HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Scrubbing the server look...

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 11:38 PM

 

Scrubbing the server looks very bad.

For many reasons. Hillary scrubbed her emails sometime between when she gave emails to the State dept and this month.

When determining which emails to give State, it was in response to the Benghazi nonsense. Thus, her team used Benghazi and Libya based search terms to find responsive emails. They said they also pulled any to .gov accounts as well as search by email address/name of some dignitaries and other officials.

Then, at some point after that document production, they deleted it all. Now, there is no way to ensure or verify that she retained all the records required. She employed the Benghazi based searches to find any emails that may not have been included by the .gov and official's name search. It follows that there are numerous other subjects that would likewise be missed by the .gov/officials search. But they are gone now.

This smells like destruction of evidence, desperation and spoliation. Because of another stupid (or worse) decision, this story will grow new and longer legs. All it will take is one business email to turn up which she didn't produce to destroy any credibility she has left. I hope whatever she is hiding either stays hidden or is revealed long before the convention. She's a liability for the Democratic Party.

98 replies, 6301 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 98 replies Author Time Post
Reply Scrubbing the server looks very bad. (Original post)
morningfog Mar 2015 OP
notadmblnd Mar 2015 #1
misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #13
Travis_0004 Mar 2015 #27
notadmblnd Mar 2015 #32
morningfog Mar 2015 #34
notadmblnd Mar 2015 #36
morningfog Mar 2015 #39
notadmblnd Mar 2015 #54
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #44
notadmblnd Mar 2015 #52
NM_Birder Mar 2015 #81
hobbit709 Mar 2015 #94
leveymg Mar 2015 #83
notadmblnd Mar 2015 #84
leveymg Mar 2015 #86
notadmblnd Mar 2015 #91
leveymg Mar 2015 #93
notadmblnd Mar 2015 #96
CTyankee Mar 2015 #77
notadmblnd Mar 2015 #85
KamaAina Mar 2015 #87
Downwinder Mar 2015 #2
former9thward Mar 2015 #50
leveymg Mar 2015 #97
Divernan Mar 2015 #53
Downwinder Mar 2015 #60
rgbecker Mar 2015 #80
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #78
BlueJazz Mar 2015 #3
morningfog Mar 2015 #4
RiverLover Mar 2015 #5
Renew Deal Mar 2015 #10
BlueJazz Mar 2015 #6
ripcord Mar 2015 #43
napi21 Mar 2015 #7
morningfog Mar 2015 #9
Renew Deal Mar 2015 #12
notadmblnd Mar 2015 #23
napi21 Mar 2015 #72
former9thward Mar 2015 #51
Thor_MN Mar 2015 #75
former9thward Mar 2015 #82
Thor_MN Mar 2015 #88
former9thward Mar 2015 #89
Thor_MN Mar 2015 #90
CatWoman Mar 2015 #45
morningfog Mar 2015 #61
Renew Deal Mar 2015 #8
morningfog Mar 2015 #11
awake Mar 2015 #14
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #15
morningfog Mar 2015 #16
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #17
morningfog Mar 2015 #19
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #21
morningfog Mar 2015 #25
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #26
morningfog Mar 2015 #28
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #30
alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #18
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #20
It is Tuesday Mar 2015 #22
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #24
fadedrose Mar 2015 #33
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #35
fadedrose Mar 2015 #46
alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #38
morningfog Mar 2015 #29
fadedrose Mar 2015 #31
Cheese Sandwich Mar 2015 #37
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #41
Cheese Sandwich Mar 2015 #48
RiverLover Mar 2015 #64
Quackers Mar 2015 #65
Cheese Sandwich Mar 2015 #73
woo me with science Mar 2015 #71
Darb Mar 2015 #74
LiberalAndProud Mar 2015 #40
morningfog Mar 2015 #42
Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #56
LiberalAndProud Mar 2015 #57
Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #70
Yupster Mar 2015 #98
Scrabbleddie Mar 2015 #47
KMOD Mar 2015 #49
Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #55
LiberalAndProud Mar 2015 #58
Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #59
woo me with science Mar 2015 #63
woo me with science Mar 2015 #62
B Calm Mar 2015 #66
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #67
woo me with science Mar 2015 #68
seveneyes Mar 2015 #69
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #79
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #76
HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #92
morningfog Mar 2015 #95

Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 11:46 PM

1. Just what is it that the right thinks she is hiding?

If I were HRC, I would be insulted that the right thinks that I am not smart enough to know not to send nefarious communications via e-mail or telephone.

