HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Clinton's lawyers didn't ...

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 05:54 PM

Clinton's lawyers didn't read the 30K emails they deleted. They just hit a button.

Last edited Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:49 PM - Edit history (1)

No Congressional committee or court of justice will be able to call witnesses who actually screened the more than 30,000 emails Clinton's lawyers characterize as "private." That's because the screeners don't exist; nobody reviewed the former Secretary of State's email before approximately half were deleted a few months ago.

As reported in yesterday's TIME Magazine, when Hillary Clinton's lawyers separated the Clintonemail.com account for public matter material, no human being actually read her emails before deleting what was deemed "private" messages. It was all done automatically on the basis of a key-word search: http://time.com/3741847/the-clinton-way/

She commissioned a review of the 62,320 messages in her account only after the department–spurred by the congressional investigation–asked her to do so. And this review did not involve opening and reading each email; instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache–31,830 emails–did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be “private, personal records.”


When Mrs. Clinton addressed the assembled press corps earlier in the week, her explanation of the criteria for determining private material was rather different. These were merely “private personal emails,” Clinton claimed, as Time quoted her, the deleted

“emails (were) about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.”

After she finished taking questions, Clinton’s staff disclosed that no one actually read through those 30,000-odd documents before she “chose not to keep” them.

143 replies, 8209 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 143 replies Author Time Post
Reply Clinton's lawyers didn't read the 30K emails they deleted. They just hit a button. (Original post)
leveymg Mar 2015 OP
JaneyVee Mar 2015 #1
leveymg Mar 2015 #2
BP2 Mar 2015 #104
immoderate Mar 2015 #3
leveymg Mar 2015 #6
immoderate Mar 2015 #21
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #4
leveymg Mar 2015 #12
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #17
leveymg Mar 2015 #26
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #30
pnwmom Mar 2015 #72
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #75
pnwmom Mar 2015 #65
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #68
pnwmom Mar 2015 #71
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #76
pnwmom Mar 2015 #64
KamaAina Mar 2015 #13
leveymg Mar 2015 #19
pnwmom Mar 2015 #63
leveymg Mar 2015 #126
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #24
randys1 Mar 2015 #51
pnwmom Mar 2015 #62
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #114
bobalew Mar 2015 #5
Yo_Mama Mar 2015 #8
pnwmom Mar 2015 #66
Yo_Mama Mar 2015 #83
pnwmom Mar 2015 #86
morningfog Mar 2015 #88
pnwmom Mar 2015 #89
morningfog Mar 2015 #92
pnwmom Mar 2015 #97
leveymg Mar 2015 #14
JaneyVee Mar 2015 #16
leveymg Mar 2015 #23
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #106
1000words Mar 2015 #7
JaneyVee Mar 2015 #18
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #73
Marr Mar 2015 #27
pnwmom Mar 2015 #77
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #107
oldandhappy Mar 2015 #9
leveymg Mar 2015 #15
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #25
leveymg Mar 2015 #35
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #37
leveymg Mar 2015 #40
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #58
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #108
Ron Obvious Mar 2015 #10
AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #11
pnwmom Mar 2015 #60
AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #84
pnwmom Mar 2015 #85
AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #91
pnwmom Mar 2015 #98
AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #100
pnwmom Mar 2015 #101
AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #105
pnwmom Mar 2015 #110
leveymg Mar 2015 #127
Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #87
AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #93
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #115
AngryAmish Mar 2015 #20
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #22
MANative Mar 2015 #28
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #29
MANative Mar 2015 #33
Marr Mar 2015 #31
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #32
Marr Mar 2015 #41
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #43
frylock Mar 2015 #45
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #49
frylock Mar 2015 #103
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #116
frylock Mar 2015 #124
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #125
Marr Mar 2015 #46
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #48
Marr Mar 2015 #52
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #54
Trajan Mar 2015 #56
Marr Mar 2015 #57
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #79
sadoldgirl Mar 2015 #44
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #53
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #38
Marr Mar 2015 #42
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #69
pnwmom Mar 2015 #74
Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #99
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #109
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #111
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #112
thesquanderer Mar 2015 #119
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #113
leftofcool Mar 2015 #34
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #36
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #121
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #122
ellie Mar 2015 #39
frylock Mar 2015 #47
MisterP Mar 2015 #96
Sunlei Mar 2015 #50
99Forever Mar 2015 #55
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #59
pnwmom Mar 2015 #61
Dems to Win Mar 2015 #67
OregonBlue Mar 2015 #70
B Calm Mar 2015 #78
misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #80
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #81
rufus dog Mar 2015 #82
Beausoir Mar 2015 #90
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #117
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #94
Name removed Mar 2015 #95
napi21 Mar 2015 #102
belcffub Mar 2015 #118
randome Mar 2015 #120
leveymg Mar 2015 #123
B Calm Mar 2015 #128
leveymg Mar 2015 #130
B Calm Mar 2015 #132
randome Mar 2015 #129
leveymg Mar 2015 #131
B Calm Mar 2015 #133
leveymg Mar 2015 #136
B Calm Mar 2015 #138
randome Mar 2015 #134
leveymg Mar 2015 #135
amandabeech Mar 2015 #141
Bradical79 Mar 2015 #139
randome Mar 2015 #140
leveymg Mar 2015 #142
Bradical79 Mar 2015 #137
CanadaexPat Mar 2015 #143

Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 05:56 PM

1. ctrl f works like a charm.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 05:59 PM

2. You have to hit it twice - too labor intensive for Hill's team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:01 AM

104. "it's her turn." So I guess the email thing doesn't matter anyway n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:02 PM

3. My own emails are boring enough. Benghazi!

 




--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:06 PM

6. If it didn't contain the term "Benghazi" the message was automatically deleted as "chocolate cake."

What do you think of that logic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:22 PM

21. Can't see how it makes a difference.

 

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:03 PM

4. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to read to whom the emails was addressed or

Who or where they were from to know if they were personal or business. Addresses from .gov is probably official, emails from Old Navy probably are not official business. I don't have to see the contents to make this decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:09 PM

12. That wasn't the actual critera, apparently. It was either "Benghazi" or into the memory hole.

Besides - what do you do with email from the Saudi ambassador who doesn't have a .gov domain? Or something from the Clinton Foundation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #12)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:20 PM

17. Is the Clinton Foundation official mail? A smart person would know if email was from the Saudi

Ambassador. Sounds like I heard excuses like these from Joe Scarborough in the last few days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #17)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:29 PM

26. A lot of grey. That's why a real human (lawyer almost qualifies) should have done the selection.

Even then, a smart politician would have turned the server over to the State Department and let them separate things. A smart lawyer would forbid that. She went with the lawyers, but will pay the political price if these massages can't be retrieved form the servers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #26)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:34 PM

30. The official has the right to delete personal emails, they are not required to have

A lawyer do this for them. This has been the practice with other officials to decide which ones to delete, why is the rules changed because it is Hillary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #30)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:43 PM

72. Right. And even those using a .gov account have the right do decide

FOR THEMSELVES, whether any particular email belongs on the .gov account or in their personal account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #72)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:49 PM

75. Oh, do you think they will allow Hillary make the decisions or will the

GOP continue to make an exception for Hillary. They are going after things that are silly, another Benghazi. Military officials have told them they could not get there in time but they continue their crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #26)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:30 PM

65. The Clinton Foundation is not part of her job in the State Department. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #65)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:35 PM

68. So I would say the emails would be personal unless she was soliciting funds

Through her official SOS post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #68)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:41 PM

71. There is no evidence that she was doing that, and we have laws protecting

people's personal records without a warrant.

We can't just go sifting through every person's emails looking for possible crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #71)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:52 PM

76. I don't think she ever intended to break the rules. I also think her server is as safe as the state

Dept but the Republicans are trying everything to discredit her, won't happen with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #12)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:29 PM

64. Not true. It was a list of names and other key words. The name of the Saudi

Ambassador would logically be among the names.

But something from the Clinton Foundation would have been personal, not State Department.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:10 PM

13. You do realize the Old Navy thing was satire, right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #13)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:21 PM

19. So, if it was so easy, why didn't they assign the emails to someone to go through?

I suspect the answer isn't as simple as "why bother it's only spam-mail."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #19)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:27 PM

63. Why should they? The computer can do that just as well,

and far more efficiently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #63)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:31 PM

126. Computer search is only a tool for e-discovery and disclosure. Lawyers actually read documents

in large document cases, or have staff and outside contractors do it. It would take a team of about 6 people about two weeks to read and take notes on each of these 60,000 emails.

Even if all the rules of civil discovery don't technically apply here, a lawyer would know this is a major deviation from the way that's normally done, and a politically smart lawyer would be aware that this is going to give the impression of impropriety and cover-up.

The more we learn, the worse this all seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #13)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:25 PM

24. Yes, I posted there also but again a smart person would realize the from

Addresses from official ones. The official gets to decide which ones are and which ones are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #13)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:29 PM

51. Seems to me the email issue is only an issue if someone is alleging she purposely deleted

emails relevant to something she did wrong, like Benghazi.

