HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Yet Another Bulls*** Clin...

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:05 PM

Yet Another Bulls*** Clinton “Story”. We have become even dumber than we were in the 90’s.

https://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/yet-another-bulls-clinton-story-we-have-become-even-dumber-than-we-were-in-the-90s/

Source info at the link.


With the “Hillary Email Scandal”, American “news” media didn’t just screw the pooch: they screwed it, blued it and tattooed it. And since so many people dislike Bubba and Hillary, the bulls*** lies about her email got swallowed hook line and sinker by their detractors on the Left and the Right.

And even though the story has been proven false, the Clinton Hate Club is still acting as if it were true. Truly bipartisan idiocy on display, folks. Even though:
No laws were broken.
No rules were violated.

Even with that, since it’s associated with a f***ing Clinton, OMGOMGOMG!!!!! There’s smoke, there must be fire! Let’s all freak out and pretend something bad happened!!!!!

Christ on a Clenis. Anybody remember Whitewater? Same thing happened then: a load of bulls*** was chucked about by various “Republicans”, and the media picked it up and ran with it. And when, in the end, all that came of it (pun intended) was oral sex and cigar fetishes, did anyone offer mea culpas? Was anything learned by the Punditocracy and the fools who listened to them?

Oh, Hell no, of course not. Lots of jackasses STILL think the Clintons were crooks instead of what they were: a dysfunctional couple composed of a idiot savant horndog politico and an overly-forgiving spouse.

In the end, Gentle Reader, Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS) stems from three things that waaaaay too many of us buy into:

Number A: Bill Clinton was trailer trash who made it to the White House. Instead of praising him for that rags-to-riches achievement, people still treat him like some lazy-a**ed meth lab operator. Because of his humble origins. (In Lincoln’s time, such a rise from adversity would have been treated as an asset.)

Letter 2: Hillary Clinton is a tough, powerful lawyer who has had her own significant achievements. Achievements in both her professional and personal lives. Waaaay too many Americans still think she should have stayed in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. “Cookies”, ferchrissakes.

Thirdly: They are neither perfect nor are they Repubs.

One final note: During Whitewater, Liberals were smart enough to see that the whole thing was a crock of s*** dreamed up by pathetic, criminal Right Wingnuts trying to kneecap two leaders of the Democratic party. This time around, eedjits from the Right AND from the Left are piling on the crazy train, spreading the phony “Clinton Trust” canard far and wide.

This writer used to think we couldn’t get any dumber than we were in the Lewinsky era. USED to think that. CDS Act Two has proven otherwise.

109 replies, 8150 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 109 replies Author Time Post
Reply Yet Another Bulls*** Clinton “Story”. We have become even dumber than we were in the 90’s. (Original post)
riqster Mar 2015 OP
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #1
Hekate Mar 2015 #18
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #19
Hekate Mar 2015 #24
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #28
Hekate Mar 2015 #29
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #34
Hekate Mar 2015 #35
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #37
Hekate Mar 2015 #39
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #41
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #48
riqster Mar 2015 #98
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #101
riqster Mar 2015 #102
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #105
riqster Mar 2015 #106
Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #54
Hekate Mar 2015 #60
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #72
Adrahil Mar 2015 #85
zentrum Mar 2015 #92
misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #2
George II Mar 2015 #33
riqster Mar 2015 #79
jeff47 Mar 2015 #3
misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #6
jeff47 Mar 2015 #55
misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #62
jeff47 Mar 2015 #63
misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #65
jeff47 Mar 2015 #66
misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #68
jeff47 Mar 2015 #69
misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #70
jeff47 Mar 2015 #91
riqster Mar 2015 #99
leftofcool Mar 2015 #7
jeff47 Mar 2015 #53
George II Mar 2015 #96
jeff47 Mar 2015 #97
BeyondGeography Mar 2015 #4
Dems to Win Mar 2015 #11
BeyondGeography Mar 2015 #14
riqster Mar 2015 #89
BeyondGeography Mar 2015 #90
riqster Mar 2015 #100
leftofcool Mar 2015 #5
spanone Mar 2015 #8
freshwest Mar 2015 #9
Hekate Mar 2015 #31
freshwest Mar 2015 #71
betsuni Mar 2015 #40
freshwest Mar 2015 #57
betsuni Mar 2015 #73
MADem Mar 2015 #67
betsuni Mar 2015 #74
MADem Mar 2015 #75
betsuni Mar 2015 #76
riqster Mar 2015 #80
chervilant Mar 2015 #94
Katashi_itto Mar 2015 #10
riqster Mar 2015 #81
Katashi_itto Mar 2015 #84
Iliyah Mar 2015 #12
tavernier Mar 2015 #13
JoePhilly Mar 2015 #15
ErikJ Mar 2015 #16
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #21
ErikJ Mar 2015 #36
Adrahil Mar 2015 #86
barbtries Mar 2015 #17
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #20
OnyxCollie Mar 2015 #93
Hekate Mar 2015 #22
genwah Mar 2015 #23
betsuni Mar 2015 #42
genwah Mar 2015 #43
betsuni Mar 2015 #77
jeff47 Mar 2015 #59
Joe Johns Mar 2015 #25
greatlaurel Mar 2015 #27
riqster Mar 2015 #83
greatlaurel Mar 2015 #26
Demoiselle Mar 2015 #30
Demoiselle Mar 2015 #32
riqster Mar 2015 #82
DeSwiss Mar 2015 #38
William769 Mar 2015 #44
B Calm Mar 2015 #45
quadrature Mar 2015 #46
MADem Mar 2015 #47
krawhitham Mar 2015 #51
MADem Mar 2015 #52
krawhitham Mar 2015 #49
MADem Mar 2015 #61
Adrahil Mar 2015 #87
riqster Mar 2015 #107
pansypoo53219 Mar 2015 #50
Botany Mar 2015 #56
misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #64
kestrel91316 Mar 2015 #58
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #78
Adrahil Mar 2015 #88
riqster Mar 2015 #95
tularetom Mar 2015 #103
riqster Mar 2015 #104
great white snark Mar 2015 #108
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #109

Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:13 PM

1. I'll help Hillary fans out. Find out what email system Leon Panetta, Robert Gates,

David Petraeus, Jim Jones, and Tom Donilon used. If they had their own private accounts that they used at least half the time for work matters, then you are home free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:10 PM

18. I guess the National Archivist doesn't count? He says she's fine. And he should know. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:26 PM

19. No. Being technically legal doesn't explain what she did.

It just says she won't go to jail. BTW, apparently there's couple new stories out about former ambassadors (Gration) being forced out for setting up private email in Kenya, and also a directive Clinton's office issued against use of private email for State Dept. employees, claiming it was not secure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:34 PM

24. So you're sure she must have done *something* wrong, and any moment now the nonbiased MSM...

... and the nonbiased GOP members of Congress will reveal what it is. And you're pretty sure she should go to jail, even if she gets off on a technicality.

Have I got that right?

What do you think it was? The murder of Vince Foster?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #24)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:38 PM

28. I added stuff to my above post on edit that explains why I think this is trouble

for her. I don't know if she did anything wrong, but that's the issue--we don't know, because her communications all took place, and were held, somewhere that the American people had no access to via records or FOIA. That's the whole point of the laws and regulations concerning officials' use of properly secured, maintained and archived systems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:42 PM

29. I don't know if you did anything wrong, either. That is the nature of witch hunts. I look forward...

...to the revelations about Hillary's musings about her daughter's wedding dress, her then-future in-laws, and her daughter's sonogram. I'm sure it will be riveting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:49 PM

34. I find it strange that insistence on public servants following good practices and protocols--

especially in an age of hacking and spying--is a "witch hunt". Those rules and regulations are meant to protect the records and show us what our public officials are up to as they serve us--Hillary Clinton doesn't own her official communications, we the people do. The fact that she stowed them away for years, maintained and accessed by who-knows-who, and we only see them when she and her staff allow it--that should make you angry and suspicious. I trust no one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #34)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:55 PM

35. Have you read the OP and Post#9? That is what is going on. That is what I am objecting to...

...and that is what makes me angry. That is what should make any Democrat angry and suspicious.

Consider the source. Consider the purveyors. It is a witch hunt. Benghazi, Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi, and Benghazi some more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #35)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:01 PM

37. I don't know, it seems that the Clintons really love to shoot themselves in

the foot and then hand over the rest of the ammo to their enemies. This is a self-inflicted wound. She could have just used a State Dept. system for the bulk of her work and avoided this--after all, she apparently insisted upon it for her underlings as a matter of policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:04 PM

39. So it's their fault.

Good to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:07 PM

41. Yes. It is. And the President's. Why the WH looked the other way

when they received years of official emails from hdr22@clintonemail.com instead of hdr22@state.gov is beyond me. To what system, and to what security, did they think they were emailing to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #35)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:46 PM

48. what makes me angry is using private email systems for public business and then trying to

 

spin it as innocuous.

that the republicans are taking political advantage of it doesn't mean it's not problematic.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #28)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 04:40 PM

98. Too similar to typical RW talking points for my taste.

The same "logic" we heard for Whitewater, Benghazi, snd dozens of other RW BS smear campaigns.

Having first lobbed a smoke bomb in the room, the practitioners of these Segretti-esque capers then insist we look for the fire.

But now, as so often, there was no fire. Just a con artist with a smoke bomb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #98)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 04:54 PM

101. Hiding and/or deleting emails and thwarting transparency in government

is a right wing tendency. But I don't care which public official from either party does it, I can see the impropriety. I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't. I don't see it as a smear campaign. I see it as: she let her bad tendencies and iffy management skills get the better of her once again, and it affected how she did her job. That's a signal to me that she doesn't deserve a promotion to higher office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to riqster (Reply #102)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 06:36 PM

105. The ones she gave to the State Dept.? What ones DIDN'T she give to the State Dept?

Like the hacked Blumenthal/Clinton email exchanges that a guy from Gawker requested in a FOIA a couple years ago, but never received. It's that whole deal of her communications not being subject to immediate archiving and FOIA that is the heart of this issue. We will only see what she LETS us see. If you're into that with public officials, that's your business. I don't trust them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #105)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 07:17 PM

106. Classic.

No matter what refutations are provided, the True Believers will not be daunted. No, they'll just shift focus, move the goalposts or change the subject.