WTF! Does the right wing think she has conspired with other foreign officials to conduct some malevolent deed? And do they really think she' that god damn stupid to write about it in an e-mail?

No, the right wing folks need to get out their tinfoil hats to protect themselves from what appears to be microwaves that are cooking their brains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:06 AM

13. Haaha..Oh f*ck that's funny! Kudos to you my friend..Spot On.

Can't get more Truthful than that.
Stop by the Hillary Room for drinks & a sandwich.
You've earned an invite with this most common sense post.
I'm off to bed but there are others to meet.
You'll like it there.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:49 AM

27. Maybe she should have thought about that before she deleted the emails

 

If she was smart she would have had a backup outside her control, and she could release everything instead of all this mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #27)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:57 AM

32. She did, it was at the State Department.

Just what do you think she is hiding?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #32)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:00 AM

34. She did not have a back-up at State.

 

That would have been great if she did. It would have avoided all this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #34)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:01 AM

36. What do you think she is hiding?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #36)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:10 AM

39. No idea at all.

 

It very well could be nothing, but it seems like something.

I could understand such stupid moves if it was to hide something. I have a harder time believing this was all just stupid and self inflicted for nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #39)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 02:11 AM

54. There's a lot of HRC haters, so when someone produces what ever it is you all think might ruin her-

which is what you want, right? Then it will be the time to clutch your pearls and wring your hands with worry. Until then, let it go. Geesh!

If HRC ends up not running and not being the nominee, I think there are a couple more viable candidates that are electable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #36)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:23 AM

44. Probably nothing. But it's the impression given when someone deletes all their emails. Not to

mention, you can never delete your emails completely. All can be retrieved from the hard drive.

Unless you destroy the hard drive of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #44)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 02:06 AM

52. The impression. Heh

I imagine it will leave the same impression that GW, Rmoney, JEB and others like them left when they deleted their emails. People will have their panties in a bunch over it for a couple of weeks and it will go away.

I don't think she is hiding anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #52)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 10:08 AM

81. "i don't think she is hiding anything"

 



Then she pissed her candidacy away for nothing just out of what apathy ? She deliberately took the absolute MOST controversial tack to this problem at every single opportunity.

Don't get me wrong, I would MUCH rather see a field of candidates openly and honestly campaign for the presidency, instead of watching Hillary dance like a spider on a hot plate for the next 70 weeks convincing people to trust her, and throwing boat anchors to every other Democrat candidate.

"I'm not hiding anything, .....here is the server and all my e-mails, ....SEE, I told you that my questionable judgment regarding the server was NOT a reason to mistrust me"......... problem over.

"Trust me,....I'm a Clinton,.... instead of killing the controversy with honesty and clarity, I'm going to ignite a firestorm of controversy over my questionable judgment, spend HUGE amounts of campaign funds to convince people not to question my questionable judgment, blame the Republicans, and mock those that don't believe the honesty of my tweeting......... Candidacy over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #44)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:53 PM

94. If I scrub my drive I do it NSA standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #36)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 10:27 AM

83. What was on the 18 minute "gap"? Doesn't matter and won't find out, still Nixon was shown the door.

She just did the same thing to herself. She set up a series of federal records, and then intentionally had them destroyed. Violation of the 1950 Federal Records Act. Nobody but her partisans seriously believes that fully 30,000 out of 60,000 emails were truly personal in nature. Prima facie case of violation of law.

As a result, HRC has disqualified herself in the eyes of most of the 45 percent of the electorate that described itself as Indep. along with maybe a third of the self-identified Dems (29%). She was already a pariah to the 23% who identify as Republicans. That adds up to at least 55% of the electorate who are unlikely to vote for her.

We need another candidate, quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #83)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:24 AM

84. I think there was a little more to Nixon's resignation than the 18 minute gap

Last edited Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:57 AM - Edit history (1)

There was a break in at the Democratic campaign office in the Watergate apparently planned and executed by top Nixon aides.

Nixon was accused of helping with the cover-up of the break in.

He was about to be impeached.

Top Republicans went to Nixon telling him he did not have the necessary support of Republicans in Congress to overcome the impeachment.

He resigned.

