A reporter claimed that he had proof that she had rigged the vote and would be publishing it soon. The promised article never showed up---but the Internet still ran with the story, and treated it as gospel, allowing the MSM to then report on the Internet "news".

And people still fall for this shit.

it was easily tracked back to a completely untrustworthy right wing hack who has been on a witch hunt for years. It was beyond simple to see what was going on. The right wing has been doing this with the help from the main stream media for a long time. It is shocking to me how many on the left are still willing to allow our side to be injured in this manner. Not only that, but some help in the injury to our party. I find it hard to believe these people on the "left" don't know what they are doing when they promote such garbage.

Threads started on the topic, denigrating HRC, are getting recommendations hand over fist.

If anyone thinks this place hasn't been "infiltrated," think again. Either that, or people here aren't critical thinkers.

To some, facts don't matter. It's rather pathetic.

The "She ran it herself from her basement!!" angle was pretty obviously not going to turn out to be true.

But there are still other bad parts of this outside the usual Clinton-induced insanity. Whoever ran it screwed up the security.

He didn't get his hands on any of HRC's unclassified (and that's the only kind she sent) emails from her personal account.

Who had the security "problem," again?

This is a lousy smear job, and the people pushing it, if they don't know what they're doing, need to step back and do some learning.

Sweet. Now we can start a war on false pretenses. Or Iraq was perfectly fine because of Vietnam.

They did not configure the VPN device properly by leaving the default encryption keys in place.

They also decided to get a .com domain, which enabled a typosquatter (clintonmail.com - no 'e' before 'mail'). As SoS, she could have gotten a domain within state.gov. Since only the government can hand out .gov domains, it's impossible to typosquat a .gov.

Those mistakes are not excused by leaks by other people. They were mistakes. They were likely not made by Clinton herself, but by the people working for her. As a result, the only part that could reflect poorly on Clinton herself could be relying on poorly qualified people to do something important....or not.

Since everyone is busy screaming about archive regulations that were not in force, we don't know who actually set the damn thing up. We don't know if Clinton said "Hey, this guy knows about computers, have him set up the email" or if she said "Hey professional hosting company, I want email. You guys handle the details". The former is poor judgement by Clinton. The latter is not.

You're believing some partisan fuck at the NYT, and not the Archivist of the United States--who said she did nothing wrong, nothing "illegal" and has made no "mistakes."

We don't NEED to know "who set the damn thing up."

She did not transmit ANY classified material. She kept copies of everything she sent. The bulk of her communications were with her staff. And no one broke into her email and sent it to Wikileaks, did they?

You're buying a load of bullshit served up to you by people who wish her ill. And you're saying things like "We don't know if Clinton said (blah blah)" and even though you don't know, you're having no problem convicting her. That tells me that your personal bias towards her has swayed YOUR judgment. You don't know if she was using encryption software--see, You. Don't. KNOW.

I'll believe the archivist of the US about the legality of her conduct before I believe jeff47 on the internet, sorry. And I've had .gov email, and it was down as much as it was up--I don't blame her for going outside the system. And since she was doing the EXACT SAME THING as her predecessors, well, all I can say is "Why didn't Powell take the same heat, hmmmm?" Yeah. What's up with that?

Clinton could have made an error. Or not. We don't know because people are screaming about regulations, and then screaming that those regulations weren't in force so we must ignore the entire scandal.

There is a potential problem, depending on how much she had her people "go it alone".

"erred." You're the one screaming about "problems" without any justification. Why aren't you screeching about Powell's "problems?" Or Condi's? Hmmm.

There are no "problems" because it's not up to you to decide how she wants to run her PERSONAL, paid-for-by-herself-and-not-you-or-the-American-taxpayers email system.

And it was Private Manning who gave the State Department cables to wikileaks, not the Russians or Chinese.

And you don't know if she used encryption, or not on some or all of her emails. You just don't know. Yet you're first in line to continue to crab about "errors" and "problems."

That's like saying you don't like the way she took notes, or you don't like her "tone" or something. There were no controlling regulations, rules, guidance or anything of the sort with regard to her own UNCLASSIFIED, PERSONAL email system--which the Archivist of the US said is not "illegal" to use. Even if you don't like it. You didn't have to say she "broke the law" -- your use of terms like "err" and "problem" makes it very clear that you think what she did was WRONG--even though the guy who is the controlling authority on these matters says otherwise.

Your bias is clear when you use that kind of language.

What kind of "computer security" does she need for unclassified emails on servers that were not in her basement--much as the right wing and shitty "reporters" tried to pretend otherwise? She was using a commercial outfit -- her system wasn't "homebrew" and it wasn't in her house, even--but hey, let's not let facts get in the way of some goalpost shifting about "security." Please.

And your dire link goes to a white page. Nothing. Nada. Zip. No placeholder. Not that this would "prove" anything, anyway. So frickin what?

Again--State Department emails ended up at wikileaks. Clinton's emails did NOT.

So who had "security" problems?

Keep letting it all hang out, now!

You still haven't managed to quote where I say she broke the law or any regulations. So quote where I said she broke the law or any regulations.

I already told you, you've said that what she did was wrong. It doesn't matter if you specifically said it was "illegal"--the concept of wrongdoing is what you put out there, and what you put out there was a false accusation. You might have gotten it directly from the cretins who pushed this story and, unlike you, have had the good sense to back away from it because it's going nowhere.

Why don't YOU post YOUR email and password, hmmm? You're seriously saying you can break into her email? That you know her email and password? Post them, then. Why do I not BELIEVE you?

You need to click on your little link that you so pompously provided. It goes to NOTHING. A blank, white page of NOTHING. It doesn't show anything. It offers no links to anything. Not sure why you're getting all excited about it. Nothing is nothing. You know what other DNS still exists? http://headupyourass.com/ and all you get there is a big white blank page, too -- it means NOTHING, unless you think the CIA is "hiding shit" there, or something.

And what's with the China/Russia repeat? Do you think that repeating crap makes it more important or "dire" somehow? Why don't you prove your snide suggestion that China or Russia has Clinton's emails--they might NOW, thanks to Snowden, but the horse has long left the barn on that story and those emails were OLD by that point in time, and Clinton was no longer SECSTATE. Most importantly, they were UNCLASSIFIED, so there's no "OOOOH NOOOO" on that score either.

Again, Manning leaked State comms to wikileaks--and there were NO emails from Clinton's personal email account in those thousands and thousands of leaked documents. Unless you're suggesting--and it sounds like you are -- that Manning, instead of dumping everything he could grab in a wholesale fashion--picked through the tens of thousands of documents, and, like a crow on a pile of crap, picked out the kernels of corn that said "Clinton e-mail" on them. Please. But do keep digging!!!!

So, yeah, whatever. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it mean anything.

But it looks like that's all you've got.

I think you're just not up to speed on the facts at hand, and you're inventing worst-case scenarios to suit your hopes. At least the "server" is out of her basement now!

assholes, really

"gamed" by the GOP and the Bibi Distraction Crew really need to check themselves. This was a Bullshit Story, a "Big Lie," and it's shocking how many people--not just here, in the media as well-- ate it up with a spoon.

But on the bright side, we know them by their words and assertions! They can't claim to be "on the fence" after spitting out some of that nasty vitriol. This whole stupid non-story really "smoked 'em outta their holes" to quote the Wee Cowboy. The stampede to convict her was nothing short of astounding.

That's the kind of impact this sort of media nonsense can have. But, to fight it, Dems have to unite and get to work. There's a lot to be undone - nationwide. Dems could do this if they'd make the effort. Why don't they make the effort?

while the damning articles get dozens of responses and rec's. This OP was posted last night and only has 7 responses an 12 rec's. This just proves once again why some of us come here sporadically and take anything posted here with a grain of salt. DU has become the flip side of the same coin as the Freepers. I don't know which site despises the Clintons more.

which I appreciate.

to see how much Hillary hate was going to be displayed. I expected quite a bit of the left-wing version of shouting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!"

Instead, there is silence from the haters.

If they keep screeching "Oh, the Huge Manatee" over what, at the end of the day, was NOTHING, they'll reveal their bias for just what it is.

