I am so glad I have a front row seat to watch this!

government business account that, it was only personal. That would be incredibly naive.

personal emails and are permitted to dispose of them as they wish.

Why should we have to simply trust a politician when they destroy 30,000 emails?

Would you trust a Bush or a Rumsfeld if they said something like that?

the General Election if she runs and makes it that far.

Why can't you discuss the issues rather than the posters?

but addressed to the poster and the poster's motives rather than the post.

I believe that was the question that was posed.

Heres an idea.

one government run email account forwarded to her clinto email. Then she has one account but the government keeps all official emails and they dont see any personal emails

Sounds a lot better than her saying "trust me".

..."inevitability" meme. It's 99% projection from those who never liked her and fear her ascendancy -- those who actually support Hillary or are neutral don't say either that it's her turn or that she is inevitable.

If you think we can do better, please point out the other candidates and extol their qualities.

William, wouldn't it be nice for the people who hate Hillary not vote for her and leave the rest of us alone.

With the recent polls. I know exactly how the majority of Democrats like her.

The rest can do what they want. They will never change their minds & that's sad for them not Hillary.

But most of the time it's just sad.

If fact the administrators have even given you a "trash threads" function. It is a wonder people posting on a discussion board are bothered by actual discussion --- given how easy it is to avoid it.

If William's reading this I am sure he would concur.

We go way back.

If nothing the Hillary pillorying is interesting. It's interesting all the energy people put in opposing something instead of supporting something.

Just sayin.

I never use ignore and I never alert so you or anyone else are free to call me any name you wish. I have enough self-confidence that I do not need those functions but I appreciate the administrators have provided them to those that do.

On Tue Mar 10, 2015, 07:58 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Passive-aggressive much?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6344468

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Insulting a user as passive aggressive and posting a doctored Hillary Clinton book cover that looks like it came from Free Republic. RW trolling.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 10, 2015, 08:07 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Read carefully--I'm only going to type this once. DeSwiss has been here for 9 years. DeSwiss is not a right wing troll. Moreover, passive-aggressive is not an insult--it's a characterization. Moreover, William769 is most certainly being passive-aggressive. Not only that, he's insulting a great many members here with the "foaming at the mouth" line. Grow the fuck up and learn to fight your own battles with actual words.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Not a big Hilary fan myself - but leave the RW memes elsewhere.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I support HRC, but this alert is pathetic.

and could have been sent to jail for violating archiving law.

I didn't, and never will, and I hope that you do not view it as "foaming at the mouth" to obey the law.

Or, I guess I should just go to jail on principle because I disagree with the law that I actually agree with because I know the legal reasons behind it.

Nice try at deflection but I stand by my original comment.

Feel free to cite what law she violated and then to get her charged for it.

That's what I thought.

Giving your "credentials" to try to make a point here, not a smart move on your part.

Keep trying though & thank's for playing.

I stated law.

because I am familiar with it. Thank you, William.

is welcome to do so.

As I said above, thanks for playing.

to go to jail in my place.

Just to fucking funny!

but I sure as hell am not going there, either.

Personally I curious to see the Keystone emails.... There should be lots

she deleted emails from a certain Nigerian prince?

IMO, she was before this problem arose.

Just icing on the cake.

He said, I'm sure some will start in on her about her personal emails.

It's disgusting what people will cling on to when it comes to what Hillary does.

They'd say "what about her personal emails, why can't we see those?"

In fact the arguments are essentially the same.

You can then say, here is everything sent or received related to my duties as Sec of State. That would be everything of relevance. There is no way to ensure that is true when the politician gets first cut at what is or is not business related.

That's precisely how she delineated. Go watch the Whitewater video, I posted it in Video and Multimedia. Did you know people were trying to pry into the Clinton's private life from the get-go? Skip to 8 minutes.

This is climate denier or creationist argumentation.

Of the business emails went to .gov. She should have been on .gov herself, or at the least had a separate personal account.

