it's not the classified stuff that bugs me about the email mess. it's what the mess says about

[cali]

Hillary.

And it says a lot. In no particular order:

Did any of her aides tell her that one private email account co-mingling personal and work, was a bad idea? If so, why didn't she listen, if not, why the Hell not? I find it hard to believe that no one warned her that this could come back to bite her. This isn't a matter of hindsight. It's not rocket science to know that this setup wasn't professional. Why set it up that way if not to avoid FOIA requests? It says she has little respect for government transparency.

It was a system with no accountability. She deleted 32,000 emails with no oversight. Are rules something she doesn't feel she needs to abide by?

The whole thing was unnecessary, and then she made it worse by insisting that no way would she turn over the server. She held onto that position for months.

The unwiped server should have been turned over to the State Department. She's the one that made the mistake of mixing the personal and the professional.

She contracted with a company without security clearance, which in turn contacted with another company without security clearance.

She has been dishonest about multiple aspects of the issue, starting with why she did it:

<snip>

Hillary and her team have offered a number of lawyerly and convoluted justifications, but her explanation ultimately boils down to what she says was a simple a matter of convenience: She didn’t want to carry two smartphones, which she says would have been necessary at the time since State Department policy didn’t allow her to have multiple email addresses on a government-issued BlackBerry. As a result, she decided to send work emails on a personal account as opposed to personal emails on a work one.

Is that … believable?

That probably depends on where you’re sitting. But it would sound much more believable if Clinton hadn’t described herself earlier this year as “two steps short of a hoarder” who lugs around a BlackBerry, an iPhone, an iPad, and an iPad Mini in her purse, and similarly made it clear at a 2011 State Department event that she doesn’t exactly travel light.

<snip>

If she didn’t break any specific law, though, then what’s the big deal?

Clinton does not appear to have violated the letter of the law but she did ignore the spirit of it when she went out of her way to create a system that gave her unprecedented control over what could become public. Hillary’s private email account and server effectively shielded her messages from Freedom of Information Act requests, congressional subpoenas, and other searches.

<snip>
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/20/hillary_clinton_email_scandal_explained.html

The mess is of her own creation. It reflects badly on her judgment and her.veracity. it highlights her penchant for secrecy in matters where transparency is vital. It displays a willingness to bend the rules and a belief that she is entitled to do so. It reflects a mindset that's not one that leads to good governance or good leadership.

No matter how much her supporters howl, it most certainly isn't "nothing" and some sort of right wing conspiracy.

[randys1]

1. The attacks on Hillary will NEVER stop. And as we can now see, those who oppose her

are EVERYWHERE.

[Motown_Johnny]

72. Then she needs to be able to deal with them, and she can't.

This email thing should have been a blip. It is because she and her campaign handled it so badly that it is now a huge mess.

She is a terrible candidate who is running a terrible campaign.

[randys1]

73. EXACTLY what all the rightwingers are telling me on the internet, EXACTLY what you just

said.

[Motown_Johnny]

84. I bet they also say that water is wet and the sky is blue.

How about that?

It is a simple truth. Her campaign knows damn well that she will be attacked.

If a boxer walks straight into a punch with his hands at his sides it is his own fault. You can't blame his opponent for landing a punch.

If Hillary wants to run for President she better learn how to deal with this or she isn't going to make it to Iowa.

[randys1]

85. Lots of those opponents here at DU, I wish they would go to a place where rightwing talk

is accepted.

[Motown_Johnny]

89. Truth should be accepted anywhere

and the fact that you reject it is a real problem.


Hillary did this to herself. She is a terrible candidate. She is running a terrible campaign.

That is truth. Deal with it.

[randys1]

91. What truth am I rejecting? The truth according to who?

You are digging deeper and deeper.

I am a liberal Democrat on a liberal Democratic message board, supposedly talking to other liberal Democrats who are here for ONE purpose and ONE purpose only.

To prevent the rightwing from destroying America, and quite possibly the planet.

Why are you here?

[Motown_Johnny]

95. That she needs to be able to deal with the attacks,

you claim that it is some kind of right wing attack line. No, it is true. She needs to be able to deal with it.

I am not digging anything. You are getting further and further from reality.


Hillary is a terrible candidate. She should not be our nominee. Just because you see her as some type of saviour does not mean it is true. We need a real progressive nominee and that isn't her.

Why am I here? You can't honestly think I am some kind of troll. If so, seek professional help. I let that one comparison of me to a right winger go as a simple mistake. I hope that was not a mistake.

[George II]

101. And yet she's far ahead of Sanders. That is truth. Deal with it.

[Motown_Johnny]

104. A little less every day.... every day.... every day....

deal with it.

[cali]

90. to you and your cohorts all criticism of Hillary is right wing

that's bullshit

[virgogal]

94. So if someone doesn't feel the way that YOU

think they should feel they are a right winger.

Incredible !

[randys1]

98. I thoroughly expect rightwingers to hate and attack Hillary, I wont take that away from them

I am no fan of hers, myself.

But you see I am a big picture kind of person.

I see the nightmare the right WILL visit upon us if they take the WH.

and that is ALL I care about

[cali]

206. there is nothing remotely hateful in my op

[Sunlei]

108. The RW has no messageboards at all like DU, not a single one. RW has never invited open discussions.

[randys1]

110. NOt on most explicit rw boards, I do know one where nobody is banned for any reason

BUt I read them, and much of what i read there I see here as to anti Hillary

[Sunlei]

132. Unlike DU, They're probaby afraid to ban anyone who pays by the month.

[randys1]

134. Listening to caller after caller into all the shows today about Hillary and email

ALL of them rightwingers

[Sunlei]

137. IMO, if after RW raked over decades of Mrs. Clintons work and all they have is an old school email s

server 'issue' and an unfortunite protest/attack death (protest caused by that RW produced video) for the masses to chew on.

The woman must be a workaholic, very, very honest, decent person, we should be proud to have Mrs. Clinton as President. Or Bernie Sanders, he sounds great too, however republicans have not attacked him yet over anything. And he has 40 years of government saved records for RW to go through.

[randys1]

139. He is next on the list, i am sure

[George II]

122. Really?

[Sunlei]

129. really.

[840high]

169. Seems like you don't like

truth.

[cali]

120. prove it. post some comments from wingnuts saying that

[George II]

93. Well, she's ahead of Sanders by 2-1 or more in every state but one. ..

..and nationally. What does that say about him as a candidate and his campaign?

