General Discussion

Calista241

(5,586 posts)

132. So what? Nobody's advocating throwing her in jail

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:19 PM

Mar 2015

She worked for the State Department for years and never even had a work email address? That just doesn't sound legit, and can be interpreted many ways.

Unfortunately it's now up to our opponents and talking heads to determine why she did it.

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