A personal account would carry a presumption of privacy. I wouldn't argue that private emails should be released. Unless there was some evidence that some business occurred on the private account, I would never presume it was.

Why can't you trust Clinton to release the government related files and not assume that just because she had a private server something nefarious is going on?

The only way to prove "some business occurred on the private account" would be to, you know, look at all the personal emails.

Which is precisely what the Republicans want to do. There's nothing bad in there, I'm certain, but it's all just a continuation of the denigration of the Clinton's.

The big deal is that this poor judgment and mixing of business and pleasure ensures the story continues. The big deal is that this is not good for the presumed democratic front runner. As experienced and smart as she is, she unnecessarily has given fuel to the right.

She is not a good campaigner. She is a good fund raiser, but I fear that is not enough to retain the White House.

This is Whitewater all over again.

Ken Starr would be proud.

It may be unfair that she would have to be a great campaigner to deal with all this stuff, but that's how it is. And this doesn't help. I wouldn't take a Republican's word that they had acted properly, how can we expect voters to just accept her word? The State Dept will be putting all her emails online in a few months - bang, the entire thing revivified. Then a few months later someone will realize there are a few thousand more emails available - bang, in the headlines again. Then a few months later someone will come across emails to her that weren't personal and weren't among the released emails - bang, in the headlines again.

It's predictable, which is why you guard your own behavior so much if you intend to be a candidate. Good candidates get sunk for just such reasons all the time.

That is either ignorance or bullshit, neither good.

had to have two phones if he wanted two addresses. The government phones only allowed for one address.

Presumably a cell phone too?

phone, that wouldn't mean she wanted to carry two around all the time.

My husband had to have one for work, and that was frustrating sometimes because he wasn't supposed to make or take personal calls on it. He would have needed a second one for personal use, and he didn't want to carry two phones. Who would?

and you don't hear them complaining about it.

Heck, she probably could have even gotten a cool gold case for it.

Enjoy your stay.

You couldn't get personal phones to work with the email system.

A lot of folks carried two phones around. HUGE PITA. Most of use just used personal email accounts for comms from mobile devices.

Setting up her own email server to conduct gov't duties is such a blatant violation of federal security requirements (NIST 800-53) it's obvious she didn't give a shit and could have her phone set up anyway she wanted to.

God reporting today is a fucking clusterfuck.

Unless you are going to prohibit govt officials from having private e-mails addresses the distinction between public and private e-mail addresses makes little difference.

It's basically a rhetorical point.

They would still be demanding her private emails if she said she had two email accounts. Really. They would.

If a person was inclined to do something nefarious he or she would use his or her private e-mail address.


But that would be incredibly stupid too because he or she is leaving a paper trail, albeit an electronic one.

They're personal.

Meanwhile, Condi never used email -- phone calls are best for secrets -- and Colin destroyed ALL his work related emails. But Hillary's the only one being criticized.

And for good reason. And for many more reasons that this.

I'm glad she took steps to prevent anything like that from happening with her personal emails.

..or govt email accts? As they rallied their loyalists to sign on to the Iran letter?
Maybe there should be an investigation into the organizing of the traitors & demand their private emails, just to find out just who was actually behind the push for the letter?
What other US or foreign people were also behind this decision.?
Was Bibi involved?
Are there private emails of discussions telling Cotton his ass would be covered if he does their bidding for "them"?

I 'd like to see Cotton's private emails dating back to Bibi's invitation.
Who was he talking to?

Now that would be an eye opener worth investigating.

I'd probably be more concerned about that if it weren't for the wind machines stacked like bricks in a wall, courtesy of conservatives and their "we need to show we're not 'liberal'" accomplices in the mainstream media.

Be honest.

The problem is that this story will continue to distract.

Now, would you trust a republican who did this?

It doesn't effect me in the least.

And it's far from over. You don't think she prefer that her story be the speech on women?