[Motown_Johnny]

102. First of all, it is way to soon to lean on those.

Secondly, her lead has shrunk to the point where Bernie is now closer than Obama was at this time. We won't know what the race is really like until we get a couple debates behind us so don't get your hopes to high.


Oh, and lastly.. your numbers are just plain wrong.


Look at the most recent national poll. CNN?ORC has her lead dropping from +37 to +18 in roughly 3 weeks. Again I say it is to early to take these to seriously, but that 2-1 national lead you think exists is a figment of your imagination.

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/08/19/sanders-closes-gap-with-clinton-in-cnn-poll/

^snip^

The poll conducted Aug. 13-16 has Sanders within 18 percentage points of the former secretary of State in a race for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. This is the narrowest margin of any poll to date.

[George II]

167. Two points:

First, Pollster.com, which has been very accurate over the years, has the national poll at 50% (49.6%) for Clinton and 21.0% for Sanders - that's +28.6%, more than double.

Second, at this time in 2007 Clinton was only 10% ahead of Obama, and Obama was a Democratic contender.

Sanders is in a MUCH worse position than you say and a MUCH worse position than Obama was at this time in 2007.

My numbers are just plain correct. Yours?

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

[Motown_Johnny]

191. You are averaging in old polls which are no longer correct.

Look at the graph you posted. The trend line is clear. Hillary is collapsing and Bernie is starting building.

I sighted the CNN/ORC poll which has her losing ~50% of her lead in ~3 weeks. If you want to hold onto the numbers that were accurate a month ago then go ahead. Just come back and look at this post a month from now. It will be clear who is right and who is wrong.

Edit to add, it is still to early to take these seriously. The older polls, even more so. We need to see a couple debates before we really know what this race looks like.

[George II]

192. Well then, if you look at the last four polls listed on Pollster, Sanders appears.....

....to have leveled off and be in decline himself:

Ipsos/Reuters 8/15 - 8/19 Clinton 47, Sanders 23
Morning Consult 8/14 - 8/16 Clinton 50, Sanders 24
CNN 8/13 - 8/16 Clinton 47, Sanders 29
FOX 8/11 - 8/13 Clinton 49, Sanders 30

[MannyGoldstein]

183. No. nt

[George II]

193. Yes. nt

[MADem]

82. What bugs ME is the willingness of people to use JUDICIAL WATCH horse shit on a Democratic message

board.

When we get our information straight from Brietbart and Daily Caller, we may as well just read DRUDGE instead.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend--he's someone who will beat me down as soon as that mutual
"enemy" (cough) is vanquished.

[boston bean]

2. blabitty bla bla bla.... get back to me when you got something new to groan about.

It's the same thing over and over and over and over.

This is better than you calling her "corrupt" and "dishonest"... I see you walked that bit back...

But still, same type of smearing going on here. I can read this shit at red state.

Get over it, you are playing into RW hands over a non issue, no matter how many times you tell us how concerned you are about it.

[cali]

5. you can stick your fingers in your ears and chant "I can't hear you"

but it's still an issue and the way it's structured, guarantees it will remain one.

[boston bean]

7. And you can say the same thing over and over, doesn't make what I said untrue.

Hillary is NOT going to lose the primary election over a faux email server RW smear attack.

Nor will she lose the general over that.

But you keep spreading this smear far and wide under the guise of concern. No one can stop you.

But I can give my opinion of it.

[cali]

11. it's hardly just me saying it.

And it ain't just repubs. Now elected dems are expressing worry.

She will lose the general.

[boston bean]

12. Right it isn't just you, it's the entire GOP chorus along with you!

She will not lose the general election.

[cali]

19. it's scores of liberal pundits, elected dems and rank and file dems as well.

[boston bean]

44. Yeah, right! you keep saying that.

[Armstead]

28. It will depend on her GOP opponent whether he wins or not

If they nominate Trump or some other godawful character (Croooze) she stands a good chance of winning because the contrast will be so great.

Bit if the GOP goes for the safe, conventional course with Jebby or perhaps Kasick or Scotty W., enough of those "swing" voters wil be reminded of the messes the Clintons tend to make and say..."Nehyt. I think I'll go for the Republican."

[Autumn]

123. The email situation is of her own making. It's not a smear, it's a fact. Her sloppy handling

of it is a topic that we who have concerns can give our opinion on.

[boston bean]

196. Everyone's got an "opinion", some opinions are just conspiracy theories.

And smears and weaving of facts to make it appear corrupt.

But you go on and think Hillary is some evil woman, who set up an email server to conduct nefarious plots and keep it from the general public.

Cause that's what all those opinions/concern people are spouting boils down to.

[Autumn]

198. No, people are voicing their concern over

her actions and have every right to do so. Facts are not smears if you can prove any of Hillary's actions cali posted in her OP to be false or a CT, by all means feel free to start an OP to do so.

[boston bean]

199. Just so happens all them "concerns" are the same as what Right Wingers fling at the wall.

OK.

[Autumn]

200. I hear those concerns from a lot of Democrats so OK. Of course they don't

fling them at the wall, Democrats are discussing these concerns.

[boston bean]

201. just cause you hear them from "Democrats" doesn't mean

it aint bullshit and a furtherance of a RW smear.

I see a lot of self described democrats say a lot of stuff, that isn't Democratic at all.

[jonno99]

3. Unless one of her staff personally supervised the the "wiping" of the server, what was to

prevent this company from making a copy of server's hard drive?

[karynnj]

25. Even if they supervised that, what (other than professionalism) would have prevented them from doing

that at ANY point?

My problem with it is the timing of when it was likely wiped. They did not sort the email until forced to do so by the State Department. Then having - on their own separated the business from personal - knowing there were legal data enquiries, they opted to wipe the machine. Likely this was done in the interval between when the SD demanded the work emails and when the facts of her email arrangement became public. A few months ago, a SD career professional working with these emails, responded that the SD can not itself confirm that these are all the emails --- just that they are all HRC gave them.

Consider this, the emails they separated were between around 6 years old and around 2 years old -- as she was out of office for around 2 years. Let's say that a 2009 email, seen from the vantage of 2014 looks really unhelpful Are you sure her tea would not have made a little, tiny error is sorting? ONLY preserving the server could have ever put that question completely to rest.

[seabeyond]

4. so you choose to reward rw hate attack for your benefit, for your candidate. it never stops.

