email accounts prior to 2010

Just not multiple MS Exchange accounts, and she didn't use Exchange.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

77. Not so. IOS 3 came out in June '09, and it permitted multiple accounts.

.

[uponit7771]

78. That doesn't mean she was using the latest Iphone

[DisgustipatedinCA]

81. Possibly. But it definitively disproves the claim that iphone couldn't do multiple accts before '10

[uponit7771]

83. No one is saying it couldn't do multiple acts, overt strawman noted

[DisgustipatedinCA]

90. How much money are you ready to put on your claim, sport-o?

Go look at posts 7 and 17, then come back and apologize if it's in your character to right a wrong.

[uponit7771]

93. 2,000.00 for either claim... I have PP and someone can hold the money. I love it when overt

... strawmen are challenged and money is involved.

No on said the iphone can't do multiple acts, even Hillary
No one said Hillary was using the latest iPhone at the time

Hillary said, she didn't want to carry multiple devices... that's it...

Technically that holds true even now if someone wants their personal email 100% separate from their business email on any platform and vise versa.

[B2G]

101. And again, she could have carried one device

that had her .gov email configured and used a web based email system for personal.

One device, 2 distinct accounts. I don't know what's so hard about that.

[uponit7771]

118. Yes, she also could have jumped rope 2 times a day... in either case she didin't want to

... and that's not a bad thing.

I don't want my personal and business emails mixed AT ALL... not even on the same device because

I don't want the companies security policy applied to my personal cell phone...

I have two cell phones now

[DisgustipatedinCA]

114. Let's do it.

Your claim (in post 83): "No one is saying it couldn't do multiple acts, overt strawman noted"

Post #7: "iphone didn't allow multiple accounts until 2010."

Post #17: "Iphone didn't allow it until ios 4.0 released in Dec.2010"

Now go ahead and tell me more about strawmen and how no one claimed the iPhone couldn't do multiple accounts in 2009.

Item next: if someone wants their personal email 100% separate from their business email, this is very doable. It's a pain in the ass for the user, but it's doable. Even now.

[uponit7771]

122. Acts /= accounts... I win on that one already.....

... do you want the other one too?

come on...

Please read post carefully, don't interject your own wording... that's called a strawman

[DisgustipatedinCA]

125. I don't play fuckwit games.

The iPhone was capable of handling multiple ACCOUNTS in 2009. That was my claim. I did shorten to the standard accepted abbreviation "accts". You later referred to this as "acts". Now you're basing your entire claim on "acts" (parts of a play? actions? book in the bible?) being different than "accts". Just because you can't abbreviate to save your life in no way invalidates my 100% CORRECT CLAIM that the iPhone could handle multiple email accounts in 2009. Not only is this dishonest, it's also very childish. I make a point of not wasting my life with those who operate at your level. So, bye.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

121. Oh hey there. Haven't heard from you recently.

I believe we have a wager we need to negotiate. I already provided the ironclad proof--now we just need to figure out how much money you'll be losing. I eagerly await your reply.

[uponit7771]

123. I already won half it ... do you really want to do the other half?

[JaneyVee]

91. ios 4.0 started unified inbox.

Also, single phone security with multiple accounts wasn't available in govt until 2011-2012. You either had a single account or multiple phones. She opted for convenience.

[daleanime]

8. I had been leaning toward dismissing this as a manufactured scandal....

but you've got me rethinking that.....I believe that Hillary's problem is that she doesn't want to admit the real reason she did this. To try to avoid these kind of manufactured scandals. If she can't deal with that how could she handle the challenges coming?

[pnwmom]

9. Nice try, but the screen shot you posted was from 2011.

So I'll believe the WA Post.

Obama has acknowledged knowing that she was using a personal account and it wasn't against the law at the time. This is a non-issue.