Nixon was not shown the door because of an 18 minute gap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #84)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 12:43 PM

86. In the end, "the 18 min. gap" and initially withheld "smoking gun tape" (OOJ) sealed Nixon's fate.

Wiki tells the end-game of the Watergate scandal as follows:

Release of the tapes

The tapes revealed several crucial conversations[41] that took place between the President and his counsel, John Dean, on March 21, 1973. In this conversation, Dean summarized many aspects of the Watergate case, and focused on the subsequent coverup, describing it as a "cancer on the presidency". The burglary team was being paid hush money for their silence and Dean stated: "That's the most troublesome post-thing, because Bob [Haldeman] is involved in that; John [Ehrlichman] is involved in that; I am involved in that; Mitchell is involved in that. And that's an obstruction of justice."[42] Dean continued and stated that Howard Hunt is blackmailing the White House, demanding money immediately; President Nixon replied that the blackmail money should be paid: "…just looking at the immediate problem, don't you have to have – handle Hunt's financial situation damn soon? […] you've got to keep the cap on the bottle that much, in order to have any options."[42]

At the time of the initial congressional impeachment, it was not known if Nixon had known and approved of the payments to the Watergate defendants earlier than this conversation. Nixon's conversation with Haldeman on August 1, 1972, is one of several that establishes this. Nixon states: "Well…they have to be paid. That's all there is to that. They have to be paid."[43] During the congressional debate on impeachment, some believed that impeachment required a criminally indictable offense. President Nixon's agreement to make the blackmail payments was regarded as an affirmative act to obstruct justice.[44]

On December 7, 1973, it was found that an 18˝ minute portion of one recorded tape had been erased. Nixon's longtime personal secretary, Rose Mary Woods, said she had accidentally erased the tape by pushing the wrong pedal on her tape player when answering the phone. The press ran photos showing that it was unlikely for Woods to answer the phone and keep her foot on the pedal. Later forensic analysis determined that the tape had been erased in several segments – at least five, and perhaps as many as nine.[45]


Final investigations and resignation

Nixon's position was becoming increasingly precarious. On February 6, 1974, the House of Representatives approved H.Res. 803 giving the Judiciary Committee authority to investigate impeachment of the President.[46][47] On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted 27–11 to recommend the first article of impeachment against the president: obstruction of justice. The House then recommended the second article, abuse of power, on July 29, 1974. The next day, on July 30, 1974, the House recommended the third article: contempt of Congress. On August 20, 1974, the Committee then formally submitted H. Rept. 93-1305 which included the text of the resolution impeaching President Nixon and setting forth articles of impeachment against him.[48][49]

"Smoking Gun" tape

On August 5, 1974, the White House released a previously unknown audio tape from June 23, 1972. Recorded only a few days after the break-in, it documented the initial stages of the coverup: it revealed Nixon and Haldeman meeting in the Oval Office and formulating a plan to block investigations by having the CIA falsely claim to the FBI that national security was involved. Haldeman introduced the topic as follows:

…the Democratic break-in thing, we're back to the–in the, the problem area because the FBI is not under control, because Gray doesn't exactly know how to control them, and they have… their investigation is now leading into some productive areas […] and it goes in some directions we don't want it to go.

After explaining how the money from CRP was traced to the burglars, Haldeman explained to Nixon the coverup plan: "the way to handle this now is for us to have Walters [CIA] call Pat Gray [FBI] and just say, 'Stay the hell out of this …this is ah, business here we don't want you to go any further on it.'" President Nixon approved the plan, and after he was given more information about the involvement of his campaign in the break-in, he told Haldeman: "All right, fine, I understand it all. We won't second-guess Mitchell and the rest." Returning to the use of the CIA to obstruct the FBI, he instructed Haldeman: "You call them in. Good. Good deal. Play it tough. That's the way they play it and that's the way we are going to play it."[50][51]

Nixon denied that this constituted an obstruction of justice, as his instructions ultimately resulted in the CIA truthfully reporting to the FBI that there were no national security issues. Nixon urged the FBI to press forward with the investigation when they expressed concern about interference.[52]

Before the release of this tape, President Nixon had denied any involvement in the scandal. He claimed that there were no political motivations in his instructions to the CIA, and claimed he had no knowledge before March 21, 1973, of involvement by senior campaign officials such as John Mitchell. The contents of this tape persuaded Nixon's own lawyers, Fred Buzhardt and James St. Clair, that "The tape proved that the President had lied to the nation, to his closest aides, and to his own lawyers – for more than two years".[53] The tape, which was referred to as a "smoking gun" by Barber Conable, proved that Nixon had been involved in the coverup from the beginning.