Anything BUT open their minds.

Enjoy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #24)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:15 PM

54. The wrongness of the situation is quite clear

 

The documents are the property of the Department of State.

The set of documents is necessarily full of highly classified information as a function of the office of Secretary of State.

The Department of State is not in possession of the documents.

Hillary Clinton is in possession of the documents.

In any other case, this is prima facie evidence of theft. The question that needs to be answered therefore, is why she gets to make her own rules on highly classified government property? People get long prison sentences for this kind of thing when they're not Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Man from Pickens (Reply #54)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:29 PM

60. You make points that have been debunked. Among others the National Archivist has cleared her.

But you just go right on enabling the Benghazi! Benghazi! crew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #60)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 10:28 PM

72. Nobody can "clear" what she did. It's already been done. She sequestered all her

official email communications for almost six years, away from the government, away from searches, against State policy and against WH policy. We do not know what is or WAS on her server. We don't know if it ever crashed, or was hacked, or had things lost or removed, we don't know who accessed it or maintained it. Interestingly, the WH might have known because their IT guys may have had to make sure her messages with her private address weren't kicked out as spam. Same with the IT at State Dept. and any agency that successfully received email from her. So it seems everyone knew, despite the WH saying that they had no idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 08:34 AM

85. Hey.. Don't vote for her. Your problem is solved.

 

I'll manage to get over this non-scandal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #85)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:27 PM

92. No. My problem is not solved.

Regardless of the actual legalities of our Secretary of State having a private email account, it gives the perception of shadiness—and therefor makes her a candidate for the Dems that will be easier to demonize and not elect. It hurts the chances of a Democratic win in 2016, should she run.

Never underestimate the nuance-free mentality of huge sections of the American voter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:16 PM

2. Truth! GHWBush thought he had 4 more years..that his re-election..

..was certain.
BAM..along comes an unknown from Hope, Arkansas and the people loved him.!!!
And Bill Clinton sent GHW BUSH packing his bags & exiting the White House.
And its been an unforgivable defeat that has carried through to the Obama's today.
And one that will not stand for Hillary to even speak 9f a presidential run before the Right Wing forces are plotting her demise.
Their hate boils over & foams at the mouth at the mention of her name.
They will not stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:47 PM

33. We can also thank Ross Perot for aiding Clinton's ascendancy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 06:34 AM

79. Very true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:18 PM

3. Actually, the scandal should be that she botched the security.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/clinton-s-e-mail-system-built-for-privacy-though-not-security

Article gets a bit hyperbolic about the "could hide stuff" angle. But provides a relatively accessible explanation of what they screwed up after one whole day of looking at their setup.

http://gizmodo.com/why-hillary-clintons-homebrew-email-is-a-security-night-1689470576

This article gets a little more technical. Also not terribly well-written, but brings up some other problems.

Long story short: They left the default encryption keys in place, so anyone could read her email. It took a whole day after the hit piece for someone to figure this out.

There's also a typosquatter at clintonmail.com (no 'e' before 'mail'). Domain was registered not long after the real domain was. You can't typosquat a .gov address, because only the US government hands them out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:21 PM

6. ..and somewhere in this scandal there MUST be a hook to..

..hang her on. Or at least keep her from the White House.
Endless sick stuff that keeps recycling in the Rovian play book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:15 PM

55. Yeah, it's not like she had an important job

and that there would be other countries trying to read her email.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #55)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:30 PM

62. Or read the Emails of a crappy US gov server either.


Did the GOP push to cut the funding for the US gov tech upgrading? Or did they just effin overlook that part?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #62)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:31 PM

63. Well, we know her server was using the factory default encryption keys

meaning they were widely-known, and thus easy to break.

Where's your link showing mail.state.gov uses factory default encryption keys?

How 'bout you link to the typosquatter who managed to get a .gov address?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #63)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:33 PM

65. Ummm..jeff47 I have no post about what you are speaking of.

Slow down..maybe you intended this for someone else.
?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #65)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:36 PM

66. You made a claim. I'm asking you to back it up.

Here, lemme remind you of your own post:
62. Or read the Emails of a crappy US gov server either.

Did the GOP push to cut the funding for the US gov tech upgrading? Or did they just effin overlook that part?

The stories I linked showed that her VPN was misconfigured. It did not use unique encryption keys. That is how someone else could read her email.

You are now claiming "a crappy US gov server" would have the same problem. Evidence?

Perhaps you could link to the Bloomberg article that doesn't know the government distributes it's own SSL certificates for its servers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #66)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:41 PM

68. Good Lord jeff47. My posts was a statement as to the GOP

and their habit of defunding useful programs.

I seriously made NO MENTION of encryption anything.
That's your line tonight.
Relax this isn't a courtroom..Its a comment site.