It is safe to assume from this moment on, if the email story is important to someone, that someone must think Hillary is guilty of something regards Benghazi.

Since we know there is nothing there, I guess that tells us what we need to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:27 PM

62. Exactly. This was an objective, efficient way to do the sorting.

By the address and by the name of the people corresponded with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 04:03 AM

114. Really? Wat if Hillary was helping US companies like Old Navy penetrate foreign markets? Such assistance apparently was part of her job as SoS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:03 PM

5. And This is a Big Deal why?

Using technology in its native & useful state is not a SIN. Tell you what, Next time this happens, why don't YOU volunteer to READ THEM ALL? OK, Would you be satisfied then? This is addressed to the original writer of the article, not necessarily to the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobalew (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:09 PM

8. Because deputizing the task to lawyers would indicate a different standard of review.

And the process described in the press conference was a ruling out, whereas the process, as it turns out, was a canned extraction which would not require a lawyer to do.

This might be very relevant to a judge.

It is also clear that Hillary was rather misleading in her press conference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #8)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:33 PM

66. A judge won't be involved because she broke no law

according to the head of the National Archives, who stated such in his sworn testimony before Congress in 2013. It was after that that the law was overhauled to require the use of .gov accounts.

But this is all still so overblown, because even today, any government employee makes the choice for any email either to send it on a personal or .gov account - or to make a phone call. Anything they want to keep off a .gov account can be easily kept off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #83)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 10:21 PM

86. And the State Department will respond to them, based on

all the emails that they have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #86)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:07 PM

88. Right. The emails the State Dept. has. The emails that Hillary's team took first cut at.

 

There is a real risk that she deleted emails in violation of the record retention laws, either by mistake or on purpose. She has now set herself up for an unwinnable outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #88)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:46 PM

89. They're not entitled to her personal emails, either by the old law or the current law.

And there's nothing in the old or new law that puts anyone else in charge of determining which of her emails are personal and which are State Department.

Senator Kerry's personal emails are also not available for anyone's inspection, nor those of any member of Congress. And it is up to them, with each email, whether they deem it a personal email or a business-related email.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #89)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:58 PM

92. Not exactly. Had she used a .gov account, then State would possess all her emails and would be the

 

party to determine and ensure adherence to the records retention laws and production requests. Had she segregated her business and private email accounts, she could turn over her business account to State and permit them to inspect, retain and produce in accordance with the law. In her case, we don't know and she can't even say with certainty that no business emails were deleted.

It was a stupid set up and she is getting bit in the ass for it. I just hope that if this fuck up becomes worse (which it easily could) it happens before the primaries are over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #92)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:36 AM

97. Had she used a .gov account, she would STILL be the only one to determine

if a particular email should be sent through that account or through her personal account. No one is looking over John Kerry's shoulder right now to make sure he's sending emails through the correct accounts.

So the only difference is whether she made the choice of personal vs. private BEFORE hitting the send button, or afterwards. Kerry is making the decision before he sends an email. She sorted through the emails after she sent them. But in each case they are the only ones who decided which was which.

And both of them are making their choices openly. Anyone who got an email from her could see it was from a personal account, and could have forwarded it to anyone else. Emails have virtually no privacy.

But I agree with you that I wish this had never happened!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobalew (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:11 PM

14. She was Secretary of State, and she does have a staff and outside lawyers who have staffs.

Not too much to ask that the email would have actually been read by someone before being deleted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #14)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:20 PM

16. Why? For example:

 

Ctrl F Chelsea checkmark all delete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #16)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:24 PM

23. If Chelsea were still four, that shortcut might work.

No Judge would accept this approach to preserving records. No Judge will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #23)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:30 AM

106. I see ur point. For argument's sake, Chelsea, for example, cudve been soliciting foreign govts for contributions to the Clinton Foundtion

and emailing Hillary about that while she was SoS and engaged in diplomatic relations with those countries. If so, it would seem, at the very least, an appearance of impropriety and, along with that, certainly a very poor exercise of judgment.

In any case, obviously people need to wait and let the facts come out, as the NY Times and Wash Post are still investigating, and see where this leads.

No sense in prematurely jumpin to conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)


Response to 1000words (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:21 PM

18. Any message to .gov gets archived.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #18)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:44 PM

73. so what? you think all official SoS business goes through only a .gov address? wow.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1000words (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:30 PM

27. +1, No kidding.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1000words (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:52 PM

77. It's amazing that so many here are proclaiming her guilty of SOMETHING

even though the head of the National Archives testified to Congress in 2013 that she broke no laws and even Daryll Issa has conceded that.