[Agschmid]

13. It's not his either I doubt he has Bell as his carrier...

[pnwmom]

14. Wow. I wonder which Rethug site s/he got it from? n/t

[NYC_SKP]

39. You're just adorable with your attempt to smear me. Try Google Image Search.

[pnwmom]

41. You were attempting to smear Hillary with a 2011 screen shot.

And that was the best you could do, even with Google Image Search.

[riversedge]

47. agree

[Codeine]

115. How the sweet fuck

did your other post noting this simple fact earn a hide?!

Guys, I'm hardly pnwmom's biggest fan, but damn that jury result was some silly shit.

[4139]

15. Who owned the Blackberry? Hillary or the State Department?

Someone asked that on face book and I can't find the answer. If Hillary owned the phone the state department doesn't have original phone logs

[WillowTree]

19. Is there no one on her team that's even a little bit tech literate?

I'm amazed that no one told her that that was going to be a total bullshit rationale.

[pnwmom]

24. The WA Post story is correct. The OP is bullshit.

The screenshot showed a phone in 2011, not 2009.

[JaneyVee]

27. That's about as technical as it could get in 2009.

We've come a long way since then.

[WillowTree]

55. I was referring to wondering why her staff NOW didn't tell her that was a dumb thing to say.

She used a Blackberry, which, to my understanding, could handle multiple e-mail accounts through multiple domains at least as far back as 2009.

[JaneyVee]

59. Govt uses 2 networks....

The government uses two networks, SIPRNET and NIPRNET, the former of which is used for classified communication. A report just last year indicated that the Defense Department was still working out how to allow SIPR access on a bring-your-own-device basis (meaning, not on a government phone); it wasn't until the end of 2013 that it had a system allowing remote SIPR access from desktop devices. 

[B2G]

67. So that means the BB should have been government issued

Why not use the .gov email on that and something like Yahoo for your personal emails? All you have to do is open a browser and log in to access them.

Problem solved.

[JaneyVee]

73. Convenience, as she stated.

[B2G]

75. What inconvenient about the example I gave?

You have to open a brower and log in?

Oh my. How taxing.

[JaneyVee]

82. Managing 2 email accounts is taxing.

I have one for work and one personal plus 2 kids and it's sometimes overwhelming. Now imagine being head of a global charity foundation, and Secretary of State.

[B2G]

88. You can't possibly be serious

If she can't handle 2 email accounts, what in the bloody hell is she doing running for President?

[JaneyVee]

92. Oh boy, knew that was coming.

She stated it was for convenience. And anyone is allowed to run for President. Are you saying she shouldn't run? I say the more the merrier.

[B2G]

95. I think she showed incredibly poor judgement

in using a personal domain, housing her own server in her own home, comingling personal and state dept emails and taking it upon herself to decide which ones to delete. She had to know this would result in a huge amount of controversy, which was completely avoidable.

We shouldn't even be having this conversation right now.

[JaneyVee]

104. It was legal according to the law.

[B2G]

113. That's not the point. nt

[JaneyVee]

102. Obviously he couldn't.

[Buzz Clik]

30. That's two accounts, not four.

Whatthefuckever.

[JaneyVee]

31. We should feel insulted that you posted a pic from 2011...

While claiming it was 2009. You should rightfully edit your OP to reflect your lack of tech understanding.

[Starry Messenger]

36. +1

[NYC_SKP]

40. It's not my phone, it's not my pic, it's a generic one that makes the point.

I no longer have my iPhone 3G, I'm on a 5 now.

[pnwmom]

52. It doesn't make the point. It's a screen shot from 2011. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

65. No kidding!

"My iPhone had 4 email accounts in 2009. And to prove my point, here's a pic of someone else's phone from 2011 with two accounts."

Good lord.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

87. You could have 4 accounts on your iphone in 2009...that's just not in question.

I don't much care one way or another about the stock photo used in the OP, but multiple emails were definitely possible on iPhones in 2009.