Here perhaps adding the sarcasm thingy will help you out.
oh boy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #68)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:43 PM

69. Yeah, the title field is like totally not part of a post. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #69)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 10:16 PM

70. Okay jeff47. Bye

Ignore.
You missed my point. Never mind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #70)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:22 PM

91. Yeah, me reading what you actually wrote is me totally missing your point.

If you did not write what you intended in your title, correct it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #91)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 04:42 PM

99. When did lightweight encryption protocols become violations?

If that is the best thing the HDS platoon can offer, it's not much of a muchness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:24 PM

7. Both articles now discredited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:15 PM

53. Which is why you supplied a link showing they actually changed encryption keys.

And why this http://clintonmail.com/ goes nowhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 04:33 PM

96. What "scandal"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #96)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 04:36 PM

97. That the SoS set up an email system that allows anyone to read her email. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:19 PM

4. There's something else for people to think about re. Clinton Derangement Syndrome

Never in history has the same First Couple sought to return to the White House 24 years after they first got there. It's not only unprecedented, it's kind of absurd.

I am a loyal Democrat who will not hesitate to vote for Hillary, but I have heard and seen enough of her and Bill to last a lifetime, and that's before the next pending mega-dose. Just the fact that we are talking about the Lewinsky era, even if it is in the context of journalistic malfeasance, makes me wonder how the fuck is this happening again? I am tired of it.

And I know I'm not alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:59 PM

11. +1 Clinton fatigue before the campaign even begins

 

It's among the reasons why I believe it's going to be a tough sell for Hillary to win, no matter what the polls might say today. So many people believe she is Democrats' best chance to win, but I feel the opposite, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:04 PM

14. I'm feeling like Alan Arkin in Little Miss Sunshine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 08:49 AM

89. All of that relates to emotion instead of legality.

My OP makes it pretty clear that I don't like either Clinton. So I think we should talk about dislike in this case, but not invent charges of "illegal" actions even after they have been debunked.

Let the Teabaggers do their own dirty work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #89)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:38 AM

90. Email gate, or whatever it's called, is a joke

But my point is a quarter century of Clintonian drama is an even worse joke. Even though they bring some of it on themselves, the last eight years should tell everyone that the Republicans run on bullshit, and any Dem will eventually receive the same treatment.

There's a problem with putting the Clintons front-and-center again that should be apparent to even their biggest fans. They are old news, and they are wearing thin with many people. The best thing that could happen to them right now isn't happening, and that's a serious primary challenge. It would remind people why Hillary is the strongest choice, if it turned out that way. It would also push bullshit like email gate back by a year. There would still be faux scandals, but most people in our party at least would tune them out in favor of the contest. Absent a contest, this is what you'll get for another year. Not healthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #90)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 04:45 PM

100. That seems backwards to me.

To eliminate a candidate in advance because people will say nasty crap about them?

Any candidate we field will be thus treated. HRC is not unique in this aspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:19 PM

5. Thank you for this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:25 PM

8. as the song says, 'it's only just begun'

wait till she announces

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:46 PM

9. Plus a million!



Don Segretti 4.0, A Teabagger Nation

By Driftglass - **June 21, 2010**

'Ratfucking' is a method the GOP began during the Nixon era and consistently after that time. Since they have the money to fund pundits to do this for them, it will continue. Beware.

The practice has won the right many victories for them and very effective in causing Democrats to abandon their candidates and their party. The man who originated the term and method was:

Donald Henry Segretti (born September 17, 1941, in San Marino, California) is a former political operative for the Committee to Re-elect the President (Nixon) during the early 1970s. Segretti was hired by friend Dwight L. Chapin to run a campaign of dirty tricks (which he dubbed "ratfucking"[1]) against the Democrats, with his work being paid for by Herb Kalmbach, Nixon's lawyer, from presidential campaign re-election funds gathered before an April 7, 1972, law required that contributors be identified. His actions were part of the larger Watergate scandal, and were important indicators for the few members of the press actively investigating the Watergate break in in the earliest stages that what became known as the Watergate scandal involved far more than just a simple break in. Segretti's involvement in the "Canuck letter"[2] typifies the tactics Segretti and others working with him used, forging a letter ascribed to Senator Edmund Muskie which maligned the people, language and culture of French Canada and French Canadians, causing the soon to be Democratic presidential candidate Muskie considerable headaches in denying the letter and having to continue dealing with the issue. Many historians have indicated over the years that Muskie's withdrawal from the Presidential primaries, and the disastrous Iowa primary loss to George McGovern that precipitated it, were at least partly the result of Segretti and some of the other "Ratfuckers" creating so much confusion and false accusations that Muskie simply could not respond in any meaningful way.

In 1974, Segretti pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts of distributing illegal (in fact, forged) campaign literature and was sentenced to six months in prison, actually serving four months. One notable example of his wrongdoing was a faked letter on Democratic presidential candidate Edmund Muskie's letterhead falsely alleging that U.S. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a fellow Democrat, had had an illegitimate child with a 17-year-old; the Muskie letters accused Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of sexual misconduct as well.[3] After testimony regarding the Muskie letters emerged, Democrats in Florida noted the similarity between these sabotage incidents and others that involved stationery stolen from Humphrey's offices after Muskie dropped out of the race. A false news release on Humphrey's letterhead "accused Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D-N.Y.) of being mentally unbalanced" and a mailing with an unidentified source mischaracterized Humphrey as supporting a controversial environmental measure that he actually opposed.[3]

In the 1976 film about Watergate, All the President's Men, Segretti was played by Robert Walden.