It's got her already on the defensive and she hasn't even announced.

it's totally her fault. repugs from the Benghazi committee, are flouting this shit and getting dems (like some here) to think she did something nefarious.

I could give a shit less and so should you. That would be very helpful, instead of writing OP's that latch onto this as some sort of real issue.

I have no idea why she did it. I think it shows horrible judgment and foresight. I think it raises questions that she will never be able to fully answer satisfactorily. It is a gift to the right on a silver platter. Not the qualities found in a strong and trustworthy leader.

Someone who followed every rule and did nothing illegal, is someone you ought to be untrusting of.

If they practice transparency, I don't have to trust them. That is the only way it can function really. It does not work of faith.

words, but others, officials who actually read the law and rules and said she did nothing wrong..

The story from day one, was a limp noodle.

You keep trying to make it al dente again, though... good luck.

It was clearly poor judgment that is now biting her in the ass. We were told here from day one it would be a one day story. How many weeks ago was that?

And today's pressed didnt end it. It won't be the last we hear of it, unfortunately.

republican talking points.

It's already going away. People will see this for what it is. Another frivolous attack from the right wing nut jobs. Benghazi!!!!

Whether she used 2 accounts or 1, her personal emails would still be gone. So you are trying to make a distinction that has no merit whatsoever.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

If she used a government email account she would have no access to archiving the emails and we would know that everything was released.

As it stands now she can release any emails she wants and we have no clue if all are being released or not.

You could never verify that she didn't pick up the phone and make a back room deal. You could never verify that she used an anonymous email account.

It just goes on and on. She was not required to use a government email account and she chose to not use one.

This is nonsense looking for something that she has hidden in her emails when no one has any indication that she has hidden anything and when she had ample opportunity to hide anything through dozens of other ways.

It's a crazy Nixon-esque way to look at things and expect there to be secret electronic communications that are hidden from us.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

The only way one could do what you suggest is to prohibit government officials from having private e-mail addresses. But that's unworkable and even if it was enforced they could just pick up the phone.

Sure, people can use their own phones and tablets (with their own connectivity--LTE and the like) for their personal email. But as a matter of policy, I block attempted connections to outside email servers. It's part of my job and it's technically very feasible.

My whole point if someone is up to no good he isn't going to communicate his intentions over the internet.

All the mobile device management in the world won't help if someone wants to get documents out the door (think cell phone camera). But for those without nefarious thoughts, MDM can enforce email policy on phones that are not within the 4 walls of the business or government department in question.

Have a nice evening.

I'm in L A, not that disgusted. I am from FL. I miss it a lot because it's my home but I like L A because it's like FL with less humidity and liberal politics.

I've long regretted my choice of username, but it's too late to change it now. You have a good evening too.

...to understand about that? She could have run over her personal hard drive with a steam roller and it STILL would not have "destroyed" the so-called "evidence." Once you hit 'SEND' that sucker is immortal.

And what is so difficult to understand about a public person's right to a private life? During her time at State her mother died and her daughter got married. Are these things you freaking have a right to read about? Why? While you are asking for Hillary to justify her every move, why don't you justify that?

This is Birtherism all over again. NO AMOUNT OF FACTUAL EVIDENCE WILL PERSUADE THOSE WHOSE MINDS ARE ALREADY MADE UP.

We're just saying she shouldn't have done all her SoS emails on it.

... Controlled by the original sender.

It's like they think she destroyed a personal notebook of which there is only one copy.

Wait until a few embarrassing deleted emails are suddenly found in October 2016

Feels like we're being set up

What happened to the sarcasm thingie?

No proof is ever needed for a witch hunt.

Any person who watched that press conference who did not have a pre-existing hatred for Clinton thought her responses were quite normal and understandable. That naturally doesn't apply to the GOP and their allies.

Claim privacy and hide shit and then delete it. Whatever the US gets from her cache was personally vetted by her, and you can suck it, America. I'll never vote for this woman.