[cali]

9. sorry, this has nothing to do with my support for Bernie. I've been opposed to hillary

for years and posted here about it for years. And I could give a shit about the rw. I've said for months that I think she'll be the nominee. And I think that is disastrous.

[seabeyond]

10. your bottom line is tear her down thru rw hate, rewarding their agenda.

[cali]

21. fail seabey. I use liberal sources.

[seabeyond]

23. liberal media? .... no agenda there, liberal sources for rw attack. i see no clarifications

that walk away from rewarding vile rw attack.

[cali]

29. that doesn't make any sense.

[Vattel]

150. Why not address the actual criticisms of her handling of the emails

rather than just claiming that they are a "vile rw attack"? I think that some of the criticism in the OP is debatable, but all of it is reasonable and none of it is based on lies or blind hatred as far as I can see. You look like you just don't have any rebuttal when you dismiss it as smears or rw attacks.

[kcjohn1]

6. Supporters are blind

To the real reason. She does not believe in transparency. The only logical reason to setup private server is to control what public has access to. She really thinks we are dumb with I used my work email for personal use as well that is why I deleted half the emails.

For those non technical people she could have easily created 2nd email on her server for work so to separate the two and still have the "convience" she claimed. Right now on my phone I used one app to easily switch between my work and my personal email.

[seabeyond]

13. i am not a supporter, nor blind. please do not insult people simply because they disagree with you

and see it clearly as a rw agenda.

[kcjohn1]

36. No insults

What do you think is the real reason for private server?

[seabeyond]

38. calling people "blind" for disagreeing with you is not an insult?

[kcjohn1]

42. There is different

Between calling someone blind vs "blind to the real reason". I didn't even know blind was an insult.

If the reason for private servers wasn't to skirt transparency laws, what is your theory?

[randys1]

75. TO hide Benghazi details, right! Wait, am I being punked, this is NOT

DU

cant be

[840high]

170. You won't get an answer.

[cali]

30. the fury born of denial is pretty interesting.

[seabeyond]

39. "fury" i see not an ounce of fury. but, that is part of the game played. assign emotion, then insult

[cali]

50. you are expressing fury.

[seabeyond]

54. no. i am not. you persume to dictate peoples feelings over the net and expect to be taken seriously?

[blm]

8. Sorry, but it most certainly IS the RW scandal machine making this into more than it is.

I completely disagree with your view on this, cali, and I haven't liked the Clintons for over a decade now.

Attack Hillary on points of significance to this nation, but, when you insist that matters like this that have no similar accountability for Republican Secs of State who preceded her stewardship, then, YES, you are committing yourself to furthering the RW's success rate on BULLSH!T scandalmongering.


DU succumbs to RW bullshit machine - RW wins. Of course, you are welcome to show where the RW media demanded the same level of scrutiny of past SecsofState, and I could be wrong. I haven't found anything - have you?

[cali]

17. you are flat out wrong. it is an issue

And democrats are starting to publicly express concern.

<snip>

While the Clinton campaign insisted everything was going to plan, cracks began to appear as jittery Democrats publicly wondered where the e-mail story would end up.

“It is a problem,” Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.) told the Boston Globe on Thursday. “She must know that.”

<snip>


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/21/hillary-clintons-worst-week-in-washington/

Yarmuth: E-mail issue could 'upend' Hillary Clinton campaign
http://www.whas11.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/19/johnyarmuth-hilary-clinton-email-issue/32013815/

[George II]

27. For as many Democrats that you claim (and quote) that its an issue, there are five times as many....

....who don't think it's an issue.

This is a right wing talking point that most likely will remain so. Sad that so-called progressives on a Democratis website help feed the right wing attack machine.

[cali]

57. of course most dems are going to close ranks behind her

Most of the dem establishment has endorsed her. They don't see Sanders as a viable candidate and they have a vested interest in her success, but it is simply false to claim that it's a fake republican conspiracy. Frankly, I think it's pretty significant that two dem congressmen have gone on the record. And you know that behind closed doors, dems in congress are expressing concern.

[George II]

78. Of course. ...

...too bad most of the "Dems" on this site don't support the only viable Democratic candidate in the primaries.

[cali]

119. I think her viability is vanishing

[George II]

131. You're entitled to your opinion. I just hope that damage caused by you and others doesn't destroy..

...any chance of the Democrats retaining the White House.

I doubt many even think about that as they tear down Hillary Clinton.

[cali]

133. it's the height of absurdity

to believe that I or any other poster on liberal/democratic discussion boards have harmed her.

She is the largest factor in her damaged campaign.

[840high]

171. Get real - do you really think

a post on du will destroy dems retaining the WH? Perhaps Hillary should have thought how her actions might.

[sheshe2]

159. +1000

[randys1]

80. IT is ONLY an issue if the media and the anti Clinton campaign, alive and well here at DU

make it one.

The issue itself is ridiculous, if a con did this it wouldnt even make page 39 of a newspaper.

No, this is the Clinton conspiracy machine working at full steam.

[blm]

68. LOL - Horsepoo - Dems 'privately' express a lot of concern against Obama, Kerry, ACA, IRS,

and hundreds of issues over the years that GOP's media manipulations manage to build into a mountain that media-trusting Dems will be eager to hang their hats.

Sorry, but, I trust MY sense of smell over anyone else at this site, including yours.

I don't further RW's TACTICS.

[cali]

76. whatever. rave nonsensically on o your heart's content

But until you address the points made in the op, I don't see any reason to attempt a discussion with you.

[blm]

92. I'm not as easily entertained by RW propaganda as you.

Tuff.

[cali]

124. silly attempt at a smear by you. I don't do rw propaganda. I do facts

extrapolation from said facts and critical thinking. You're just flailing.

[karynnj]

37. I agree with Cali 100% in this OP and am impressed how clearly she articulated why it is a problem

She left office, knowing there were many FOIA that her email should have been subject to and she made no effort to insure the SD had the emails. Because many HRC DID go to SD accounts, they did have some. This might be why it took nearly a year for the SD to even know they were missing stuff.

It then appears, from the NYT article, that the SD had a pretty difficult time getting the email from her - as they mentioned that there were "negotiations that had to go all the way up to Kerry's chief of staff, David Wade. (Point being that if Wade demanded them, it was essentially the same as Kerry demanding them) Then they took several months and gave them to the SD on paper - and apparently wiped the server. Once this became known, the SD has been asked to redo many FOIA requests - making them even slower. In addition, there is the enormous 12 people/year project to process all her email and put them online.