[LanternWaste]

53. Cool way to rationalize an inaccuracy to better validate your creative speculation.

Cool way to rationalize an inaccuracy to better validate your creative speculation.

[NYC_SKP]

146. Has it occured to you how unlikely it is to find a screen shot of the email page of an iPhone 3?

any former or current used can verify that the capability existed and, for all you know, that's pic was taken in 2008, it doesn't change the fact that an iPhone could carry mutliple inboxes before she became SOS.

Which is my singular assertion.

Every attempt to discredit the OP is fail.

[Marr]

119. Oh, c'mon. That is just lame.

The technology was widely available in 2009-- that's very obviously the poster's point. I'm not aligning on either side of this argument here, but citing the year on an accompanying screenshot and claiming fraud is just absurd.

[John Poet]

32. The only story here

is the one the far-right talking machine is so DESPERATE to keep alive,
to draw attention away from the #47TRAITORS

There are more than enough of THEM to do that "job" without your help,
and I've personally had enough of seeing it on DemocraticUnderground.

In fact, it's beginning to alienate me from people who should be allies.

There are plenty of other reasons to oppose Hillary,
if that's your only reason for being,

but this is a dead fucking horse.

[Buzz Clik]

35. +1. What is it with DUers carrying the GOP's water?

[Buzz Clik]

33. I just read the entire thread. Skippy, I suggest you delete the OP.

You're looking like a bombastic jackass.

You, Ma'am, are disqualified and unfit for office, any office, and especially the highest office of this land.

Yeah. We'll consider the source.

[Buzz Clik]

84. Dear Frank.

Yep.

[NYC_SKP]

89. There's a lot of misinformation in the thread.

For one thing, people assume for no reason that the screenshot is of my personal phone.

LOL, as if I would share the names of my accounts. As if I would still have the same phone.

Also, there are claims that in 2009 you could NOT have multiple addresses on a phone.

Nope, sorry, I had four on my phones since I got my first smart phone when iPhones first came out.

Two yahoo accounts, one Gmail, and one dot-org for my employer.

Why should I delete? I'm fighting for all of us against a bad choice for president.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. "Why should I delete? I'm fighting for all of us against a bad choice for president."

You're not fighting for me.

[Buzz Clik]

109. Go here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/10/why-couldnt-hillary-clinton-have-two-email-accounts-on-one-phone/

And lighten up.

[dissentient]

34. Yea, granted, the excuse sounds a bit lame. That said, it does seem the media is going after Hillary

with a strange intensity. A reporter asked Hillary if she thought this email controversy had been blown up to this degree because she was a woman, and if it had been a man, it would not have gotten this kind of attention. I thought there was a good basis for his question and implication. So, I'm kind of on the fence and can see both sides.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Hi

[Metric System]

54. If THIS is how you intend to promote Warren, then good fucking luck with that.

[Buzz Clik]

63. No kidding. It's been an hour, and the author of the OP has has barely responded to comments.

What a steaming pile.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. When you are a dog who needs to relieve himself everything looks like a fire hydrant./NY

[Capt. Obvious]

58. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Wed Mar 11, 2015, 01:55 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

The OP is lying. That screen shot was from 2011. n/t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6349159

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attacks don't get any clearer than this one.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 11, 2015, 02:03 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Vote to LEAVE IT ALONE, posted 23 Feb 2009.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't think this is worth hiding.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm voting to hide as an ABC vote.

Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The OP mentioned 2009.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Calling someone a liar is over the top. Call the information false, but attacking the person is the wrong way to make a point.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Oh, they can get clearer. But saying a poster is lying is an attack, yes.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[BainsBane]

70. I still don't

and the IP guy at work screwed up my phone when he tried to put my work email on it. it's not so easy for a lot of us.

I also think it's pretty obvious from what the state dept officer said that state.gov emails don't go on Iphones. As you previously pointed out to me, you're not Secretary of State.