Segretti was a lawyer who served as a prosecutor for the military and later as a civilian. However, his license was suspended for two years following his conviction. In 1995, he ran for a local judgeship in Orange County, California. However, he quickly withdrew from the race when his campaign awakened lingering anger over his involvement in the Watergate scandal. In 2000, Segretti served as co-chair of John McCain's presidential campaign in Orange County.[4]

He holds a B.S. in Finance from the University of Southern California (1963) and a J.D. from UC Berkeley School of Law (1966). While at USC he became associated with Dwight L. Chapin, Tim Elbourne, Ron Ziegler, Herbert Porter and Gordon C. Strachan, they all joined the "Trojans for Representative Government" group.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Segretti



Back in the Nixon era

It would be tempting to label this "The Return of the Ratfuckers", but of course the GOP Ratfuck squad (from Corrente) --

Ratfucking is an American slang term for political sabotage or dirty tricks. It was first brought to public attention during the Watergate scandal investigation that during the 1972 presidential campaign the Nixon campaign committee maintained a "dirty tricks" unit focused on discrediting Nixon's strongest challengers.

According to Woodward and Bernstein, Nixon aide Dwight Chapin hired fellow USC alumnus Donald Segretti to run a campaign of dirty tricks (which Segretti dubbed "ratfucking" against the Democrats in 1972. The purpose of the operation was to create as much bitterness and disunity within the Democrat primary as possible. One notable example of Segretti's wrong-doing was a faked letter on Democratic presidential candidate Edmund Muskie's letterhead falsely alleging that U.S. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a fellow Democrat, had had an illegitimate child with a 17-year-old...

-- has never left us.


Much more worth reading at:

http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2010/06/don-segretti-40-teabagger-nation.html

This is why we see one thing after another against Obama, Kerry, Pelosi and other Democrats to gin up outrage. Now we can add the Clintons to the list again. The major cable news pundits made their careers on them.

While some things are based on difference of opinion, tearing up Democrats and our leaders is not productive. Many of the issues have been manufactured about the things guaranteed break the hearts of liberal, progressive Democrats, usually by Libertarians who do not want the same things as we do. But they want to destroy Democrats because they are the force that robs their corporatist masters.

So what happens is Democrats feel betrayed and react accordingly, but are not given opposing information fast enough to debunk and restore them.

As soon as one issue has been debunked, they move immediately to another. It is exhausting to rebutt all of these, and after a while by repetition they are established as a truth by the inability to not rebutt them at the speed they are being sent out.

Ratfucking also relies upon the learned perception that the well of political discourse has been turned into a cesspool, and counts on the discouraged to lose the will to get into government to clean the mess up which fulfills its purpose.

Instead, in their place are the Tea Party grifters who become the voices of power, instead of the compassionate who stay out of political life. Thus the RW mission is accomplished.

Another major reason some smears are not rebutted is we don't have Koch billions to fund these smears, so they out vote us with their media dollars and paid pundits. We musr be smart and patient with our movement to not allow them to divide us.

Anyone who followed the political scene for many years would recognize the approach being used with or without using the word 'ratfucking.'

But the term is shorthand for a complicated process. Its purpose is to destroy the reputation or credibility of the Democratic Party and Obama (and now HRC) among those who should be rightly proud of our accomplishments and values. The media is owned by RW billionaires and they do not show our side in a credible fashion.

Make no mistake, it is not just the personality or the actions of our party or our president being attacked, it is the progressive ideas we represent. Those ideas are the enemy the RWers and Koch organizations are fighting by going after our leaders. They will use Citizens United and every other weapon in their hands to defeat us and our hopes for a better America and a better world.

Think of the method employed to ruin the Kennedys, ACORN and so many others. We must not be taken in.

**Yes, some of us realized what was happening as the media and pundits that were formerly trusted, did this in the summer of 2010, and it worked very well. We tried to warn others, but they stayed away from the polls and many states now live under the boot of the Tea Party. Now they live under the boot of Secessionists determined to impose a fascist theocracy on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:45 PM

31. This should be pinned to the top of DU's masthead. It should be required reading here.

Bitterly -- it is not.

We have been ratfucked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 10:23 PM

71. Or to be more genteel in speech, we're dealing with Dirty Tricks from Tricky Dick's gangsters.

Dirty tricks are unethical, duplicitous, slanderous or illegal tactics employed to destroy or diminish the effectiveness of political or business opponents. The term "dirty trick" can also be used to refer to an underhanded technique to get ahead of an opponent (such as sabotage or disregarding rules of engagement).

Leaking secret information, digging into a candidate's past (opposition research) or exposing real conflicts between the image presented and the person behind the image are always subject to argument as to whether they are dirty tricks or truth-telling. When a candidate runs into trouble or roadblocks in his or her campaign that are traceable to the other side, he/she can easily charge their opponent with dirty tricks. Often, the candidate is right in this accusation, but one candidate's "dirty trick" is another's "political strategy". The distinction changes with the times. Of course imputing the discovery of a past misdemeanor to the other side can be considered a "dirty trick" in its own right.