As to previous SoS, the use of email rather than other forms of communication has changed over time. It is likely that the Clinton era SoS may never have used email for work. (The government was way behind private companies.) I have no problem with them expanding this investigation to the practices of Powell and Rice. However, that does not change that this was against the Obama administration guidelines.

I am surprised that you do not see this as against an open and transparent government. I don't like that this has left Obama and Kerry in the awkward positions they are in.

[cali]

51. thanks,karynn

And thanks for adding that information.

[blm]

62. I get that, but, who can claim that when she was taking the similar path as GOP SoS

who preceded her it made HRC, and HRC alone, accountable when neither Powell or Rice could even produce the emails, if asked, and, of course, they were NOT asked. They managed to avoid any scrutiny…..because in DC and in the corporate media, It IS Always OK If You Are a Republican.

I, for one, will NEVER further the narrative of the RW propagandists who have become experts at turning everything against Dems that they manage to find completely acceptable during GOP administrations.

[840high]

172. Correct.

[Rilgin]

55. Republicans are Hypocrits, we should not be

Just because Republicans are authority seeking with respect to their leaders does not mean that we should follow their lead. Republicans are hypocritical. However, Cali is referencing the fact that there are a significant number of members of the Democratic Party who do not want to be hypocritical.

I have been outraged by Republican attempts to avoid public scrutiny in the past. I was outraged by Cheney's setting up an intelligence service outside of the CIA and NSA so as to avoid scrutiny. I was against the Ohio Secretary of State contracting its voting web servers to an outside company who co-located those servers with the web sites of the Republican Party. I am against Jeb Bush and Scott Walker who also set up email servers to avoid public scrutiny. I think Palin did too but I am not positive offhand.

However, I chose not to be a hypocrit. I expect better from my candidates. I do not care what was in HRC's emails. It is not necessary to posit she hurt this country, it is necessary that I object to what she did to avoid me being a hypocrit. I do not want any SOS or Cabinet Officer or person of Government Authority (regardless of whether the person is a Democrat or Republican) setting up a private email to avoid the FOIA. If the system is inadequate, then I want that Government Authority to fix it, not set up their own private server avoiding oversite and leave the system bad for others.

[blm]

65. Laugh, laugh, I thought I'd cry.

Yep - It's ALWAYS OK When It's a Republican.

RW media and their professional propagandists prove that to be true for how many decades now?

[Rilgin]

69. Turn it on yourself

Are you saying it is bad if a Republican does it but its ok if Hillary or a Democrat does it. Did you have a problem when the Republicans did it. If you did not, then you are not being hypocritical.

However, you seem to think its wrong. You just keep saying Republicans do it too. This is not a defense worthy of supporting a presidential candidate. I do not accept the "they did it too defense" from my kids, why would I do it from someone I want to determine our country's future.

We want our politicians to be better than the Republicans, not the same.

[blm]

74. Nope - I'm saying what I said. Neither Powell or Rice would even be asked and when it is known

that neither one of them could even PRODUCE any of those emails, let alone the thousands turned over by HRC (who I don't even support), then why are WE furthering the RW propagandists pushing the narrative against a Dem Sec of State?

Our govt servants ARE better than Republicans. You are welcome to prove that Powell and Rice turned over as many emails as HRC did.

[cali]

79. neither are running for president. neither had their own server.

[blm]

86. Yeah - If only HRC used the DNC's server, instead, THEN the corporate media would be OK

with it because that is EXACTLY what Republican WH did when they waylaid millions of emails to RNC servers, and after all, no one, especially corporate mediawhores went after them, did they?

No one who served in the Obama administration will go unscrutinized because, after all, RW narrative is that Obama's is the most corrupt and incompetent administration ever. Isn't it?

You certainly seem fine pushing the exceptionalism Republicans manage to produce to attack Democrats…...even when you know how it tracks back.

[Rilgin]

100. Can you make a single argument other than

They did it too or they did it worse. Saying that they did it too is not a great answer. I do not care if Powell and Rice were worse than Hillary in their email practices. I want someone better than what either did. I want someone who does not set up any private server whatsoever

[blm]

106. Then use your energy to DEMAND it across the board.

If you only direct energy to the RW demand for scrutiny towards this one Dem Secof State, and no other officials, then you most certainly are catapulting the propaganda for the RW machine.

[Rilgin]

116. No

I am not a Republican and do not post to Republican boards. I do not like when Democrats have hypocritical elements and think its ok if their politicians are as bad

[blm]

117. LOL - No one here thinks that Dem politicians can be allowed to be AS bad. YOU want that

to be the perception, though, don't you?

Nothing done even comes close to the bad of Republican administrations.

The 'both sides' do it only flies with those who have no sense of history…..the Rand Paul crowd working on Dem forums for the last 6 years.

Utter horsesh!t!!

[cali]

126. flail, flail an more flail.

[blm]

135. You're welcome to show that ANY real DUer said Dems are allowed to be AS bad as GOPs.

cali, but we both know you and your current ally here can't do it.

[Rilgin]

140. Again

I am a member of the Democratic Party because I think our policies are better than those of the Republican Party which has one answer to any question -- Tax Cuts.

However, not all Democratic Candidates are equal. Shocking as it may seem, there are democratic candidates that have cheated, have lied, have taken bribes etc etc. I do not support those democratic candidates. These are the extreme acts where we can say those politicians are as bad as the Republicans.

If HRC gets our nomination, there are lots of people like me who will face the proposition of voting for a nominee who we do not trust and who has espoused policies antithetical to our long term consistent beliefs because she is being compared to a Republican who we view as worse.

However, in this case, we are not comparing democrats to republicans. We are in the primary and can view our democratic candidates like Clinton without comparing them to Republicans to see if they are worse or better. We can compare democratic candidates to democratic candidates and judge them on their acts and history.

Setting up a private email server was wrong. I have told you my reasons. And to repeat even though irrelevant, I thought it was wrong when Republicans did the same because it clearly is an attempt at control and secrecy and directed at the FOIA. I think secrecy in government is wrong and I think that is a Democratic Party Value and I have a problem with it as a Democrat. It is not my only reason that I have a problem wiith HRC (her war vote and economic policies are my main issues) but it is the issue of this thread and is a reason I do not support her.

I do not have to deflect by pointing at any other candidate to say they would do better as you seem to be doing by deflecting by saying other people (all Republicans) have done the same wrong thing. I just have a problem with thinking there is nothing wrong with HRC not fixing the state department email system if it was broken when she was SOS and setting up a private server just for herself.

[jonno99]

66. ^^ THIS ^^

We need to keep in mind that these politicians are public servants. Their email correspondence does not belong to them.

The politician that would thwart FOI requests is not a politician I would trust...

[blm]

71. Demand ALL of DC turn over every email waylaid. ALL - or should it ONLY be these emails

of this ONE person, and NOT the waylaid emails of EVERY public servant in DC and in every state?

Guess that point is lost by those who WANT it to be lost.

[jonno99]

77. Well, don't you think that when one becomes a public servant that THAT (FOI requests) is to be

expected?

Obviously abuse of FOI should not be tolerated - but is that what we are looking at here?

Or are we looking at an attempt to thwart the public interest?

And if so, why?

[HFRN]

87. my understanding is that FOIA is to be followed, period

my understanding, from a Fed agency worker I know, is that FOIA is to be followed, and that if someone doesn't they don't care why they did didn't

[blm]

88. Demand it of EVERY ONE OF THEM. Or, are you in harmony with the RW propaganda machine

who believes that ONLY this Dem SecofState should be scrutinized to this degree? The energy seems to be directed ONLY at this former Dem Sec of State.

I don't LIE myself into believing that RW propagandists and their corporate mediawhores are engaging in the protection of the electorate with the narrative they are pushing.

Apparently others like the way this smells. Enjoy it.

[jonno99]

97. Why is this so hard to comprehend? YES! demand it of every one of them and the

ones that don't comply you then raise a stink.

But the fact that we have to deal with is that HRC was served with FOI - and she has not been forthcoming.

To complain that she was served - but not EVERYONE else is just silly.

Hillary needs to stop giving ammunition to the enemy - she is hurting herself, but more importantly, she is hurting the Democrat party.

[blm]

103. Where is YOUR energy directed? Making the RW propagandists' load easier.

HRC couldn't have expected to be caught up in this manner when her predecessors were not…..and, neither was any other former officials who did MUCH worse.

But, then, that wouldn't help you catapult the RW propaganda that ONLY HRC is to be seen as culpable.

I don't see any of you using your energy to demand ALL emails be made transparent across party lines., beyond what is being asked now of ONLY Clinton.

CorpMedia has its hooks. Try not to swallow all of them.

[jonno99]

111. "CorpMedia has its hooks" - no doubt. But it begs the question: why does the campaign

not simply "come clean"?

All the evasions and lawyer-speak simply make them/her look guilty - of "something". This is not the fault of the RW or CorpMedia - it is entirely a problem of HRC's own making.

[blm]

115. Come clean with what? With the horsesh!t narrative being catapulted?

They couldn't 'come clean' with Benghazi, and WH couldn't 'come clean' with IRS, because the GOP claims in the propaganda media are BULLSH!T!!!

The 'perception' is that the Iran deal is now bad only after the RW propaganda machine has spent the last few months and a few billion dollars catapulting the propaganda against the Iran deal. Should Obama and Kerry 'come clean' and stop hiding behind the facts of the deal because RW Bullshit machine is showing signs of success?

Swallow. Rev Moon will smile on you as he continues to rule the RW propaganda media.

[840high]

174. Yes - furthermore I don't

care if there is a D or R after their name.

[840high]

173. ...+1

[Hortensis]

14. Well, she was one of a number of high-ranking people with private accounts back then, and

for much of the government ignoring finer points of security and procedure were SOP for many transactions. Many computer systems didn't communicate, many older functionaries didn't follow the rules because they never learned to use computers, etc. I agree mingling and deleting emails was bad, but for some years no one thought it was a big enough deal to stop (after all, classified discussions went through approved channels) -- in fact, not until the right wing started honing this violation of rules into a weapon.

You know, if she had followed procedure, we would just be talking about another Hillary-gate now instead. Of all the points in her past her enemies must have considered using, they decided they'd have the best chance of longevity with this one. I think that says she's not exactly as negligent as Emailgate suggests. Certainly they found no criminal activity; even just a hint would have been enough to run with.

[saturnsring]

15. Well look at that a concerned Bernie supporter is very concerned

[840high]

175. Did you ever think that it's a concerned Dem supporter.?

[randome]

16. LOL! This is only an issue because you won't stop talking about it.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

18. wow. that's some potent denial you have going on

[randome]

41. So tell me what bad thing happened because of this.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

46. I'll answer my own request. Nothing.

So what this boils down to is that you're concerned that others might be concerned.

(Actually, you don't want Clinton to be President, which I understand, but the 'concern' ouroboros is a lame way to go about it.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

127. this mess is the bad thing.

[randome]

195. So nothing bad happened that you can point to.

You're worried that others might be worried. Fail.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

197. that her favorabilities are disastrous is a bad thing. she is the odds on favorite to

be the nominee, and I believe she'll lose. But that wasn't the point I was making in the op. The point I was making is that this imbroglio reveals some very serious flaws.

[JoePhilly]

32. This server thing is the most important issue this country faces!!!!!!

How can you not see that!!!!?????

[840high]

176. You must live a sheltered

life - it's all over the news and the net - here and overseas.

[randome]

194. So was Benghazi. Sorry, I meant to say BENGHAZI!

Concern not about anything that occurred but concern about others being concerned.

This does not reflect well on DU.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. It's all about the perception of the voters.

If Hillary is seen as untrustworthy, dishonest, unreliable, and bungling by the voters, she loses. Whether the perception is based on misconception, bias, or media manipulation is irrelevant.

Right now she seems to be dodging the issue (and others) by using the "it depends on the definition is" evasion originated by her less-than-honest husband.

[cali]

24. that's true, but I stand by what I wrote in the op

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. I agree with your OP.

She displays a rather noticeable amount of hubris.

[George II]

31. "Less-than-honest-husband"? Is that you Mr. Starr?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. No, that's me who thinks Bill is less than honest.

Mr. Starr can think whatever he likes. As can you.

[sheshe2]

161. Trashing Bill...

does not speak of the woman Hillary is. SHE is NOT her HUSBAND!

She is her own woman, sadly some here do not recognize that.

[George II]

22. You never miss a chance to take a gratuitous (and unworthy) shot at Hillary Clinton, do you?

[cali]

26. how about actually addressing the specifics in the op?

Refute me point by point. None of you will because none of you can.

[boston bean]

35. You nor anyone else has one lick of proof that Hillary

was concealing anything. or that her motivations were hide something nefarious. So, that makes all these "feelings of concern" nothing but smears.