Ever hear of the radical concept of "innocent till proven guilty"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1000words (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:35 AM

107. I currently see no basis for questioning Hillary's statements made at her press conference. Besides, they should be easy to verify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:09 PM

9. A la Nixon's secretary and the missing minutes. ha ha

I have forgotten. Was it 18 minutes that went missing on the taped phone calls?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldandhappy (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:13 PM

15. It was called the "Rosemary Wood stretch" to hit the erase on the tape while sitting at her desk.

Looked uncomfortable. Ergonomics have improved, however. Oh, progress!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldandhappy (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:27 PM

25. Oranges and apples.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #25)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:44 PM

35. They both come in crates and stink if left unopened long enough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #35)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:50 PM

37. Was Nixon at liberty to erase any of the tapes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #37)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:57 PM

40. The Presidential Records Act wasn't enacted until 1978. This is covered by the 1950 Federal Records

Act.

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2207, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents created or received after January 20, 1981. The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records.

However, the Supreme Court ruled in 1974 that Nixon did not own the tapes and they weren't covered by Presidential Priviledge, The law that governs records of the Secretary of State goes back to the Federal Records Act of 1950.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #40)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:57 PM

58. This is the information I found

The Nixon White House tapes are audio recordings of the communications of U.S. President Richard Nixon and various Nixon administration officials and White House staff, ordered by the President for personal records. The taping system was installed in selected rooms in the White House in February 1971 and was voice activated. The records come from line-taps placed on the telephones and small lavalier microphones in various locations around the rooms. The recordings were produced on up to nine Sony TC-800B open-reel tape recorders. The recorders were turned off on July 18, 1973, shortly after they became public knowledge as a result of the Watergate hearings.

Nixon was not the first president to record his White House conversations; the tradition began with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and continued under Presidents Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson. It also continued under Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. What differentiated the Nixon system from the others, however, is the fact that the Nixon system was automatically activated by voice as opposed to being manually activated by a switch. The Watergate tapes are interspersed among the Nixon White House tapes. The tapes gained fame during the Watergate scandal of 1973 and 1974 when the system was made public during the televised testimony of White House aide Alexander Butterfield. Only a few White House employees had ever been aware that this system existed. Special Counsel Archibald Cox, a former United States Solicitor General under President John F. Kennedy, asked District Court Judge John Sirica to subpoena eight relevant tapes to confirm the testimony of White House Counsel John Dean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #35)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:36 AM

108. Yes, but oranges have thicker skins than apples, allowing them to last longer without spoiling. Fact...

But then apples are not as self-absorbed as oranges due to less navel gazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:09 PM

10. Privacy for me but not for thee

It's the hypocrisy that's so difficult to stomach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:09 PM

11. Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see how or why this is relevant.

 

Per the Federal Records Act, she was required to preserve personal emails on State Dept's servers, and did not.

All the rest of this is Kabuki theater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:24 PM

60. She absolutely was NOT required to preserve her PERSONAL emails on State Dept

servers, per the Federal Records Act or any other law in effect while she was SoS.

Where did you get that strange idea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #60)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 10:09 PM

84. It's from a strange and unusual source.

 

The New York Times

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department.

link: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?referrer=

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #84)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 10:20 PM

85. That is one of the more egregious editing errors in the NYTimes report.

The Federal Records act at the time did not require her to use a .gov account AND did not require her to preserve personal records on department servers.

The head of the National Archives gave sworn testimony before Congress in 2013 that she had violated no law in her use of her personal email account instead of a .gov account; and even Darryl Issa has conceded that she broke no law in existence when she was SoS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #85)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:57 PM

91. You continue to misstate her obligation as SOS to preserve emails on gov't servers.

 

She was required to preserve personal emails tied to government business on State Dept servers, and she did not. She operated on her own private servers, and didn't even retain all emails on that.

During the time Clinton was in office, the Federal Records Act required government employees to ensure personal emails tied to government business was conserved "in the appropriate agency record keeping system"


This policy was codified by law in 2014 requiring transmittal of emails to gov't servers within 20 days.

Regarding the head of the National Archives:

There's also a tinge of hypocrisy in the air.

During Clinton's personal-email-using, private-server-having tenure, U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration was criticized and ultimately pushed out of his post in part for using a personal email address "for official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information."

The 2012 Inspector General's report, which was released shortly after Gration resigned his post as the ambassador in Kenya, wrote that the use of personal email was against policy "except in emergencies" and repeatedly slams him for using "commercial email for official government business."

All the while, Clinton was exclusively using her personal email.

There's just one more tidbit revealed in a 2011 internal, unclassified, diplomatic cable from Clinton's office. It gives the department's employees guidance on "securing personal e-mail accounts." One of the guidelines?

"Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail account."


excerpts from: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-was-there-wrongdoing/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #91)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:47 AM

98. The significant words are "codified by law." The previous law had no time limit

and she did preserve her work-related emails, and forwarded them to the State Department when they requested them. Colin Powell, OTOH, said he had deleted ALL his work-related emails and would be happy to answer questions.

It wasn't till 2014 that the new law required the records to be transmitted within a specific time period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #98)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:16 AM

100. No, it's irrelevant and does not negate her obligation to PRESERVE EMAILS ON GOVERNMENT SERVERS.

 

During the time Clinton was in office, the Federal Records Act required government employees to ensure personal emails tied to government business was conserved "in the appropriate agency record keeping system."


The law in 2014 simply made what she did illegal, but that does not excuse her failure to PRESERVE EMAILS ON GOVERNMENT SERVERS as per protocol during her tenure. She defied protocol and set up her own private servers.

What she did was against protocol and defied her obligation to PRESERVE EMAILS ON GOVERNMENT SERVERS. There is no credible way to rationalize this. What she did was wrong, against protocol, and that is punctuated by the fact that what she did was made explicitly illegal in 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #100)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:28 AM

101. The head of the Archives disagrees with your interpretation of the law

that you have never actually posted.

So I'll rely on him rather than a NYTimes reporter's paraphrase.

"Explicitly illegal" is like "very pregnant." It is either illegal or it is not. It wasn't illegal till the law was overhauled. Now it is illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #101)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:16 AM

105. What she did was against protocol and not okay, and speaks to her proclivity for secrecy.

 

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. That's what Democrats believe in, well everyone except Hillary.

She will get HAMMERED with this in the upcoming election and has nobody to blame but herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #105)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:52 AM

110. I thought Democrats believed in privacy of personal emails.

Apparently that's true for everyone except for Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #110)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:35 PM

127. That's why they shouldn't be comingled with official records in single accounts.

Everyone knows that personal emails are open to discovery and subpoenas, particularly if there is no segregation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 10:51 PM

87. It's relevant because . . .

. . . Hillary supported the NSA going through everyone ELSE'S emails!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #87)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:59 PM

93. A valid point.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #87)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 04:04 AM

115. Hadn't thought about that...Excellent point!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:22 PM

20. If she says she had 31k pirate emails, then she had 31k pirate emails

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:23 PM

22. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:32 PM

28. Best reply of the day!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MANative (Reply #28)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:34 PM

29. Thank you, friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #29)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:40 PM

33. You're welcome, friend!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:36 PM

31. Just a few days ago, we were all assured that, since she'd revealed 50k emails, there was

 

no appearance of impropriety and everything had been transparent.

Now it seems more than half that number were erased. I hope you can admit that this gives at least the appearance of impropriety. When Republicans did the same thing, no one here was yawning. It was pretty obvious to everyone that they weren't just deleting spam from Pizza Hut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #31)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:39 PM

32. I expect Democrats to complain about Republican peccadilloes and Republicans to complain about...

I expect Democrats to complain about Republican peccadilloes and Republicans to complain about Democratic peccadilloes . I am content to let the voters sort it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #32)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:07 PM

41. I expect hypocrisy from party loyalists, too.

 

That's why I don't call myself a party loyalist. It's a lot simpler to just have some universal standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #41)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:10 PM

43. I do have universal standards.

My universal standard, my north star, my political compass leads me to support the party that can best advance the interests of the working man and woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #43)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:18 PM

45. keep gazing into that abyss

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #45)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:25 PM

49. and you keep following me around DU, frylock./NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #49)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:32 AM

103. don't flatter yourself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #103)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 08:03 AM

116. It is what it is./NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #116)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:12 PM

124. a figment of your imagination

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #124)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:16 PM

125. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #43)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:19 PM

46. If you openly admit to just barking whatever bullshit makes your leader look best...

 

...why on earth would anyone care what you say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #46)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:24 PM

48. If you don't believe Democratic inspired legislation...

If you don't believe Democratic inspired legislation and programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act, the Parental Leave Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act, et cetera makes a real difference in the lives of ordinary men and women there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #48)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:30 PM

52. What a deceitful response.

 

You just admitted to having exactly one standard: the politician with the D next to their name did no wrong. So you'll push any free trade, pro-war, corporate toad the party leadership offers. And you want to hide behind actual liberal accomplishments and suggest the people undermining these policies are the ones who won't defend the corporate slugs?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #52)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:37 PM

54. I wear your ad hominem attacks the way my old man wore the Purple Heart he was awarded in WW ll

Elections are about choices and I choose to align myself with the Democratic party and I certainly am not going to overlook Republican pecadillos and obsess over Democratic ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #52)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:40 PM

56. It's obvious that these questions are far more complex

 

Than a single sentence or paragraph can explain ...