However, manufactured, irrelevant, cruel and incorrect rumors or outright lies or falsehoods designed to damage or destroy an opponent are easily described as dirty tricks. They serve to tie up the opponent into defending against and answering false charges rather than explaining their policies and platform.


Sometimes dirty tricks are not only aimed at slandering the opponent. Dishing the dirt against your candidate's opponent can be effective at alienating voters in order to turn them off from the entire project. These tactics may reduce turnout in order to assure your candidate gains by having his/her core voters show up at the polls; thus, an operative molds the outcome by angering everyone. The effort to lower an official's or a candidate's popularity in the polls is called "driving the negatives"[citation needed].

Political speech is protected by the Constitution in the United States and it is rare that a wronged candidate sues for slander after an election season is concluded. Laws were introduced in the UK to prevent untrue statements being made about candidates—see Miranda Grell for a 2007 case.

Political candidates have been accused by their opponents of virtually every sin and crime ever described, from graft and vice to bribery and communism, polygamy, drug use, spousal abuse, fascism, pedophilia, miscegenation, adultery, stupidity, demagoguery, and support for nudism.[citation needed]


The story of dirty tricks in American politics begins with the first campaign for President of the United States, in the 1790s. Thomas Jefferson hired journalist and pamphleteer James Thomas Callender to slander his opponent, Alexander Hamilton.[citation needed] After a falling out, Callender turned on Jefferson and published attacks on his previous employer.

The Nixon Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP), a private, non-governmental campaign entity, used funds from its coffers to pay for, and later cover up, dirty tricks performed against opponents by Richard Nixon's employee, Donald Segretti. Segretti famously coined the term 'ratfucking' for recruiting conservative members to infiltrate opposition groups (and/or misrepresent them through false flag activities) in order to undermine the effectiveness of such opposition.[1]

As a result of post-Watergate reform legislation, such activities are strictly regulated, though other private entities still may practice what has become commonly referred to as questionable or unethical dirty tricks.

Recent nomenclature equates a Dirty Tricks Squad to any organized, covert attempt to besmirch the credibility or reputation of an individual or organization so as to render them ineffective...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks

Note the exception for private groups in regulations. That is why the media gets away with so much. And of course it's not just DU that has sensed a problem.

It's going on at other websites, and is the mainstay of talk radio and cable television 'news' shows. The emphasis in the Wikipedia article is mine and it fits the pattern. This should be known by everyone here.

The original DU was beseiged by trolls early on. MIRT keeps expelling them.
Some have come to believe the same things the trolls do, and don't fit all the traits defining trolling.

But the terms Ratfucking and Ratfuckers were employed by the GOP referring to what they were doing to Democrats, not each other. Democrats do not do it to the GOP because it goes against our values as we want all to be informed with facts and to encourage voting. When someone says or does otherwise it gives the appearance of Dirty Tricks.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:05 PM

40. RF -- the only thing that needs to be said about this email nonsense.

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 11:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Edit: Thanks for heads-up about hidden post -- thought everybody knew this term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #40)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:21 PM

57. Must explain or the post gets hidden. A DUer had one hidden as the jurors didn't know the meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #57)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:01 AM

73. Thank you -- after posting took a nap and just came back and saw this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #40)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:41 PM

67. Agree with freshwest--but anyone who alerts on this, after the term is explained, deserves a

hard, hard look by the admins.

Attention jurors--it's about POLITICAL DIRTY TRICKS ......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #67)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:02 AM

74. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #74)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:06 AM

75. I've seen it happen all too often here.

Quite recently, today, in fact, a post got hidden because someone reported a news story that had a naughty word in it. The poster didn't endorse the naughty word, or approve of it, or cheer about it, but it was central to the story. The jury voted to censor the thread.

I guess we're only allowed to read about "certain" happenings.

I don't understand this place sometimes. In any event, ya can't be too careful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #75)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:16 AM

76. I forgot where I was for a moment!

I've had a post hidden because a type of f-word was used in a quote. That surprised me. I wasn't sure if it was because some people don't seem to understand that quotes mean another person has said something, or the actual f-word, or the topic. I should know to be more careful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 06:50 AM

80. Please make this an OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:40 PM

94. I see your "Plus a million!"

and raise you PLUS A GAZILLION!!!

(Please post this as an OP!!!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:50 PM

10. Seriously. I have no plans on voting for her and I think this whole email

 

deal is a load of rubbish. There are plenty of things you can hang her on a hook for, this isn't one of them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 06:52 AM

81. This.

Mmmmmm waffles!

Hope all is well with you and yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #81)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 07:57 AM

84. Pretty good

 

Suffering from the crud, haven't been able to make Kendo practice all week because of it. Very irritating

Hope all is well with you too!

The Waffle Party, The Tastier Alternative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:01 PM

12. Then you got the male version of Palin - Scott Walker

jumping on the band wagon who thinks he's beyond "John Doe" issues because GAWD anointed him to be the leader of the free (I use loosely) world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:02 PM

13. Interesting that the morning after Bibi's speech

there wasn't a word about THAT on NBC, yet Hillary's emails led off with the top story of the day.

