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)118. he told me it comes with a pretty white jacket, as well.
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