[NYC_SKP]

96. My very specific challenge is related to the excuse about convenience.

And there's more than one way for it to be challenged.

First, you're SOS and you have aides available at all times to carry your devices.

But even if you don't and insist on carrying them your self, how hard is it really to carry two? I mean really. You're secretary of state.

Third, the technology existed with devices, maybe not her preferred device, but it existed, to manage multiple emails on one device.

That thirds claim is the one being made with the OP.

The technology existed at the time for multiple emails to be used on a single device.

And, apparently, HRC chose instead to go through the effort to create a unique domain, host it on a private residence computer out of reach of her employer, to do work related to her employment.

The excuse about convenience is remarkably weak, to be kind, and more of a deflection in all likelihood from the real reasons she did this.

...

[BainsBane]

103. I found it quite a normal response

as someone who doesn't handle all these gizmos terribly well, it made sense to me.

Back in 2009, what she did was allowed. It was not illegal and complied with procedures. As she said the other day, in hindsight she would have opted to do it differently.

You don't believe her. Fine. Don't vote for her. You weren't going to anyway. But I don't think it's an issue for people who aren't already looking for ammunition to use against her.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

97. I know that you aren't going to get much traction here --

on this story, but I wanted to step in and say that I am very disturbed by the entirety of this email nonsense. This all gives the impression of the intent to circumvent transparency. Even if my beloved Bernie himself were to reveal he had set-up his own server and kept it in his residence I would have to question his motives. I simply don't find the actions trustworthy, whether there is a "R" after the name or a "D". When this all broke I had a flashback to the billing files that just magically showed up in Hillary's storage cupboard. I frankly didn't care what was IN the files, I simply was disgusted with the obvious ruse.

[Motown_Johnny]

100. The "not wanting 2 phones" part is pure BS

and for me the really scary thing is that it took her team nearly a week to come up with an excuse that makes no sense at all.

We can argue about the judgement shown in using the private server, but people who like her will support it while those who don't like her will oppose it. It will get us nowhere.

I just want someone who can win and right now I see no evidence that HRC has ever run a strong campaign or will in 2016.

It was a terrible response that will cause far more problems than it solved.

[tularetom]

106. Voters are not going to get the nuance of this

Email accounts, servers, domain names. Most people just don't give a flying fuck. It boils down to this. Many Americans admire Ms Clinton, many others do not. In addition, there are some who are neutral about her.

Those who admire her believe this entire kerfuffle is just another media hit job on the Clintons. Those who dislike her believe that she bears some culpability for the email situation.

Here's the problem for her. The "neutral" bloc looks at this, looks at her reaction, and sees yet another case of Clinton drama and paranoia. And they're fucking fed up with it. The media have been just as tough on Obama as they were on the Clintons, maybe more so. But you never heard him whining about it and eventually it all subsided.

When emailgate broke, the Clintons first reaction was to dispatch an army of their minions to all the news shows and have them bad mouth the press for picking on the former SoS. And do you know what people thought? I do, they thought "Oh fuck, here we go again".

I don't think the country is ready for four more years of Clinton drama, there are too many important issues to have to deal with this kind of bullshit.

[m-lekktor]

108. excellent post. I agree. nt

[NYC_SKP]

136. What's more, I detest the way she uses womens' rights as a foil, or so it seems.

This seems to be her "angle".

I'm nothing but supportive of these myself but every thing she has been doing lately smacks of pandering to the demographic.

Her time in the Silicon Valley, and even the first question that came to her this week at the beginning of her crappy response to the email scandal.

"And my second follow-up question is, if you were a man today, would all of this fuss being made be made?"

OMG, that had to be planted. She got to select the questioners, right?

I'm sick of her.

Well hell, what good democrat doesn't support womens' rights? We all do.