I would have thought that half of our congress bringing in an uninvited leader of another country to bang the drums of war would have at least raised an eyebrow.

Shame on them!! But then again, but since I expected to see some coverage, shame on me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavernier (Reply #13)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:07 PM

15. Boehner used bibi to hide the DHS collapse.

The RW based loved bibi, missed the DHS thing, and now howls about Hillary deleting emails as if emails are a single person event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:08 PM

16. Former Dem chairman Harpootlian claims she'll die by 1000 cuts.

 

and probably many more to come. He's backing Biden.

Top Biden backer: Hillary Clinton will 'die by 1000 cuts'
Washington Post (blog)-Mar 4, 2015
Dick Harpootlian, a former Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina, home to an early and important presidential primary, said recent ...
A Clinton candidacy is weakened by string of revelations.........................
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/04/top-biden-backer-hillary-clinton-will-die-by-1000-cuts-on-e-mail-story/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:28 PM

21. Biden's going nowhere, though. No one takes him seriously anymore.

If Clinton is out, it will have to be Warren, O'Malley, Webb, or someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:00 PM

36. Harp was on Bloomberg today. Said Dem party has a lot of good alternative candidates

 

like Warren, Biden etc. But he'll definitely support HC if she gets nominated.
He said this will be the GOP strategy. One cut after another. 1000 cuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #16)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 08:36 AM

86. Biden huh? Good luck with that. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:08 PM

17. thank you

i so agree. it's all so much bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:26 PM

20. Nobody cares what BelligerentandStupid "the radical centrist" has to say?

A "radical centrist"? Sounds like a dangerous social disease to me and probably communicable among the dim.

I don't think public servants should act as their own gatekeeper and holder of their work and I don't give a damn who thinks it is stupid, seemingly a universe made of of shifty Republicans until this hit. I don't recall Democrats opposing measures to restrict such handling or mocking the concept as meaningless.

What kind of fool thinks this is less substantive than Vince Foster murder accusations and BENGAZI! (a "scandal" that no one could even remotely articulate meaning it is by default even more stupid than a fake murder)?

Nothing has to be illegal to be inappropriate, unwise, and shady looking and if it happened today it would be illegal so isn't exactly wonderful and isn't unreasonable to frown upon the situation even if it isn't about going to jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #20)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:32 PM

93. +1. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:30 PM

22. Blunt and Cranky "used to think we couldn’t get any dumber than we were in the Lewinsky era" >SIGH<

Good rant. No minds will be changed here at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:30 PM

23. Did anyone at the AP think to do a whois search? Bob Cesca did, and the Daily Banter has it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to genwah (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:07 PM

42. Thanks for posting that, good article!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #42)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:16 PM

43. No prob. Pass the link along, I don't tweet or stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to genwah (Reply #43)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:09 AM

77. I don't tweet either, but I posted it on another forum, at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to genwah (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:25 PM

59. Um....those folks claim to debunk the story by "common sense".

Even if she didn’t use Optimum, which of the following set-ups seems more practical for Clinton?
1) Invest in a “homebrew” server in the basement, with all of its accompanying hardware and software issues, not to mention maintenance and security measures?
2) Or set up a private account with the mail.clintonemail.com domain at Optimum — which, by the way, is based in Stamford, CT, a short 30 minute drive southeast from Chappaqua?
Common sense points us to #2.

So their big evidence is....common sense.

And that demonstrates the VPN was actually configured properly because.........?

I don't care if some staffer set up a a cheap server in their house, or a cheap VM in some hosting company's server rack.

I do care that they used the default, and widely available, encryption keys. And I do care that instead of creating clintonemail.state.gov, they created their own .com, and thus made it much more likely that a typo leaks email.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:35 PM

25. This e-mail issue is nothing!

 

I have it on good authority that Hillary showers while completely naked!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Johns (Reply #25)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:37 PM

27. That made me laugh. Well played, sir.

Thanks for the laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Johns (Reply #25)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 07:09 AM

83. And she engaged in premarital matriculation!

And she masticates at the dinner table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:36 PM

26. Outstanding rant.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:44 PM

30. I agree, mostly…Except...

In his day, Lincoln was slimed repeatedly because of his humble origins. And because of his looks. And…well…you name it.

Clinton was a savant yes, and a horndog, certainly, but not an idiot.

And as for Hilary being "overly forgiving," well, who knows? Are we talking private or public?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:46 PM

32. I agree, mostly…Except...

In his day, Lincoln was slimed repeatedly because of his humble origins. And because of his looks. And…well…you name it.

Clinton was a savant yes, and a horndog, certainly, but not an idiot.

And as for Hilary being "overly forgiving," well, who knows? Are we talking private or public?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demoiselle (Reply #32)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 07:05 AM

82. Fair points all.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:02 PM

38. ''We have become even dumber than we were in the 90’s.''