In the week before Nixon's resignation, Ehrlichman and Haldeman unsuccessfully tried to get Nixon to grant them the pardons which Nixon had promised them before their April 1973 resignations.[54]
Resignation
Oliver F. Atkins' photo of Nixon leaving the White House shortly before his resignation became effective, August 9, 1974[55]

The release of the "smoking gun" tape destroyed Nixon politically. The ten congressmen who voted against all three articles of impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee announced they would all support impeachment when the vote was taken in the full House.

On the night of August 7, 1974, Senators Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott and Congressman John Jacob Rhodes met with Nixon in the Oval Office and told him that his support in Congress had all but disappeared. Rhodes told Nixon that he would face certain impeachment when the articles came up for vote in the full House. Goldwater and Scott told the president that there were not only enough votes in the Senate to convict him, but that no more than 15 Senators were willing to vote for acquittal. Realizing that he had no chance of staying in office, Nixon decided to resign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #86)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 08:26 PM

91. From what you posted, it was what was in the Smoking gun tape that did Nixon in,

The 18 minute gap was not the smoking gun.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #91)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:50 PM

93. They might both be relevant to HRC's situation.

Depends upon what's being held until later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #93)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 04:11 AM

96. Which take us back to my original question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:25 AM

77. Hasn't the Benghazi investigations concluded that there was no wrongdoing by

HRC? If they got to that conclusion (and the ctees doing the investigating were dominated by Republicans) without her emails why do we keep on stirring that up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #77)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:29 AM

85. Because by god, they've had to tolerate a black man in the White House for the past 8 years

they'll be damned if they're going to see a woman there!

I'm in no way, shape or form a feminist, but I believe that is the reason at the heart of it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #85)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 12:47 PM

87. "I'm in no way, shape or form a feminist"?

 

Why not?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 11:46 PM

2. The Gov. has a backup copy on the NSA server.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:54 AM

50. Link to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #50)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 09:54 AM

97. If they had a copy of the Petraeus emails, you have to expect that NSA would have HRC bugged.

But, they'll never admit it, unless they absolutely have to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 02:09 AM

53. Not according to panel discussion by journos on the Diane Rehm show.

You've been asked for a link - put it up or admit you don't have any backup for your claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #53)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 05:02 AM

60. I jest, of course.

Everyone knows that the NSA, an Agency of the Government of The United States of America, would never exceed their statutory authority and collect domestic communications between citizens and/or government officials. And if they did inadvertently acquire such communications they would immediately discard same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #60)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:41 AM

80. + 37!

I guess there are some on DU that don't believe the NSA is doing what they say they are doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:27 AM

78. Now if the NSA was actually working for the government...

Rather than just being a rogue agency that lies to Congress all the time, that might be useful to the rest of us.

As it stands, what the NSA knows is only useful to the NSA in terms of blackmailing folks into making sure the money keeps flowing to the NSA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 11:47 PM

3. My personal belief is: It's not a big deal. The Benghazi thing has been investigated to death by ...

 

...republicans and they still have nothing of value. The Emails that were deleted contain what? I don't know. Could have been about her and Bill. I really don't care.

Your thoughts may be entirely different and that's cool...by me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueJazz (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 11:50 PM

4. I have no idea, nor do I care.

 

What matters to me is that this was all her creation through a series of foolish decisions. And the perception is very bad. It looks like she is desperately hiding something. And the way she has set it up makes any oversight impossible. It is all on her word.

And I just hope it doesn't bite us in the ass if/when she is officially the front runner and then the nominee. Because, it very well could.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 11:52 PM

5. Its ridiculous that she is our party's chosen one.

So embarrassing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 11:59 PM

10. She is?

She's not even running at this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 11:55 PM

6. Oh, I agree that this was a foolish decision. One good thing. It's a fairly long way till Voting Day

 

...and the public may very well get tired of the Repugs driving this crap into the ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueJazz (Reply #6)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:21 AM

43. It just looks bad

The MSM isn't saying anything about the investigation or what might be in the emails, just headlines that Hillary scrubbed her server and we all know headlines are all most people read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 11:55 PM

7. Did you ever think that she wanted her email to be secure, and since the server was set up

for the former President, she believed THAT to be much more secure than .gov?