[Eric_323]

147. About the first Question

According to the Washington Post

Now, by tradition, the first question at a U.N. news conferences is asked by the president of the U.N. Correspondents Association. But UNCA president Giampaolo Pioli, of the Italian paper Quotidiano Nazionale (National Daily) wasn’t in town Tuesday. We reached him in the Central African Republic and he said protocol would dictate that one of the other UNCA officers would do the honors.

They did indeed follow protocol and the next officer in line, UNCA first vice president Kahraman Haliscelik, the New York correspondent for the Turkish Radio & TV network, opened the questioning, asking about — what else? — the e-mails.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2015/03/10/hillary-clintons-u-n-news-conference-seen-as-rare-and-inaccessible/


You can email them to ask for yourself if you wish.
[link:http://unca.com/2015-unca-executive-committee/|

[Codeine]

116. Nobody gives two tugs of a dead dog's dick

about how many or what sort of email accounts the Secretary of State had several years ago.

[steve2470]

124. amen nt

[leftofcool]

126. No shit!

[TheKentuckian]

120. Silly argument to me. Who gives a flying fuck if somebody has to carry two phones?

I've had to do it multiple times, usually the business one was also a Nextel, and at times also had to carry a 2 way radio so BOO MOTHERFUCKIN HOO and only made a sliver of a fraction of what she did and managed with an aid staff of zero.

The list of management and up folks I'm aware of who did the same is extensive to the point of being standard practice.

Don't want to carry two, be a private citizen and one without 24/7 responsibility or put all your business on the company or government line if permitted and deal with that. Hell, one can be a private citizen and go to zero phones if you want.

I don't get bothering to dignify this super silly rationalization.

Folks way below Clinton's pay grade have to deal with worse. Don't want to carry two phones but want to be a leader in government? Fucking tough! Grow up.

My dog ate my homework is a better excuse than not wanting to carry two devices that weigh a few ounces a piece. Add in a staff and it is deserving of mockery not any argument.
It takes a special level of entitlement to even utter the lame ass rationalization.

[2naSalit]

127. Except for the

fact that when dealing with a .gov address... it's a different world regardless of how easily YOUR devices and those the rest of us use are and how they keep up with the newest technology. I am a federal temp and the .gov email system I use is way different with technology that, at its best, is a couple years behind the times.

I think that you are arguing apples and oranges here and it's really sad that nobody seems to get the point that .gov accounts are a different animal. In fact I find it really pathetic.

This is an obvious witch hunt that is still ongoing since the early 90s.

I usually find you posts reasonable and worth my time but you seem to have fallen off the monorail on this issue.

[Number23]

128. Oh my God...

[tammywammy]

129. I can tell you where I work you're not allowed to access other email accounts via company assets

They use iPhones now, but previously BlackBerries. This includes work computers and laptops, no access to any email other than work - for example Gmail is blocked. Also if you work on a different network than the regular company one, that would be a separate phone as well (and separate computer). I personally know people that have had to carry three phones - personal, regular work and program specific.

So in my work experience not being allowed multiple email accounts on the same device is an every day occurrence.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

131. I hear Bill Kristol is behind this email non story...well done rightwing

THere are more anti Hillary posts on DU than free republic, i think

[MineralMan]

135. Your note to Hillary Clinton is

over the top. It's not just criticism, it's a blatant ugly attack. Shame on you, sir!

[onenote]

137. So I guess that makes you more qualified to be president.

[NYC_SKP]

138. I am.

I'm honest and progressive.

[Bluenorthwest]

139. That is like poetry, so many bits of irony juxtaposed like that.

As the man said as he was selling the Brooklyn Bridge 'I'm honest'.

[NYC_SKP]

140. Also, I don't mind carrying two devices in support of 300,000,000 Americans and the world.

I still can't believe that someone with so many advisors and handlers was allowed to utter that excuse, that two devices would have been inconvenient.

OMG, what nonsense.

At her core, from an examination of her entire body of work, there is nothing there but self interest.

She's charismatic, she knows how to sell it, but deep down what are her values?