 

- This post would seem to indicate the validity of that statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:21 PM

44. Kick & recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:21 PM

45. Benghazi!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:24 PM

46. follow the money

 

this is about relations with donors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:39 PM

47. A LOT of people showed their hands in breathlessly reporting on this story...

...and a few of 'em showed us their sorry old behinds, too....!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #47)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:04 PM

51. It is not personal for most, it is all about ratings and nothing else. This drives ratings

All TV media cares about is getting one more nielsen box tuned to their station



That is why FOX does not care that BillO lied his ass off, he got his best ratings of the year yesterday

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #51)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:14 PM

52. The public coverage is all about ratings, certainly....

The water carriers who don't make a dime off repeating lies, though, that's all about partisan dislike that borders on that famous derangement syndrome that is oft talked about. When people are so willing to ignore facts and double down on discredited "details" because they suit their desires, ya gotta laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:00 PM

49. No rules were violated? They might want to recheck that

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804.html

The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work, a regulation in force during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state that appears to be at odds with her reliance on a private email for agency business, POLITICO has learned.

The policy, detailed in a manual for agency employees, adds clarity to an issue at the center of a growing controversy over Clinton’s reliance on a private email account. Aides to Clinton, as well as State Department officials, have suggested that she did nothing inappropriate because of fuzzy guidelines and lack of specific rules on when and how official documents had to be preserved during her years as secretary.

But the 2005 policy was described as one of several “clear cut” directives the agency’s own inspector general relied on to criticize the conduct of a U.S. ambassador who in 2012 was faulted for using email outside of the department’s official system.

“It is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized [Automated Information System], which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information,” the Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual states.

.....

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #49)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:29 PM

61. Oh please. The boss can ignore a "warning" written by another "boss."

This story has gone from:

She broke the LAW!!!!!!

to


She violated a REGULATION!!!!!


to

She broke a RULE!!!!!!!!!!

to

She ignored a WARNING!!!!!!!

to

She disregarded a POLICY that was written by a PREDECESSOR!!!!!

Here's what the archivist of the United States has to say about the CRIMES OF HILLARY CLINTON:

...assertions from the New York Times and others that different records rules applied to Clinton than to her predecessors is wrong, since the National Archives and Records Administration did not issue guidance updating its rules until fall 2013, months after she left office. The same rules applied to Clinton as had applied to Powell.

While NARA’s preference is that officials not use an e-mail alias, Archivist of the United States David Ferriero said in sworn testimony in 2013 that “nothing in the law that prohibits them.”

We don’t care how many accounts you have as long as those on which you’re doing federal business are captured for the record,” he also said.

Responding to a department request for documents from recent secretaries of state, Clinton’s team provided over 55,000 pages of e-mails, which the Clinton aide said included anything that pertained to her work there. Personal conversations such as e-mails with her daughter Chelsea about flower arrangements for her 2010 wedding were not included. But any correspondence with the 100 State Department officials with whom she regularly corresponded would have already been stored on the department’s servers and Clinton’s office made sure to replicate all of those e-mails. In all, 9 out of 10 e-mails that Clinton sent during her time at the State Department went to colleagues there.


The horse is dead. Anyone who keeps beating it is really showing us their backside....

Further, POLITICO (established by Albritton Communications, the same cretins who boycotted Bill Maher for his Nahn - Wun - Wun comments) is hardly friendly to Democrats, ever. They're great fans of the worst case scenario, while faking a nonpartisan POV. Anyone looking can see their wingnut lean at fifty paces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #49)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 08:38 AM

87. A policy isn't a rule.

 

When I was a fed, we had a policy that only official cell phones should be used for official business. But since they were hard to get, we all used private cell phones anyway.

When asked directly, the IT bubbas reiterated it was a policy, but not a hard and fast rule. Policy sometimes butts head with reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #87)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 07:20 PM

107. Indeed. Policies are often cited when budgets don't allow for rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:03 PM

50. whitewater has morphed into benghazi. GOP tourrettes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pansypoo53219 (Reply #50)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:20 PM

56. but what about Hill's Benghazi emails?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pansypoo53219 (Reply #50)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:31 PM

64. Haaa..Apparently so. Good point. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:22 PM

58. Word.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:51 AM

78. No. After the 90s, some of us learned not to vote for the Clintons.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #78)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 08:39 AM

88. Vote for the candidate of you choice in the primaries...

 

But this is a complete non-issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #88)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 04:10 PM

95. Amen. WRGAS at this point.

If I ever have to decide whether or not to vote for HRC or another Dem, this might come up. Until then, fuck these Segretti-esque smear campaigns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 05:20 PM

103. "Vote Hillary in 2016 - technically she did nothing illegal!"

I look forward to seeing that on car bumpers across America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to tularetom (Reply #103)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 07:21 PM

108. "Vote Hillary" is fine. Yours sounds like a Lee Atwater creation.

Don't carry Republican water...it's putrid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to great white snark (Reply #108)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:14 AM

109. So if SoS Mitt Romney does the same it is not an issue?

I mean the law is different now but it is of no significance, right?

If so then why were the laws changed?

Romney might have concerns about Democratic moles ratfucking him by possibly taking communications out of context or something, Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell did similar, and the systems might be problematic, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread