Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)

7. Just because she didn't INTENTIONALLY

Reply to catnhatnh (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:05 PM

Apr 2016

put America in danger, doesn't mean she's not guilty of criminal negligence here. As it is, she deliberately and knowingly defied the State Department's order to her that she not use a Blackberry for her work emails.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No Mr. President-she did not "intentionally" put America in danger... [View all] catnhatnh Apr 2016 OP

President Obama is partially responsible for what happened as well. Maedhros Apr 2016 #1

Hillary completely snookered him yourpaljoey Apr 2016 #6

Exactly right. Obama seems to have thought Hillary didn't need supervision. BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #10

I know you are referring to Truman's comment that the buck stops here karynnj Apr 2016 #15

I agree. I don't think Obama knew. Fawke Em Apr 2016 #17

umm.. but Obama said she did not intentionally put national security in danger riversedge Apr 2016 #2

And I agreed with him catnhatnh Apr 2016 #5

Than why have the beginning "No, .....??? riversedge Apr 2016 #9

That's agreeing with the President "No she didn't intentionally put the American people in danger" Fumesucker Apr 2016 #21

The Whole thing hangs on that word "intentionally" 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #24

Carelssness isn't. It was actually admitted beedle Apr 2016 #33

I cannot argue with your analysis one whit. Well said. n/t 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #34

Also re:intent... She appears to have *intended* to circumvent freedom of information applicability JudyM Apr 2016 #36

One lawyer speaking about another lawyer. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2016 #32

Obama with some tricky wordsmithing... Avalux Apr 2016 #3

Technically, in this case, carelessness is a crime. kristopher Apr 2016 #12

Yup... Fawke Em Apr 2016 #20

I saw it the first time, and it was neither lost, stolen, removed from where it was originally sent Hoyt Apr 2016 #26

Do you have statute that she violated to make it criminal act? Or are you just spinning BS for BS? Hoyt Apr 2016 #4

It is discussed on several threads catnhatnh Apr 2016 #8

That is not a violation of any statute. "Careless" maybe. You don't think Sanders would have done Hoyt Apr 2016 #11

careless .... interesting word Hiraeth Apr 2016 #19

"Careless" is not a violation of the law. And, since no one has proof of any detrimental action, I Hoyt Apr 2016 #28

Was not my word. Interesting. Hiraeth Apr 2016 #29

See my Post at No. 20. Fawke Em Apr 2016 #22

See my post at 26, which was meant to be posted here but I got "careless." Hoyt Apr 2016 #27

Interesting Hiraeth Apr 2016 #30

Just because she didn't INTENTIONALLY SheilaT Apr 2016 #7

Not to mention Blumenthal MichMan Apr 2016 #13

and of course there is the public corruption side investigation magical thyme Apr 2016 #14

She would have had her server generate white noise, but that's just for protecting donors. Scuba Apr 2016 #16

She did spearhead a new aggressive war that destroyed a nation. JackRiddler Apr 2016 #18

Her carelessness with national security certainly azmom Apr 2016 #23

Obama just washed his hands so there would be no blood on them awake Apr 2016 #25

Did he just throw her under the bus? Hiraeth Apr 2016 #31

Not completely he just said that he would not stop the driver from running her over awake Apr 2016 #35

Lol Hiraeth Apr 2016 #37