I know I thought of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napi21 (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 11:59 PM

9. That's fine, but she could have had two accounts

 

on that secure server. One for personal, one for business. Then, when the time comes, she could hand over the entire business account, password and all, and let the public records law take a look.

That would have been the end. Mixing the two, self-screening production and destroying what was left is either stupid or a cover up. Neither places her in a good position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #9)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:02 AM

12. I agree that it's ethically challenged

And the two accounts make more sense. But the fact is that there is no proof that she actually did anything illegal or that she didn't hand over all of the relevant mail.

And I think Hillary is right to be paranoid about snooping and RW witch-hunts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #9)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:44 AM

23. Well time will tell if it hurts her.

In the mean time, your concern is noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #9)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 07:11 PM

72. HA! And you really believe the Pubs wouldn't still be screaming for access to her other emails

because they just don't believe they're all personal? I say forget the whole thing. It's a losing issue and the Pubbies will soon find that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napi21 (Reply #7)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:56 AM

51. Bill Clinton has said he only has sent 2 emails in his life.

So that story that it was set up for him is BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #51)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:17 AM

75. Interesting that you can't come up with even one reason to reconcile that statement.

 

It isn't possible that a former POTUS would have staff to handle email? The quote was from 2011, it isn't possible that things have changed since? You misquoted, he actually said "I sent a grand total of two emails as president". So it isn't possible that he has sent or received any emails since 2001?

Nice summation. B follows A, so banana pudding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #75)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 10:26 AM

82. Try again.

It is you that are misquoting and it is from 2015 not 2011.

Bill Clinton Still Doesn’t Use Email

If Hillary Clinton’s emails are eventually cracked open, don’t expect to see any juicy correspondence with her husband—or any correspondence at all. Bill Clinton doesn’t use email.

The former president, who does regularly use Twitter TWTR -1.81%, has sent a grand total of two emails during his entire life, both as president, says Matt McKenna, his spokesman. After leaving office, Mr. Clinton established his own domain that staff use–@presidentclinton.com. But Mr. Clinton still doesn’t use email himself, Mr. McKenna said.


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/10/bill-clinton-still-doesnt-use-email/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #82)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 07:13 PM

88. Nice try, you still fail.

 

Can't possibly be that he has staff? You chain of reasoning is missing lots of links.

Also now that you have provided a link, you fail there too, as that quote is from Matt McKenna, no Bill Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #88)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 07:21 PM

89. Oh so his spokesman is lying...

That's how desperate you have become. The paid spokesman of Bill Clinton is lying. Shows really poor judgement on Clinton's part that he would hire such people when it would be so, so, so easy to disprove it. Where are all these people that have gotten emails from Bill? It only takes one to disprove the statement. Or are they in some conspiracy too? Keep digging....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #89)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 07:28 PM

90. Nice try at deflection of your faulty logic...

 

I never said anything about his spokesman lying.

You claimed Bill Clinton said that he sent two emails. He did, in 2011. Your desperate dig to back your knee jerk dug up a more recent quote, but not from Bill Clinton. Fail.

Even if he has only ever sent two emails, ever, that's hardly conclusive proof that an email server wasn't set up for a former president's office. In fact, that is a laughably weak argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:26 AM

45. if you didn't care

why this dumb ass thread???????????????????????????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #45)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 05:27 AM

61. You should read more carefully.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 11:58 PM

8. Then produce the email

Otherwise, get over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:01 AM

11. She never corresponded with me. And it wouldn't

 

have been about business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:09 AM

14. I do not give a Sh*t what the Right wing nuts think

I am concerned that this action looks bad for our party, it reminds people with the missing legal files that some how showed up years later in the White House, the questionable judgment of Bill's affair in the oval office... the last thing our party need in 2016 is Bull Sh*t self inflicted wounds by our candidate. We need to not just keep the White House we also need to win back the Senate and maybe even then House. Our candidate needs coat tails to help us win all over. The idea that by wiping a hard drive the issue will magically go away is a pipe dream. I know "but the polls all say that HRC is a shoe in and not to worry", well I worry that more will come out, if there is even one email in someones hands that was not turned over she will be beaten over the head with it no mater how innocuous the email is. The whole way this issue has been handled by HRC concerns me, it reminds me of her gaffs during her "Book tour" last year where she tried to say the Bill and her left the White house poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:12 AM

15. ZZZZZZZZZZ

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:25 AM

16. I, like you and Hillary, wish she had not created this issue.

 

A series of foolish decisions. One after the other. And it could end up hurting Dems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #16)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:36 AM

17. I though you said it was of no moment.

"Have I ever said she broke the law? Have I said it disqualifies her? No."