It's not just a matter of a 'D' appended to a name, until we hit the general election, ... then?

THEN?

If you care about the policies that favor workers and families (like the list provided above), THEN you might vote for the name with the 'D' attached to the name ...

To ignore this distinction could be disastrous for the country ...

I dislike Hillary for her pro-corporate inclinations, but I will still vote for her if she is the nominee for the party with the 'D' ...

Not that I'm terribly happy with them, either ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #56)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:43 PM

57. They might have an argument on that score if the primaries were over.

 

I don't see how it can be defended a year before the primaries have even begun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #56)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:55 PM

79. Maybe my concerns are too plebeian for some.

For that I can not in good conscience apologize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #32)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:15 PM

44. We have not a single declared

candidate as of now. Yet, you seem to declare a victor
already. This OP is just criticism, not an attack or as you
name it complaint.

We will see, whether this story has wings or goes to
the graveyard. If HRC will have to contend with a very
serious Dem as adversary, she might have to explain
all this much better.

But I forgot, she has been the chosen one already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Marr (Reply #31)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:52 PM

38. Yes, I heard Joe Scarborough saying he wanted to read all of her emails, classy huh.

He hasn't always been forth coming with information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #38)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:08 PM

42. Who gives a shit about Joe Scarborough?

 

He's a partisan gas bag. Nothing he says means anything, because he just bats for a team, no matter what the facts are.

Did you think this was fine when the Republicans did it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #42)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:37 PM

69. Just saying, he apparently represents the GOP side. I am more interested in

Investigating the 47 who signed Tom Cottons letter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #42)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:48 PM

74. You are implying that Hillary should open all her personal emails

for inspection. Not because she broke a law or is accused of doing anything else criminal. Just because.

And you don't seem to understand that even today, when Sen.Kerry sends an email, he decides whether to send it through his .gov account, or through a personal account.

Why is it that he would be trusted to make that decision before hitting the send button -- but if the emails had been mingled in one account, he wouldn't be trusted to make the decision (splitting the emails into "personal" and "work related" afterwards?

Although in his case, of course, there is a new law in effect that wasn't when Hillary was SoS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #42)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:48 AM

99. Ping pong paddle peddlers in Paducah.

Ya can't hit ping pong balls back and forth with Mika without ping pong paddles.

Everyone knows that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:45 AM

109. My question: howzit possible that Hillary had as many personal emails as work-related ones as the agency head in charge of tens of thousands of employees?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #109)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 03:04 AM

111. Maybe Chelsea REALLY could not decide between seafoam green and apple green

for the gowns, had trouble with flower-girl candidates and swan ice carvers. No, really, you ask a good question. The whole thing is bizarre--all of her work intermingled with all of her personal stuff, with accounts in there for her staff...and now it's *poof* all gone, either deleted unexamined by the State Dept. or any government official or third party, or weirdly printed out on thousands of sheets of paper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #111)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 03:58 AM

112. The numbers just seem off. But, time will tell; let's wait n see what develops...Thankfully, we always have Elizabeth waitin in the wings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #109)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 09:05 AM

119. That doesn't seem strange to me

The number of employees is largely irrelevant. There were probably only a relative handful of people who could communicate with her directly, and it was those people's jobs, and the jobs of those under them, to handle anything that didn't absolutely require her attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 04:00 AM

113. No doubt the Teapubbies were up to no good; can't say that bout Hillary based on what we know so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:43 PM

34. Good one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #34)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:45 PM

36. BTW, Jeb didn't comply with Florida's stringent "Sunshine Laws" when it came to his e-mail

I would bray about that but I don't believe it's high on the list of voters concerns...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 09:42 AM

121. ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #121)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 09:55 AM

122. I ain't got no worries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 06:53 PM

39. Oh well.

I don't care. Hillary Clinton is one million times better than any repuke will ever be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellie (Reply #39)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:19 PM

47. put that on a bumper sticker

GOTV!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellie (Reply #39)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:29 AM

96. that's exactly how we got today's GOP BTW

I doubt that with H-1B expansion, The Family, TPP, fracking, GMOs, chained CPI, and 5 or 10 new wars later we'll all be weeping in gratitude that we got the lesser evil once again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:27 PM

50. it's ok I'm sure the media-email hackers already copied what they will use against her next year

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:37 PM

55. I'd say I'm surpised...

... but I'm not.