So, until you do actually have some PROOF of this, it might behoove you to stop spreading RW smears, and doing their dirty work.

As a Democrat, I personally, don't appreciate it.

[cali]

47. no proof but there's evidence as posted in the op and there's common sense, critical

thinking and good old occam's razor.

[boston bean]

49. There is no proof. Yet, you want to continually try to turn it into the worst, human failure, that

can never be forgiven.

You want Occam's razor? OK, here is Occam razor. She used an email server because there was no reason not to. It was easier and more efficient than the gov't email system at the time. She is not the only SoS to have used an alternative. She used the same server for her personal email, because it was easier and more efficient for her.

Yet, you want to try and make this out to be a personal failing that is unforgivable and shows a sign of incompetence and purposeful malfeasance.

Go ahead, like I said, continue to do the dirty work of a proven RW smear. Me, I won't do that, because as a Democrat, I don't automatically see monsters where there aren't any.

[Kingofalldems]

53. Great post. Couldn't have said it better.

Someone seems a little too upset by Hillary.

[jonno99]

70. No - Occam's razor is about arriving at the simplest answer. So - what is the question?

Why has Hillary been evading and stonewalling FOI requests?

You're concerned about the RW, but Hillary has been her own worst enemy. Most likely (imo) there is nothing "there".

But why has she been behaving as if there is something "there"?

[boston bean]

96. .

[jonno99]

99. Proclaims the ostrich...

[sheshe2]

163. ...

[randys1]

81. At some point we have to just accept that the GOP is everywhere.

[sheshe2]

162. OMG, this is

Benghazi all over again. Issa was running that one, over and over and over and over again.Please do not do this cali. Please don't.

[840high]

177. I like cali's OP - sorry you don't.

[George II]

130. Exactly, and as they say, innocent until PROVEN guilty....

...I'm just wondering why presumed "democrats" are so eager to tear down Hillary Clinton. They do it almost gleefully, and they're doing the work of the RNC.

Face it everyone, Hillary Clinton WILL win the Democratic Presidential nomination. I just hope the damage caused by "democrats" doesn't lose the general election to the republicans.

A truly sorry state of affairs for us who have been DEMOCRATS most of our lives.

[George II]

128. Because they're just right wing talking points, and you just revel in the "scandal".

[sheshe2]

164. I have to wonder why that is?

Why are they doing this?

[DrDan]

40. I am a Hillary leaner - and I must agree with you - she got some darned awful advice . . . if she

sought any.

I spent 3 decades with 2 huge high-tech corps. The rules regarding emails were detailed, specific, and applied to everyone - from the top down. I am quite confident the SD is no less stringent.

I am at a loss as to why this approach was taken. She is certainly smart enough to know it would come back a bite her.

You don't mess with classified documents.

[cali]

45. I am far from tech savvy, but I just don't get not separating work

and personal, particularly in that environment.

[DrDan]

63. I can only speak for the two corporations I worked for . . . but there

all business-related correspondence was kept on company provided resources and appropriate protection was to be given - locked up at night, etc. Personal stuff was to be maintained elsewhere - company-provided resources were not be used.

Confidential data within the corporate world is maintained as stringently as in the military environment. As a matter of fact, I was once asked to work on a project where I could not share any project specifics with even my boss. I had to sign a document agreeing to this before I began the assignment. To violate that agreement was a termination offense.

I cannot imagine the SD having an approach significantly different with regard to maintaining classified or department-related information.

I am baffled as to why she took this approach.

[DrDan]

144. don't buy it

If she planned on running in 2016, she is smart enough to know this would be an issue with the R's.

Simply being a 1%er does not mean she does not need the votes. She knows that.

still baffling to me.

[dreamnightwind]

142. Mixing work and personal is common, but

it is done on the company's (in this case the State Department's) servers, rather than setting up your own server, mixing them there, then USING that mix as an excuse to purge emails and do a paper release. It looks to me that the intent is to be able to self-filter prior to any FOIA or subpoena response.

I think your OP is right on, I don't think that much of the classified issue, and hope her campaign is not derailed because of it, but the real message of the whole private server issue is that she apparently took steps to avoid discovery and accountability. That probably isn't criminal but it is informative.

[HFRN]

43. I think she should give a speech to explain it to the public

here's a good example

[Juicy_Bellows]

56. In case you were curious.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:18 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I think she should give a speech to explain it to the public
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=536602

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

likening Hillary to Richard Nixon. Really now? That is over the top and rude. And I state that as a Bernie supporter. We can love Bernie, but do we have to tear down another democrat by likening them to Richard Nixon?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:25 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I am also a Bernie supporter, but this disgusts me. Hide it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: all made up crap by the rw media
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pretty sure the author was going for humor.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

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

[TheFarS1de]

121. Looks like Juror 6 got it right .

Talk about getting overly sensitive .

[Juicy_Bellows]

125. How'd you know I was #6?

Cheers!

[Blue_In_AK]

48. I'm not going to rag on Hillary too much about this yet,

but I do remember a great deal of fuss being raised over Sarah Palin's state emails on her personal account, thousands of dollars being spent by various news agencies in FOIA requests, kids going to jail for hacks, etc. Doing this invites scrutiny.

Jeanne Devon at The Mudflats has noted this, as well. http://www.themudflats.net/archives/45695

Goose, gander, et cetera.

[cali]

59. I'd forgotten about that.

[Blue_In_AK]

61. We have long memories up here

when it comes to Sarah.

[840high]

178. Thanks for the reminder.

[GitRDun]

52. My thoughrs on the matter

It's will ultimately die because if you look at it from the big picture,

A high ranking public official has staff set up email so they can do their job.
They do their job, life goes on.
Well after leaving that job, some reporters stir up a kerfuffle over classified info that might have been in some of the emails that went to what amounted to a private server.
The government is embarrassed into investigating the matter due to the level of publicity.

Ask yourself a few questions:

Is anyone alleging the mail server set up was done by Hillary? No
Is anyone alleging Hillary dictated a private server or any particular technology be used? No.
Is anyone alleging Hillary masterminded or otherwise directed how to pull the emails, clearing the server? No.
Is anyone alleging Hillary was the originator of an e-mail that used classified information? No.
Is anyone alleging Hillary forwarded an e-mail that used classified information that was marked classified? No.
Is anyone alleging the use of private e-mail accounts by others in this job was illegal as those e-mails would be on servers out of the control of staff? No.
Is anyone alleging any damage occurred by use of private e-mails by Hillary or her predecessors? No.