-Morningfog

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #17)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:39 AM

19. Good lord. Sit down with a dictionary and read slowly.

 

I never said it was of no moment. I didn't say she broke the law. Or that she is disqualified. I said she's a liability and that this is not going away. It was a series of stupid decisions (or worse).

If you still don't understand the words I am writing, I cannot help you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #19)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:42 AM

21. When folks are condescending I assume they are compensating for something...

I will leave it to you to imagine what I think you are compensating for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #21)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:48 AM

25. Dude, mirror.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #25)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:49 AM

26. I answered your questions...You didn't like the answers so you made it about me...

It is what it is...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #26)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:53 AM

28. You found the mirror! Good first step.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #28)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:56 AM

30. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:37 AM

18. Tony Rezco bad?

 

Who?

Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #18)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:40 AM

20. He was the gentleman who helped Barack Obama buy his Hyde Park home./NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #20)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:44 AM

22. And it's Rezko, not Rezco...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to It is Tuesday (Reply #22)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:47 AM

24. Just shows how quickly he receded into the dustbin of history./NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #24)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:59 AM

33. Some remember him, just like I remember Rosemary Wood

The poor woman leaned over and accidentally erased some tapes. And nobody ever heard of her again either. except me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #33)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:00 AM

35. I remember Bert Lance, poor fella.../NT

And Donald Nixon and Bebe Rebozo and Tony Roselli...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #35)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:29 AM

46. That's why it's a shame to put her in the same category

as these gangsters. Deleting was a mistake no matter how you cut it. They could prove innocence as well as guilt.

I think there are some people in DU that would be better campaign advisors than the ones she's paying - and we're all FREE....

Am not a supporter, but would rather see someone else win who is a bit more traditional and wins because they express views that the majority of Democrats have. Many don't have computers or are not news junkies...most don't know anything about the TPP, Keystone pipeline, Wall Street, etc.

I don't want her to lose because of that stupid committee and those emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to It is Tuesday (Reply #22)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:02 AM

38. Who?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #18)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:54 AM

29. If she's ends up the nominee, let's hope so.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:56 AM

31. Maybe it's a psycologial plot

that the HC people dreamt up to embarrass the committee.

They know nothing was in the emails and wanted to make a fuss so that Gowdy would ask for the servers and have them restored.

What a trick to play on them if nothing is found but menus and wardrobes....and the committee is falling asleep from boredom reading them.

That'll teach'em...

All that time and expense....

Ya, and I have a bridge that fell out of my mouth one time. Can't sell it for some reason....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:01 AM

37. Looks bad? Is bad.

 


She knew destroying the emails would be controversial but decided to do it anyway. That means whatever was in those emails was so bad that it would be worth dealing with the controversy of destroying them. That's the cold political calculation Mrs. Clinton and her team made.

There must have been some scandalous stuff in the emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:12 AM

41. Welcome to DU./NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #41)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:32 AM

48. Thanks

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 06:22 AM

64. Exactly.

That means whatever was in those emails was so bad that it would be worth dealing with the controversy of destroying them.


She's not stupid, she weighed the pros/cons. Both now & back when a normal SoS would have set up an official business email address for state business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 06:57 AM

65. ...

hehehe.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quackers (Reply #65)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 03:52 AM

73. My nieces were talking about this.

 

It must have stuck in my head

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 04:40 PM

71. Thank you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #37)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:08 AM

74. Sorry, not bad, actually good.

 

It's a big "fuck you" to the haters and is only a big deal to Draco Malfoy and the rest of the Slytherin Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:11 AM

40. Maybe she wanted an excuse not to run

Don't know her mind or where her ambition lies, but she hasn't declared and I wonder if she'd really rather not go through it all one more time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #40)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:15 AM

42. That would be fantastic. It would carry the added benefit of the republican focus being

 

neutralized. She could just quietly step aside and then a field of candidate would open up.

I wish that were possible. But, she certainly seems to be building the team. And is expected to announce in a few weeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #40)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 02:16 AM

56. as marvelous an outcome as that may be...

