General Discussion

Orsino

(37,428 posts)

43. Except in providing one more excuse for Republican hand-wringing.

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:09 AM

Mar 2015

I had thought that the practice had been illegal for many years. Glad to see that Clinton wasn't flouting a law that didn't exist.

I guess the practice is still skeevy, but mot unusually so.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

170 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

That Story About Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Account Isn’t as Awful as It Seems [View all] wyldwolf Mar 2015 OP

Three defensive email posts in a row. Worried about something? FSogol Mar 2015 #1

Responding to a handful of offensive posts in a row. Worried about something? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #2

You are nuts. When have I ever posted an anti-Hillary post? FSogol Mar 2015 #9

When did I accuse you of posting an anti-Hillary post? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #10

Post removed Post removed Mar 2015 #135

Defensive or not, facts are facts. randome Mar 2015 #3

Sure, but the OP keeps starting thread after thread about it. FSogol Mar 2015 #16

In response to thread after thread condemning her. Hey - problem? Alert me. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #18

LOL, the election is still far away, you better pace yourself. FSogol Mar 2015 #34

Is that your bedroom? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #36

Gotta admit, it'd be a pretty awesome bedroom. nt F4lconF16 Mar 2015 #115

he told me it comes with a pretty white jacket, as well. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #118

Fire spreads pretty rapidly, doesn't it? The pants-on-fire brigade sets everyone's pants on fire. randome Mar 2015 #26

I think those emails are here: FSogol Mar 2015 #38

LOL treestar Mar 2015 #142

Yeah. For the effort to smear HRC for breaking a non-existent law. n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #139

It is bad practice to conduct business over personal email accounts Renew Deal Mar 2015 #4

Did you mean Jeb? WillowTree Mar 2015 #13

Yeah, "it worked" in revealing Jeb's constituents' private info. SunSeeker Mar 2015 #113

There was some suggestion that her staff deleted the emails instead of archiving them. That may jwirr Mar 2015 #5

"some suggestion." wyldwolf Mar 2015 #7

Agree with u wolf, a suggestion doesn't equal proof, and so we should wait for accredited news organizations- not Fux News fo sho - to look into whether emails were improperly deleted. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #20

FOX News-style "some would say" - "some are suggesting." wyldwolf Mar 2015 #23

The story is in the NYT: accredited enough for you? leveymg Mar 2015 #99

Baron, the guy the OP mentions, is probably THE greatest authority on this matter in the world. merrily Mar 2015 #160

On Lawrence O. jwirr Mar 2015 #25

based on what? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #27

The witness he was talking to said this. Who knows if any of this is what they are telling us? jwirr Mar 2015 #33

Get us a name and a quote. Might make things clearer. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #35

Sorry. I gave you the program and I was only half listening to that. Are you saying that you were jwirr Mar 2015 #42

I didn't see the program. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #47

Well I guess I will take my 73 year old ass off of Du just to satisfy you. jwirr Mar 2015 #48

your choice wyldwolf Mar 2015 #51

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #54

Don't be surprised. It's crap on a cracker. aquart Mar 2015 #77

you know wyldwolf, "some people say" Skittles Mar 2015 #162

Anything that was on those servers can be recovered. Any deletions are a telltale map. leveymg Mar 2015 #21

Yes, I think that she handed over 55,000 to the senate during the Benghazi hearings alone. And jwirr Mar 2015 #28

There's not going to be a bipartisan effort to squelch this one. This isn't Benghazi, leveymg Mar 2015 #40

Exactly. It is important for only one reason - the Rs are going to use it. jwirr Mar 2015 #44

So could anyone who hacked into the system. That's another point that's going to be raised. leveymg Mar 2015 #53

Let's find out 1st wat was deleted b4 reachin any conclusions, thats only fair. But, Hillary wud b wise 2 get out in front of this story b4 it really gets legs...Paging Lanny Davis. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #39

maybe the rest of the posts were personal. family, friends, medical emails from drs.. misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #81

No, they don't have to. You can configure a mail server to really delete the email. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2015 #93

As we have learned, others can hack in, and the NSA keeps a complete record. leveymg Mar 2015 #105

Even luddites can find the "delete" button. jeff47 Mar 2015 #107

Twice. Actually, those copies may be more secure and less likely to be released in this case. leveymg Mar 2015 #110

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #6

She didn't use a free email account. See how hyperbole starts? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #8

Aw, man! The knives are OUT for Secretary Clinton. I mean, if she did something untoward, then ok, BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #19

I'm willin to wait to see if somethin "untoward" happened, as u remark, but I think most here can @ least agree, in this case, Hillary exercised poor judgment. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #29

Actually, she hasn't. She hasn't done anything different than any other State Dept. Heads have done. BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #86

Wow! So your defense is to refer me to a post by a State Department insider who basically admits what Hillary did is incompetent, not nefarious?... InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #116

It's opposition research brush Mar 2015 #41

This is only the start. aquart Mar 2015 #80

It sure looks like it, aquart. Dark clouds are a-gatherin'. eom BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #87

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #22

You mean like that other story? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #24

No. The difference is that she's not going to want to release all her email. leveymg Mar 2015 #61

and then when 'progressives' latch onto the next faux scandal for a few days... wyldwolf Mar 2015 #63

Now, you're sounding desperate. Breathe. leveymg Mar 2015 #75

You've just run out of things to say. 'Progressive' desperation. Breathe wyldwolf Mar 2015 #78

I'm not the one ranting here. leveymg Mar 2015 #83

yeah, you're beside yourself that ONE MORE faux scandal isn't sticking wyldwolf Mar 2015 #84

CAPS are the last recourse of the truly hysterical. Better watch that, it's a tell. leveymg Mar 2015 #89

Who told you that, Mr. Rogers? Calm... wyldwolf Mar 2015 #92

since when are 'progressives' ie liberals the enemy on this board? roguevalley Mar 2015 #149

since they started carrying Republican's water on Clinton. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #167

Yay, more progressive bashing from a faux Democrat Third Wayer LondonReign2 Mar 2015 #137

tut tut tut. . . n/t annabanana Mar 2015 #12

Has anyone who has seen the 55,000 emails actually quoted some manner in which DebJ Mar 2015 #95

You'd THINK.. annabanana Mar 2015 #11

Likely worse than you think. Private email is how they nailed Gen. Petraeus, remember? leveymg Mar 2015 #14

Uh, it wasn't the email. It's what he did with it. aquart Mar 2015 #88

Wrong. The email was a way to investigate and publicize the affair - per se violation of UCOMC. leveymg Mar 2015 #96

No Information Technology professional would say what she or any predecessor did was acceptable KeepItReal Mar 2015 #15

I also wonder why some liberals are always so eager, evidence later, to assist in smearing other liberals? Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #17

" smearing other liberals?" marmar Mar 2015 #50

let me see. Women's rights, civil rights, voting rights, etc. still_one Mar 2015 #64

According to some members, those aren't real issues. Lancero Mar 2015 #133

If Hillary runs, and is the Democratic nominee, if DU honors its original TOS a lot of the vitrol still_one Mar 2015 #134

Shhhhh. They think this is bigger than Vince Foster. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #30

Righties hell, the Hillary haters on DU are peeing in their pants they are so excited still_one Mar 2015 #65

wyldwolf the dragonslayer! Thanks for posting the parts the press .. misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #31

Why do you automatically assume this is all "half truths, sorta maybe's," etc.? leveymg Mar 2015 #45

The OP is certainly a start. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #62

Do you seriously think that article went to press unless there's a reason for what was included and leveymg Mar 2015 #67

do you seriously believe that 'journalists' don't intentionally omit facts to slant their pieces? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #69

This is a big story that has the scrutiny of top management at the NYT. leveymg Mar 2015 #72

The top management at the NYT are notorious for these kinds of things wyldwolf Mar 2015 #76

Exactly, Judy That means one of two things: the NYT is invested in outcomes; or they have considered leveymg Mar 2015 #85

why do some automatically assume what they read is the entire truth? misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #66

When major media make a mistake of great magnitude, it's because they're leveymg Mar 2015 #79

"invested in the outcome" . Thanks for stating that. misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #90

So it won't hurt HC fadedrose Mar 2015 #32

it should hurt her Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #37

Except in providing one more excuse for Republican hand-wringing. Orsino Mar 2015 #43

As noted in the OP, this must be a pain in the ass to try to spin LOL snooper2 Mar 2015 #46

Where was that noted in the OP? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #59

Noillary?? misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #94

celery? snooper2 Mar 2015 #97

Sure, not a big deal if you are already either a fan or "Ready For Hillary". closeupready Mar 2015 #49

Papa Paul Whores work is never done! nt Cryptoad Mar 2015 #52

So yet again our answer to a scandal is... Savannahmann Mar 2015 #55

Yup. That's what it's come to. Sad. marmar Mar 2015 #74

!!! MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #56

It's Ratings & Corporate Media fredamae Mar 2015 #57

Hair on fire is the new intellectualism. And the media is always on the spot with accelerant. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #60

We need to do a better job recognizing fredamae Mar 2015 #98

Who cares? I'll worry about her email indiscretions when the 5 million Bush/Rove emails are un"lost" GoneFishin Mar 2015 #58

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #70

I love good snark, but I don't get which way my snark-o-meter is supposed to go on this? GoneFishin Mar 2015 #111

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #114

I see what you are saying. If there are indicators that she did this to cover up immoral acts then GoneFishin Mar 2015 #117

water seeks its own level i guess frylock Mar 2015 #138

I don't care if Jesus Christ used personal email instead of the corporate email LiberalArkie Mar 2015 #68

Agreed. KeepItReal Mar 2015 #73

And all this time, I've been getting my Trojans at CVS. Who knew?! InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #121

DUzy potential, LOL! eom BlueMTexpat Mar 2015 #170

Colin Powell isn't running for President. Calista241 Mar 2015 #71

It's VERY bad and that's precisely the point: we need a candidate - like Elizabeth - who exudes competency and good judgment 24/7 with no days off. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #125

The brouhaha about this created crisis is just an opening salvo of BlueMTexpat Mar 2015 #82

Non-stop here at DU which will flourish into downright spitting of every venom Iliyah Mar 2015 #104

Actually, it's much worse than that. jeff47 Mar 2015 #91

Sounds like someone finally caught HRC Android3.14 Mar 2015 #100

Hey,...that flies in the face of the "dumb blonde" talking point the Republicans want to tell. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2015 #101

Poster to pass around... riversedge Mar 2015 #102

So what? Nobody's advocating throwing her in jail Calista241 Mar 2015 #132

If the story is true is it a stupid mistake by Hillary AgingAmerican Mar 2015 #103

Thanks for posting this Gothmog Mar 2015 #106

Who on DU Aerows Mar 2015 #108

and some are just angry at anything Hillary "does". misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #112

Some "Dems" hate democracy and they say it here over and over and over again Rex Mar 2015 #126

I especially Aerows Mar 2015 #128

I hear ya same here kinda Rex Mar 2015 #130

Big Deal........ titanicdave Mar 2015 #109

Your opinion has been noted. Rex Mar 2015 #119

your confusion of "fact" and "opinion" has been noted. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #120

Nothing you ever post has once single fact in it. Rex Mar 2015 #122

So what you're saying is Obama DID NOT sign H.R. 1233...? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #124

And I've always said, faux Third Wayers have a different definition of Democrat LondonReign2 Mar 2015 #140

There are some facts and some links in my reply 151. Turns out, a minimum of googling merrily Mar 2015 #166

"A stupid mistake" is one way Doc Holliday Mar 2015 #123

Yeah, it's still pretty bad Recursion Mar 2015 #127

Hard to believe she doesn't have an IT team or the government Rex Mar 2015 #131

But, not really, really bad. Kinda sorta bad, but not the kinda bad that would get one jailed. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #168

Isn't as awful nichomachus Mar 2015 #129

...and therefore people should quit twisting themselves into pretzels trying to excuse it. Iggo Mar 2015 #136

! DeSwiss Mar 2015 #141

I've seen a few posts on this subject today JustAnotherGen Mar 2015 #143

Hey! Christie! That's a new one. Iggo Mar 2015 #144

No - you misunderstand JustAnotherGen Mar 2015 #145

I'm completely calm. Iggo Mar 2015 #148

Welcome to America JustAnotherGen Mar 2015 #150

About half the population can't tell you who the sitting Vice President is. Vinca Mar 2015 #146

Kick & highly recommended. William769 Mar 2015 #147

The language you highlighted in your post says federal LAW, not federal regulations. merrily Mar 2015 #151

you're the only one still pushing this '1950' meme. Must be lonely. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #152

Really? Has Baron retracted? merrily Mar 2015 #153

Oh, sorry. You and Baron - giving the finger to facts. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #154

Dude you need to read the stuff I linked in my first post. If you think you or some reporter merrily Mar 2015 #155

You don't stand alone. You stand with 'Baron.' And Walker. And Rubio. And Jeb. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #157

You can attempt a cheap smear, or you can try to educate yourself, as I suggested to you earlier merrily Mar 2015 #158

As Ed Shultz called it today: Benghazi Fever II wyldwolf Mar 2015 #159

And how long did Schultz work with the Federal Records Act and the National merrily Mar 2015 #161

So now your excuse is Ed was once a Republican. lol wyldwolf Mar 2015 #163

Um, no. I need no excuse. Please try to read for comprehension. merrily Mar 2015 #164

So Shultz defended Clinton because he used to be a Republican and Clinton broke a 1950 law. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #165

This message was self-deleted by its author wyldwolf Mar 2015 #156

Legal or not, she likely did this to avoid FOIA disclosure. ARMYofONE Mar 2015 #169