In the end I get it's great theater, fun to hit her over the head with, but it has no possibility of resulting in escalation...none.

[seabeyond]

58. i know little to nothing about puters. my question. all the people sending her work emails knew

what the acct was, right? and not one had an issue over all those years? not one question, not one suggestion to change her system?

[Sunlei]

113. actually an excellent thought. 100s, maybe 1000s of people who knew and said nothing.

[kcjohn1]

60. Someone directed

The use of personal email. The standard is to use state.gov email. This is not the case of lowly IT guy deciding on best email setup. This was political decision and if her argument is someone on my staff did this it doesn't speak well of her judgment.

This could easily escalate. One there could be more classified emails (most likely given number of emails and nature of classification). The most damaging would be if they are able to recover deleted emails. She deleted 30,000 emails. The odds are some work emails could have being inevertly but that would look like cover-up. Or if she was stupid enough to use it for political or personal reasons some damaging emails could be leaked.

[xynthee]

67. Yes, I'd like to know whose idea it was!

If she did this because someone advised her to, who was it? Why hasn't that person been scapegoated yet?

[blm]

118. Perhaps Powell and Rice during the transition process? Why won't RW media ask them

how they advised the incoming staff during the transition period?

Oh wait - they were unable to turn over ANY emails, were they?

[GitRDun]

143. I understand the sentiment

but people at that level just do not get that involved in these low level tasks...it doesn't happen.

I know it keeps dragging on and on and it's so tempting to think there is a THERE there, I just can't get there...taking down a Secretary of State because of the way her e-mail was set up....nope.

[musiclawyer]

64. Assuming it will go away is a mistake

It won't. The MSM won't allow it. I am not alone in thinking she's mortally wounded and the democrats better start plotting on plan B

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-should-be-considered-the-democratic-frontrunner_b_8019264.html

[840high]

179. It won't go away. Wait till

the debates start.

[Motown_Johnny]

83. ?

The server was set up in her home. Of course she set it up, or she instructed someone to set it up for her. Who else do you think set up a server in her home? Who else to you think dictated that her private server be used?

Hillary herself says that she was involved in the emails being deleted. The Sec. of State has that authority and that was her. The problem is that it appears improper because there was no oversight. When running for President the appearance of impropriety is a problem.

Nobody is alleging that Hillary was the originator of an email that used classified information, or forwarded one yet. The problem here is that almost anything can be called classified. You need to be ready for that allegation. Odds are it is on the way.


This isn't just theater. She did delete, or have deleted, over 30,000 emails without any oversight. That is a problem. Add to that where her trustworthy numbers are and it becomes a big problem. Then have her claim that it all started because she wanted her emails released, when the story broke 3 days before she did that and the problem gets larger still. Pile on that she pretends to not know what wiping a server means and the problem continues to grow.

This is a real issue. Deny it all you want, that won't help any.

[GitRDun]

141. lol ok

She told someone to set up e-mail. I doubt she has any technical knowledge or participated enough to ultimately be culpable for anything.

Involved in deleting. Yeah, looked over a few tweeners, told them to delete the personals, sure...hardly worthy of jail time. Lack of oversight? No way there is anything criminal in that regard if you consider even less oversite by her predecessors.

Your conclusion is be ready, lack of oversite..ok just don't hold your breath, would hate to see you pass out.

[Motown_Johnny]

147. The lack of oversight is the problem here.

She could have gone to a neutral third party to oversee the deletion of personal emails so that her privacy could be protected. If she had, this problem would never have existed.

Instead she decided to delete (or have someone delete for her) over 30,000 emails.

It looks bad because she had work emails on the same server. I honestly don't think she deleted any work emails. That isn't the point. She should have known that it would look bad and she should have protected herself against this possible attack. We have nothing but her word that nothing work related was deleted and the majority of Americans find her untrustworthy.

Now she is avoiding questions about having the server wiped as if the reporter was asking about her housekeeper's dusting habits. If the FBI announces that the server has been wiped, that clip is a ready made attack ad.

The problem with mishandling classified information seems inevitable. The government will classify most anything. I doubt anything criminal will come of it but it will escalate the scandal. You can bet on attack ads focusing on that too.

She is simply a terrible candidate who is running a terrible campaign. She is not up to what the right wing attack machine has ready for her. The fact that this email scandal even exists is proof of that.

[GitRDun]

149. You are talking about optics

I'm not, that's our difference.

If you think the optics makes her a bad candidate, OK by me.

All I am saying is there will never be even a remotely charegeable legal issue that comes up.

[Motown_Johnny]

160. I am talking about judgement.

Hers is poor. There is a pattern. Iraq war speech (not just the vote, the speech). Refusing to answer a question about her stance on the Keystone XL pipeline (which she supported in 2011) by saying that she will answer that after she in President. Taking multiple stances on TPP. Backing away from her position in 2008 on marijuana. Her flip flop on the bankruptcy bill, etc. etc. etc. The list is nearly endless.


Oh, and the big one of course.

The pattern is very clear.

Terrible candidate, terrible campaign.

This email scandal is just one more example. There will be more if she is the nominee.

[GitRDun]

168. Now you are moving on to other subjects where you disagree with her

All of those issues are fair game..I do not quarrel with attacking on those.

It's just not reasonable, in my opinion, to get worked up over how an executive's e-mail was set up...there will absolutely be no criminality...the optics stuff seems petty.

Far better to talk about Keystone, TPP and Iraq...they actually matter.

[Motown_Johnny]

190. You can bet that some classified information was mishandled.

I doubt that it will be anything criminal, but that is not the bar for becoming President.

"Vote For Me, I Was Not Indicted!" just isn't going to work. Your standards for her are far to low.

I noticed that you did not mention Snipergate. It seems to me that how she handled that self inflicted wound is the most relevant to the self inflicted wound she is handling now. The presser in NV a few days ago was full of statements that were simply not true. It looks as if she is making the same mistake over again. She just does not know when to stop.

It is a terribly run campaign and she is a terrible candidate. This is going to get much worse.

[GitRDun]

207. I hear ya

This sums it up for me:

You can bet that some classified information was mishandled.

Despite no evidence, you just want this soooooo baaaaddd....

Obama had his moments along the way too, "..clinging to guns and religion", one among many. If people held him to account for each of these petty offenses, he never would have been President.

You hate Hillary, no problem... plenty of real issues.

Leave this petty crap out of it, though. It takes away from substantive arguments.