 

that move is completely at odds with her personality

She wants to be President as badly as any human being has ever wanted anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Man from Pickens (Reply #56)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 02:36 AM

57. Then seems like a bone-headed move

which doesn't strike me as characteristic either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #57)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:28 PM

70. I would say it is

 

She's got a few of them in her history already, big things like her health care debacle and pushing for war in Libya, and smaller things like the White House Travel Office fiasco. Boneheaded moves are definitely part of her repertoire, so I wouldn't rule it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #57)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 10:42 AM

98. To me this is not as bad as the billing records

For sure this is her character.

Like this, the billing records were about not a whole lot.

But there was a document that was subpoenaed and after months of having no idea where it was, then it was found on a desk by the maid in the private residence of the White House and I was supposed to believe she had no idea how it got there.

I was a Hillary person in 2008 but I have no doubt this is very much her character.

In 2016 I'd like to have some choices to choose between so I'd like a primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:32 AM

47. The 18˝ minute gap in the Nixon tapes was a huge scandal.

I wonder if it gets compared... oh! I just did it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:39 AM

49. ***Breaking News**** Trey Gowdy sings Karaoke to the Clinton email server

 

Where, oh where, are you tonight?
Why did you leave me here all alone?
I searched the world over and I thought I'd found all'o'vum.
But you had a server and pthhp! Now there gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 02:14 AM

55. Only one good reason to do it

 

and that is that whatever data that server contained is worse than giving the public impression of deliberately destroying public records and any actual legal consequences that may come to pass

Remember, this is a person whose (ghostwritten) autobiography is arrogantly titled "Living History". So by her own implicit and explicit claims, she just destroyed priceless historical documents that can never be replaced.

Unless the contents of that server could have sent her to jail, there's no explanation that suffices to explain this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Man from Pickens (Reply #55)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 02:40 AM

58. Whataver it was, it must have been more embarrassing than getting caught erasing it.

Jail - maybe not. We're talking personal e-mail. Possibilities are endless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Man from Pickens (Reply #55)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 03:51 AM

59. Well, just a few short weeks ago, there were some who were saying that it was not illegal.

How the hell will we ever know now???

Anyone who keeps claiming that this is a non-issue had better hope and pray for someone else to run.
I'm certainly not in the mood to just look the other way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Man from Pickens (Reply #55)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 05:48 AM

63. ^^^^^^ This is the correct answer. ^^^^^^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 05:36 AM

62. Excellent post.


Enough of the drumbeat to normalize behavior like this. Secrecy and an attitude of unaccountability are at the root of so much of the corruption we have seen metastasize in this nation over the past few decades.

It is far past time to demand better from our government and our candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 06:58 AM

66. She must be hiding that e-mail to the BENGHAZI terrorists ordering them to attack now!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #66)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 08:43 AM

67. Or the real murderer of Vince Foster and the paternity of Chelsea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 10:37 AM

68. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Sun Mar 29, 2015, 10:56 AM

69. The proper way to scrub a hard drve

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seveneyes (Reply #69)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:37 AM

79. That doesn't look particularly useful for those of us

who don't keep our computers in places where setting a fire isn't going to burn down our houses

I suppose I could build a hooded pizza-oven sort of pit for my computers...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:23 AM

76. How does that line go?

Something about 'The cover-up is always worse than the original problem', isn't it?

The mere fact that you look to be trying to hide what you're up to makes people assume you actually are doing things that need to be hidden.

It's why our politicians need to start learning that real transparency makes you look better to the public than trying to keep things out of sight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Original post)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 08:30 PM

92. Can I ask a point of information? WHO -really- owns the server?

I hear on the media 'her server' but what I read early on was the server supports Bill Clinton's office.

I have no idea just what office of Bill Clinton that would be... his ex-presidential office? his foundation? Does Bill own the server, is it 'owned' by a foundation?

I'm confused, help please...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #92)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:33 PM

95. There was this:

 

through direct communication with Clinton's email server and Internet records, CNN found that in the domain's early days, emails went straight to a server near Clinton's Chappaqua home. While CNN found that the email domain was registered to her home -- and technical evidence suggests the emails were kept there -- it is unclear whether the server was physically located at her house, or somewhere nearby. The server was registered in 2008 under the name "Eric Hoteham," which appears to be a misspelling of Eric Hothem, a former aide to Clinton when she served as first lady. CNN has been unable to reach Hothem for comment.

Clinton took the rare step of setting up her own email rig. It's something done by people particularly concerned about privacy or surveillance.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/politics/hillary-clinton-email-home-server/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread