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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
69. No, the conclusion dfrom the OIG says this:
Tue May 31, 2016, 02:49 PM
May 2016

"... the office of the Secretary ... been slow ... to manage effectively the legal requirements..."

When are legal requirements not legal requirements? Why did they use this language? It does not say rules. I would think for a document with such far reaching implications and the time it took them to spit it all out that every word is chosen carefully.

If representative, it explains a lot. flor-de-jasmim May 2016 #1
Who are you going to vote for when Sanders is not the nominee? KingFlorez May 2016 #2
This is a news post, and you follow up with a loyalty pledge? How transparent. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #3
Nobody said anything about loyalty KingFlorez May 2016 #4
And one with a transparent purpose on this board. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #6
You don't seem to get what "loyalty oath" means in this context. merrily May 2016 #28
Is that a real question? NWCorona May 2016 #7
Yes KingFlorez May 2016 #8
First. I will never vote for Trump and will do everything in my power to stop him NWCorona May 2016 #15
Post removed Post removed May 2016 #9
Thank you KingFlorez May 2016 #10
I would rather vote for Jill Stein than Hillary. At least Jill Stein opposes the FTAS. Baobab May 2016 #20
At least the Green Party advocates progressive ideas. EndElectoral May 2016 #54
Is dishonest for you to say LoverOfLiberty May 2016 #74
The question is out of order, and inappropriate, especially on DU. merrily May 2016 #30
Yes, because nobody here ever talks about who they vote for. CorkySt.Clair May 2016 #66
Talking about it on your own initiative is one thing. Asking others how they will vote is merrily May 2016 #68
This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #45
ZING!! n/t JimDandy May 2016 #64
Yes it is. And anyone who is being intimidated or punished for stating how they want to vote JimDandy May 2016 #60
If Clinton is the Democratic candidate I will just write in Bernie. I will support good people. Baobab May 2016 #14
You want to check the laws in your state before writing in anyone. In some states, merrily May 2016 #31
Those Republicans will just throw it away scscholar May 2016 #56
Which Republicans? Please don't post things that just make you seem silly. merrily May 2016 #58
Neither. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #26
8% say the issue makes them more likely to vote for the former first lady. ucrdem May 2016 #5
That's political suicide AgingAmerican May 2016 #16
What does Issa have to do with this? Matt_in_STL May 2016 #18
He was the bag man back in 2012: ucrdem May 2016 #23
He's not running the investigation, the FBI is. Matt_in_STL May 2016 #24
"That's loyalty! " No, that is paid posters voting in online polls J_J_ May 2016 #19
If only she'd knock over a bank or something. Orsino May 2016 #32
Issa. Marr May 2016 #55
Thanks! Interesting and a little unsettling. floppyboo May 2016 #11
Not even a little Joob May 2016 #36
It's like watching a fatal car crash in slo-mo. floppyboo May 2016 #49
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I can't imagine any major political party running an unindicted felon leveymg May 2016 #62
Republicans and her supporters want her to run Robbins May 2016 #12
Of course they do. Orsino May 2016 #38
So 71% of Dems are so asinine they won't budge no matter what, and 31% of Repugs are laughing at us. reformist2 May 2016 #80
huh... elana i am May 2016 #13
The investment that people have in Hillary Clinton can’t be overlooked. NWCorona May 2016 #17
They made the wrong investment. Baobab May 2016 #34
And there is the number that proves the party has left me. 71% of Dems are okay with indictment. Matt_in_STL May 2016 #21
The majority of democrats Abouttime May 2016 #35
This isn't a Republican witch hunt, this is an FBI investigation. Matt_in_STL May 2016 #39
The head of the FBI was appointed by GW Bush philosslayer May 2016 #71
Oh yes, it's all a conspiracy against Hillary. Matt_in_STL May 2016 #72
No, he was appointed by Obama in 2013. DesMoinesDem May 2016 #92
well said. nt grasswire May 2016 #51
Sixty-five percent (65%) consider it likely that Clinton broke the law. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #22
This is the upside of identity politics. lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #25
If indicted, she should end her White House bid bigwillq May 2016 #27
A land line pole. Might as well invent the numbers. The_Casual_Observer May 2016 #29
We know she broke the law, the OIG said it. The only question left is whether her and/or her inner morningfog May 2016 #33
The OIG says she broke State Department regulations, not COLGATE4 May 2016 #41
Administrative laws are still federal law. She broke them. morningfog May 2016 #43
We'll have to see if anyone pursues the destruction of records meme. COLGATE4 May 2016 #46
By anyone, of course you mean "FBI" and by meme, of course you mean "evidence." morningfog May 2016 #50
When we see some facts we can talk about this more COLGATE4 May 2016 #75
We have facts. At least four federal public records were not produced by her morningfog May 2016 #81
And? COLGATE4 May 2016 #83
18 U.S. Code § 1519 morningfog May 2016 #85
Well, aside from having to prove that there was destruction with an "intent to impede, obstruct COLGATE4 May 2016 #86
The "knowingly" element goes to the destruction, which is already a proven fact. morningfog May 2016 #89
I assume you have proof that they weren't destroyed by accident? COLGATE4 May 2016 #90
No, the conclusion dfrom the OIG says this: floppyboo May 2016 #69
Rules are not laws. Calling them legal requirements begs the issue. COLGATE4 May 2016 #73
That's what I guessed. But can 'rules' have 'legal requirements'? Or just recommendations? floppyboo May 2016 #76
They are requirements without any mechanism for enforcing them. I.e. closer to COLGATE4 May 2016 #77
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the OIG is begging the issue? That she broke the law? floppyboo May 2016 #78
The OIG did not say she broke the law. COLGATE4 May 2016 #79
Well that's bull shit! bkkyosemite May 2016 #37
Sounds good to me. kstewart33 May 2016 #40
It proves there really is a cult of personality with Hillary Arazi May 2016 #42
Rasmussen? progressoid May 2016 #44
That is disgusting. highprincipleswork May 2016 #47
They must all be Trump supporters. n/t Binkie The Clown May 2016 #48
Of course Republicans want her to run if she's indicted. Got to be kidding me. EndElectoral May 2016 #52
And 70% of Dems B2G May 2016 #57
Yup. Surprised it's only 30%. (n/t) thesquanderer May 2016 #67
Not surprised nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #53
I weep for our country n/t JesterCS May 2016 #59
I bet the Republicans sure said so. Jester Messiah May 2016 #61
This has to be the "Onion." Vinca May 2016 #63
Well, it's official. lagomorph777 May 2016 #65
I don't think an online pollwould be scientific trudyco May 2016 #70
I'll take it a step further. If the 71% prevail, I will drop them like a bad habit. reformist2 May 2016 #84
Great, we have a culture of corruption now. Waiting For Everyman May 2016 #82
Exactly, people accept it, especially if it someone they support. Very sad. BillZBubb May 2016 #88
71% say someone under indictment for a felony should keep running? That is disgusting. BillZBubb May 2016 #87
very stupid idea. Cobalt Violet May 2016 #91
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Poll: 50% Say Clinton Sho...»Reply #69