[JDPriestly]

105. I used to work in offices. I never accessed private e-mails in the office.

At most I read Google headline news on my lunch hour.

It's absolutely horrible to think that Hillary did not know that you don't mix private and business e-mails. It is not that hard to keep two e-mail accounts and keep them separate.

I did it as a volunteer officer in a club. It's common sense.

She is supposed to be a lawyer. Lawyers know the rules of discovery and how to protect private e-mails from discovery.

Her story has holes in it. Still, I can understand that she was confused about keeping classified information on a private server. But using one e-mail account?

I will give her a lot of leeway for not understanding how the internet works, but none for not thinking about how discovery works.

[Sunlei]

107. I assume you'd never vote for her, even if she wins the primary.

[cali]

112. you assume incorrectly.

[Sunlei]

114. 'of course' I do!

But here's another post for you!

[leftofcool]

136. Blah, blah, blah.

Ya'll need a new scandal.

[cali]

138. denial, denial and more denial

[The Traveler]

146. The classified stuff is the real problem, tho

I once held a clearance (a looooong time ago) and I literally can't say anymore about that without being subject to legal action by the US government.

Yep. They take this stuff seriously, as well they should.

Now, if I were to produce, edit, or comment on received classified info through ANY uncontrolled medium (and that would have included email), I would have been subject to prosecution. If I were to receive classified info through ANY uncontrolled medium, I would have been legally obligated to report that immediately. Failure to do so would render me subject to prosecution.

In short, it is very difficult to see this as anything else but a violation of federal law which would land pretty much any of us here in prison. (Presuming that the claim she had emails containing classified information or documents is indeed factually based.)

Now, it may turn out that Ms. Clinton is immune from those laws ... but that raises a whole different set of issues. If she indeed committed that crime, and is immune from prosecution because of her political stature, then we have further evidence for concluding that this country no longer operates under rule of law. This would, in my view, further establish the United States as an operating oligarchy.

And (hard as it may be to believe) this observation gives me no satisfaction. Yes, I am indeed a Sanders supporter and have been pretty much since before he announced. Mr. Sanders more consistently and accurately represents my positions and values. Why wouldn't I support that?

But Ms Clinton is definitely my second choice. Despite this blunder, peeps, you have to regard her as a powerful personality who pretty much drips acumen and competence from every pore. No one has weathered more hate-storms from the right wing than Hillary Clinton. No one. I have serious policy differences with Ms Clinton, but I hold her in very high regard and if she secures the nomination I will not hesitate to vote for her.

Beyond my regard for Ms Clinton, though, the Democratic Party is not well served if one of its most prominent and capable leaders is brought low by an incident of this sort. I am clinging to the hope that will not happen.

It would be worse, though, if Democratic Party leadership, or officials either elected or appointed, participate in a Nixon-like effort to conceal the crime or insulate Ms Clinton from due process.

This is serious stuff ... and I won't pretend to be able to predict how this is going to unwind in the long run.

Trav

[Lancero]

148. I recently deleted 5000 emails from my personal account.

Oh crap, I'm going to have people calling for my head now since deleting emails is the most evil thing one could ever do.

Remember back when we used to call out Republicans over this bogus blown up 'scandal'? I remember those days, and that makes me sad to see so many Democrats embracing this.

[cali]

151. so you're a high ranking government official with one account for both your personal

and government business?

[Lancero]

152. No.

I'm just sick and tired of seeing Democrats chugging the Republican kool-aid by the gallon.

What's next? Emails about *GASP* Benghazi?

[cali]

154. try responding to what is in the op. it has nothing to do with right wing bullshit

[Lancero]

155. Seems to mention the fauxian scandal quite a lot...

For 'having nothing to do' with it.

[hay rick]

153. Hillary screwed up but

the media is blowing it up out of proportion- which is to say they are carrying water for the usual suspects. I support Bernie but I think it is counterproductive to give the email story legs. We should be talking and arguing about more substantive issues- Iraq, Iran, TPP, etc.

[Lancero]

156. The media's been blowing it out of proportion ever since it hit.

It's just that now that primary season is upon us, some have stopped calling this Republican bullshit for what it is and started coopting it for their own goals.

More every day, the supporters on each side are pushing me towards letting whatever coin I pull out of my pocket pick between Bernie or Hillary.

[Fumesucker]

157. What does your company think about you mixing their business and yours on that account?

[Lancero]

158. Depends - What do you think about the embrace of a RW fauxian scandal?

[840high]

181. Silly answer.

[Lancero]

184. In otherwords, you think it's great that Democrats are falling for Republican hoaxes.

[840high]

186. I think it's great that

Democrats are questioning this and want answers. Let's not be hypocrites.

[840high]

180. You running for president?

[Lancero]

185. Nope, but apparently large portions of DU think deleting personal emails is tantamount to murder.

[riversedge]

165. The mess is of his own creation. It reflects badly on his judgment

Actually Gowdy and his committee

[philosslayer]

166. You really are a one trick pony, aren't you.

Perhaps you should branch out a bit. Expand your repertoire.

[cali]

187. not even close. but if it makes you feel better

to believe made up crap, go for it, philo.

[MannyGoldstein]

182. SoS working from a private email account

on a server in her house.

Once again... it's possibly the craziest @#$&ing thing I've ever heard of. Arguing the merits of it is just bizarre.

[randome]

188. If this is the craziest thing you've ever heard of, you've lived a very sheltered life.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[eridani]

189. The email thing really doesn't bother me too much. What does bother me--

--is the overall hawkish foreign policy, starting with voting for AUMF. And more recently "We came, we saw, he died." about Libya. This is from a supposed advocate for women's rights worldwide? Because turning a country from a dictatorship into a chaotic shithole helps women, given that we come out so well in "war of each against all" situations. [/sarcasm]

[Zorra]

202. She made a dumb mistake, at the very least. nt

[tblue37]

203. I suspect that many of her unforced errors stem from being gun shy because of the

relentless "hunting" of her and Bill by the (quite real) vast RW conspiracy.

[DanTex]

204. It's obvious that what really bugs you about it is that there is no substance to it.

Same goes for the rest of the Hillary bashers. Y'all made up your mind a long time ago that Hillary is the devil, and now you're praying along with Trey Gowdy that somehow this will take Hillary down even though both you and Gowdy know that there's nothing there.

[cali]

205. huh? no. what troubles me is that it reveals that Clinton has no problem lying

and bending rules . That simple. I don't trust her on multiple levels.