Rest assured, this Clinton email story will be around as long as Hillary is in contention for the POTUS job.


If you haven't figured out that much about the Teapublican Noise Machine, you haven't been paying attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:20 PM

59. So vaguely worded missives like

'Time for some trouble in Trenton!' might not have triggered the filter. Carefully word anything about which you and the recipient already have talked, and suddenly it's 'personal'.

Quelle surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:25 PM

61. That sounds like an objective way to make the decision. If the key words

contained all the names of people she had contact with as a SoS, what's the problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:34 PM

67. Not too late for the Dem leadership to rethink their unanimous support for Hillary2016

 

If this article is correct, there are almost certainly meaningless 'time bombs' out there, emails that were SOS related but not turned over, to be 'discovered' by the Republicans in October 2016. Probably much ado about nothing, but they will try to make the molehill into a mountain. Doesn't feel good to be able to predict an oncoming kerfluffle.

Hillary could have handled this better. She could have gone onto the Sunday talk shows earlier and explained herself in a less dramatic setting than a full blown press conference. Sen. Feinstein is a big Hillary supporter, she wouldn't have been on the Sunday show herself saying 'Her silence hurts her' unless she had already conveyed that message privately.

The press conference at the UN stepped on Hillary's own message, her speech commemorating one of the highlights of her career, the speech on women's rights in Bejing. Not only that, it was the most inconvenient space possible for the reporters, who probably were grumpy and irritable before they even asked the first question:

http://www.cjr.org/analysis/hillary_clinton_press_relationship.php How Hillary Clinton made journalists’ lives difficult from Columbia Journalism Review

Clinton is well known for loathing the political press. That contempt has become all too apparent — or all too familiar, for those who remember her husband’s presidency — in wake of the email revelations. Her tight-lipped team has stonewalled countless questions from reporters, and her only personal response to the story came in a late-night tweet last week. Journalists, smelling a potential home-brewed Clinton scandal, clamored for more. And on Tuesday, Clinton finally paid lip service to the furor.

But not without a catch, of course. Though Politico reported on Monday that Clinton would give a press conference the following afternoon, her office did not officially confirm those plans until 11:30 am Tuesday, just hours before the event was scheduled to begin. The location: the United Nations, well-known for an arduous process to obtain press credentials.

The move caught political reporters unaware, and they flooded the UN’s media office on Tuesday morning in a rush to gain access. The Washington Post described the scene:

“The line for credentials wrapped the block outside the cramped U.N. office where all badges are issued. A lone staffer, beleaguered but polite, was handling all press requests. Badges in hand, reporters then waited in a long line to pass through security.”

snip...

Clinton ran behind schedule in starting her remarks, leaving dozens of reporters hemmed in a cramped space, doing what we’re best at: tweeting in indignation. Her eventual remarks weren’t especially enlightening, as she maintained that she used a personal email out of convenience. Clinton’s ultimate message: Trust me.


The attack dogs she sent out, Begala, Carville, and Lanny Davis are definitely mean junk yard dogs, but also so very stale and familiar to political junkies (the only people paying attention to this) and reminding us of Clinton scandals past.

There was this recent story: Democrats See No Choice but Hillary Clinton in 2016 in the New York Times.‎ “Anytime you have all your eggs in one basket, it is a concern,” said Gov. Jack Markell.

The Democratic leadership could encourage support and funding for a newer face, a vibrant candidate with a real shot at keeping the White House Blue in 2016. Harry Reid encouraged Obama to run in 2007. I don't see that happening this time because I think it was agreed in 2008 when Hillary ended her campaign that the leadership would get behind her 100% in 2016.

Of course the Republicans are being ridiculous and unfair, it's what we have to expect from them. But our presumptive nominee hasn't handled this very well on her end, and that seems like a BIG problem when the party bigwigs have decided she will be the nominee, virtually unchallenged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:40 PM

70. I don't really care. The Tealiban is so insane in persecuting Hillary I hope she got rid of every

single thing that would be of interest to them. They are scum as far as I am concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:53 PM

78. 47 traitors and you bring up OMG Hillary had a private e-mail shit!

 

Benghazi. . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #78)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 09:15 PM

80. + 100000. Well Stated. Like paparazzi following the kardashians.

A nowhere story started by a guy names Kristol sent through his usual rag newspaper for the purpose of political sabatoge.
That's it.
Now back to the 47 Traitors and the shitstorm they have caused to the US & its Allies in dealing with EFFING IRAN & Nuke Weapons, and this tabloid email stuff is what's being debated?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 09:47 PM

82. So, as a non Hillary fan, my take

 

I get about 500 emails a day. If I read each one I basically would do nothing every day but read emails. So, the majority of my emails get deleted without any review. That way I can focus on the critical emails and get work done.