Wish I had seen it earlier to K&R.

planted the email story to punish Hillary for taking a hard-line stance against Iran, and that Senator Bob Menendez is being punished for the same reason. Doesn't even make sense, as usual.

Hilary said that ages ago.

She was telling it for real. Of course, she was mocked and the right wing/paid off media buried that truth.

The old white bigots of the past are entrenched still today, and they have media & Internet & a tainted Supreme Court to assist them.

If they cannot stop her with media lies, they will do it by voter suppression.
Same people, same method, same reason.

manipulate news stories. Kinda late now, but good to know some people are finally noticing.

And lots of other publications, including reams of academic journals. Just because you didn't bother to read it doesn't mean it didn't exist.

I see my point went completely over your head. My point stands and thanks for proving it.

I also thought you were alluding to Watchdog-type outfits, not the news outlets themselves.

I said so, if the media for decades goes on and is allowed to manipulate the masses...this is the end result. It is sad that people are still asleep to the damage done by the M$M.

Don't get angry with me for misreading you--that's what I thought, and apparently, I'm not alone.

If you wanted to suggest that the media, itself, is manipulating the masses, you would have done well to say so. I don't disagree with that premise, either, FWIW--all one has to do is take a hard look at some of the old, early-days black and white newscasts. The news anchors make no bones about telling the public what to think. They pontificated, they told us how to feel, they purported to express the sense of a nation. Of course, that wasn't always the case, but there were no outlets readily available to those who differed.

As those Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys (and that is brutal sarcasm, jurors, not a "serious" comment) might say: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...

Sorry, you seemed mad in your reply to me. Why would I be talking about watchdog groups, now you have me confused.

Is the AP a watchdog group, if so then I apologize.

Guess it turned a little sardonic instead, my apologies.

This email crap is just so sad on so many levels; it is as if they (the M$M) will never be done punishing the Clintons for being ambitious. And no major news outlet seems to ever change in that regard.

I thought that was what we were ALL supposed to reach for, the brass ring etc.. Why don't they ever punish GOPers for being ambitious and dare I say ruthless? We show our teeth a little bit and they run for the hills. The M$M, the GOP all flee white with terror.

The story is falling apart, and really, bottom line--if that's all they've got to gripe about, they're looking pretty stupid. Every time the media go and piss off half the nation with unfair and inaccurate reporting, that's another nail in their coffin. It's like they WANT to signal the end of network news programming, the way they're acting.

Your point about ambition is entirely valid--it's not just a GOP thing, it's also a gender thing--all the "appearance" jokes, hair, clothing, age, etc. It's why so many women have adopted that "pantsuit" thing that HRC pretty much standardized--Merkel of Germany, Warren of MA, a lot of women have gone to a "uniform" in order to blunt the criticism. They get tired of the bullshit and I can't say I blame them.

Retired school teacher, wore the pantsuit got tired of the shit. She greatly admires HRC. It is a generational thing (they are about the same age), she told me today how the Clintons have always been the favored ones in Democratic circles - because they left the country in such good shape. And if you look at the economy and employment numbers, that is impossible to argue against.

Both parents are going to vote for her as their favorite choice. Both don't think Warren or Sanders has a chance. They are about as normal, educated, above middle class as people come and good indicators from my experience in the way people see things.

DU simply cannot be held as an example of how it 'really is'. I use to think it could, but not anymore.

The place was a lot friendlier back in those early days.

Everyone I know is in agreement with your parents--and most of them that I know VOTED FOR Warren. They like EW just fine, mind you--but they like her where she's at.

Taking her out of that fight, to prepare for a run...I'm not to warm and fuzzy about.

They will arrive in the same group as always & armed with a weeks worth of bull crap, to sling.

Enjoy your day all.

Those facts always ruin a good pile - on.

Is this an Elephant Trap is disguise?
Giving Hillary the "Media Exposure You Couldn't Buy at Any Price", better than the billions in free publicity given to Hunger Games by its exposure of the JenLaw pictures?

Let's hope that Hillary in her private emails will rip lots of GOP keysters, thus insuring her support of we Dems by what she says, if she wants to run.