Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: That Story About Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Account Isn’t as Awful as It Seems [View all]wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)76. The top management at the NYT are notorious for these kinds of things
Go ahead, say they're not.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
170 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
That Story About Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Account Isn’t as Awful as It Seems [View all]
wyldwolf
Mar 2015
OP
Fire spreads pretty rapidly, doesn't it? The pants-on-fire brigade sets everyone's pants on fire.
randome
Mar 2015
#26
There was some suggestion that her staff deleted the emails instead of archiving them. That may
jwirr
Mar 2015
#5
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
Baron, the guy the OP mentions, is probably THE greatest authority on this matter in the world.
merrily
Mar 2015
#160
The witness he was talking to said this. Who knows if any of this is what they are telling us?
jwirr
Mar 2015
#33
Sorry. I gave you the program and I was only half listening to that. Are you saying that you were
jwirr
Mar 2015
#42
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
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
Twice. Actually, those copies may be more secure and less likely to be released in this case.
leveymg
Mar 2015
#110
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
and then when 'progressives' latch onto the next faux scandal for a few days...
wyldwolf
Mar 2015
#63
CAPS are the last recourse of the truly hysterical. Better watch that, it's a tell.
leveymg
Mar 2015
#89
Likely worse than you think. Private email is how they nailed Gen. Petraeus, remember?
leveymg
Mar 2015
#14
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
If Hillary runs, and is the Democratic nominee, if DU honors its original TOS a lot of the vitrol
still_one
Mar 2015
#134
Righties hell, the Hillary haters on DU are peeing in their pants they are so excited
still_one
Mar 2015
#65
Why do you automatically assume this is all "half truths, sorta maybe's," etc.?
leveymg
Mar 2015
#45
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
Exactly, Judy That means one of two things: the NYT is invested in outcomes; or they have considered
leveymg
Mar 2015
#85
Sure, not a big deal if you are already either a fan or "Ready For Hillary".
closeupready
Mar 2015
#49
Hair on fire is the new intellectualism. And the media is always on the spot with accelerant.
Fred Sanders
Mar 2015
#60
Who cares? I'll worry about her email indiscretions when the 5 million Bush/Rove emails are un"lost"
GoneFishin
Mar 2015
#58
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
I see what you are saying. If there are indicators that she did this to cover up immoral acts then
GoneFishin
Mar 2015
#117
I don't care if Jesus Christ used personal email instead of the corporate email
LiberalArkie
Mar 2015
#68
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
Hey,...that flies in the face of the "dumb blonde" talking point the Republicans want to tell.
Spitfire of ATJ
Mar 2015
#101
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
But, not really, really bad. Kinda sorta bad, but not the kinda bad that would get one jailed.
Major Hogwash
Mar 2015
#168
...and therefore people should quit twisting themselves into pretzels trying to excuse it.
Iggo
Mar 2015
#136
The language you highlighted in your post says federal LAW, not federal regulations.
merrily
Mar 2015
#151
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
So Shultz defended Clinton because he used to be a Republican and Clinton broke a 1950 law.
wyldwolf
Mar 2015
#165