Not that difficult of a concept to anyone dealing with the cya nature of emails.

Do I miss some, yes, about one a week. Still a much more productive approach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:48 PM

90. Oh God no!!

 

This is horrible and it makes my life and the life of my children so much worse!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beausoir (Reply #90)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 08:50 AM

117. I'm already storing up with food and planning for the Apocalypse./NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:02 AM

94. Seems legit.

What could possibly seem shady about this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:30 AM

102. I do the same thing.

Somehow, I have to believe Hilary gets spam mail the same as we all do. Yes, I keep some email for a while, if they refer to something I might be interested in, but every so often I go through even the saved ones and delete all of them. If any of the people pitching a fit about there are honest with themselves, they'll admit they do the same too.

I think the media is losing interest on this one. Sorry guys, but it's time to find a new thing to hop on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 08:53 AM

118. I managed email for a large public university

and several times over the years we would get notice of a lawsuit against faculty and staff... in every case we had to to do many restorations of the users involved mail boxes, server logs, and mail journals (all mail messages going into and out of the servers are stored in these journals).

since well before 2009 mail servers have had this functionality as it was added in response to additional regulations mostly put in place to regulate financial institutions.

any mail admin worth their salt working with an institution that could reasonably anticipate that they would be subject to legal actions would have had these in place.

Not having these things in place would have opened us up to additional legal actions.

I find it hard to believe someone working for the state department would not / could not anticipate this and have planned accordingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 09:11 AM

120. Of course no one personally read 62,000+ emails.

 

To expect differently is ludicrous. Most likely they wrote a filter that deleted anything addressed to, say, [email protected], etc.

I swear, it's like DU has become an extension of the Eternal Benghazi Committee.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #120)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:32 AM

123. In e-discovery, a team of half a dozen lawyers and staff could do it in about two weeks.

Including taking notes on each email reviewed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #123)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:39 PM

128. Do you think Hillary sent an e-mail to the Benghazi Terrorists to attack the embassy?

 

Me neither, so why bother?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #128)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:55 PM

130. No. But, that's not the issue, as you are likely aware.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #130)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:14 PM

132. It's all connected to the made up Benghazi scandal.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #123)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:40 PM

129. And as was pointed out in the other thread, there is no 'discovery' being undertaken.

 

Yes, you may be right about the time and personnel involved but it's still no big deal. She kept or deleted her personal email. That's what the rules permitted when she was SOS.

This is not some Nixonian 'smoking gun' situation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #129)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:00 PM

131. This is a case where she treated documents in a politically non-intelligent way by deleting them in

a non-legally acceptable way with a view toward discovery. At the least, they created the impression of evasion of the law that is not acceptable for someone who wants to be the Party's nominee.

Get another nominee, quick. That's what the NYT, AP, and TIME seem to be telling us. We should listen and create options, now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #131)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:18 PM

133. I bet everybody in congress has at the least one private e-mail address. This whole scandal

 

is nothing more than a made up witch hunt!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to leveymg (Reply #136)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:34 PM

138. LOL +1 of course they did, their finger pointers. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #131)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:21 PM

134. Right. Listen to AP and the others. They are only trying to help!

 

Everybody has failed to be perfect about emails. Even Jeb Bush.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #134)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:28 PM

135. Their motives are beside the point. It stuck to the wall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #123)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 03:21 PM

141. I've been on those teams, and I concur in your judgment.

 

By deleting messages based on key words, Sec. Clinton opened herself up to endless speculation by the Republicans. Remember Whitewater? This won't stop.

Hillary looked like she'd had it at the newsconference. How many more questions can she take on this subject before she yells, "What difference does it make?"

The thought of this going on for another year and a half makes me ill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #120)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:36 PM

139. Hillary wouldn't of course

 

That's what lawyers are for. We're talking the former Secretary of State here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #139)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:54 PM

140. One normally doesn't hire lawyers to do routine purging of personal emails.

 

Here's a radical idea: if someone doesn't want Hillary to be our nominee, they need to start talking up another candidate instead of trying to tear down the one we are pretty sure is running.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #140)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 03:33 PM

142. Who here doesn't want a third and fourth term for Obama? Michelle Obama, of course.

She's not running, but if came to that, she might be drafted at the convention. Stranger things have happened in American politics. Think about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:34 PM

137. so, law broken or not?

 

I'm unclear on exactly what rules or laws were broken here if any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 07:27 PM

143. So she has no idea if they were personal or not

Awesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread