wait a week!

Because she is a dedicated target people dissect everything she says into a very fine mince.

During that, at various stages, for persons motivated to see problems this always provides circumstance for casting doubt and ambiguous intent via missing, partially incorrect, or wholy wrong information.

HRC -is- an intelligent, self-confident person and so she gives answers. She should minimize that, deferring to experts or the persons who handled details for her.

That would provide both distance from picked over information and credible deniability for mis-statements of others.

Her communications people have a difficult job atm, though. I don't envy them.

and they have to guide here along the optimized narrow path between being inaccessible and too forthcoming

and nothing can be offered to improve that

The idea that there might be a 'smoking gun' in her electronic correspondence is ludicrous. If she wanted to hide something, she would simply have used a different address.

Imagine if she did everything suggested. It would prove exactly nothing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

Here they would be investigating to see if there is a crime. That's not the American way.

Where's the predicate?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

There was a burglary of the DNC headquarters that was tied directly to the White House. In the course of the investigation it was discovered Nixon had a taping system.

It wasn't like "we don't like Nixon so lets get his taping system and see if he broke the law".


That's the difference between an investigation and a fishing expedition.



This whole brouhaha is largely a Trojan horse to undermine her candidacy any way.

...and she is sunk. the likelyhood is high that will happen. Give it to a third party and let her lawyers argue over which emails are private... For the next ten years

So it is possible, if not likely, that some business emails slipped through and were deleted as private.

Those were work emails and not from a '.gov' email. There could be more

This isn't going to be wished away. Its a big ole pile of stink for years to come unless she does something like the OP suggests. Put it all out there, and move on.

It's now coming forward regarding many other political placeholders who did the EXACT SAME THING! Additionally, the email server issue was not an issue when it occurred.... This is just another inflated false scandal.

This will not end well for the GOP witch hunters and the anti Hillary mob....

They'd prefer to keep getting paid.

that was government related it would mean that it had been saved.

The odds are that every email that is deemed necessary to ensure that department policies, programs, and activities are adequately documented were saved. They are to use the same judgment as they would for retaining and filing paper records.

Keep trying.

Sid

Yup.

It's déjà vu all over again.

If she wrote... "I sure feel fat today", or "I'm tired", or "I can't stand Morning Joe...."
The howlers would be out for blood and twist it to be unrecognizable.

Lots of talk about trust issues, well, Hillary doesn't trust the AP and I sure don't for her sake. She has every right to be distrustful.

I know this is tough to accept, but she conducted official state business that should be available through the FOIA.

It would be better to do it this way than wait for the AP to win their lawsuit, which they will.

I know that is tough to accept

Let us assume that there is nothing really bad in those emails.

What is bad at this point is that the story is still alive, and if the Republicans can keep something like Benghazi going forever on the basis of no particular evidence (and quite a bit of evidence discrediting their loony theories), they can keep this email brouhaha going forever.

It's not fair.


Nevertheless, Hillary being who she is, she's the one who scares the hell out of the Republicans, and they would just as soon take her out before she gets the nomination, on the theory that the Democrats got no second string.

Right now, the emails are the best thing they got going, so they & the M$M will be out making hay for as long as they can.

Your trying to make bread without yeast.....there will be no rise today.

The first review by her, which did not even read the 31,000 deleted emails, ensures that it can never be ensured that business emails were not deleted. Had se maintained to accounts, it wouldn't rely on her trust or a reviewers trust.

I'm sure if any "business" emails were accidentally deleted then they probably weren't worth saving.
Of course her detractors hope to find something embarrassing, true?

Not even Hillary can say with certainty that none were. They didn't even read the deleted emails. They ran a few keyword searches and assumed the remaining emails were not business and deleted them. They may have deleted business emails in violation of record retention law.

Of course her detractors and political opponents hope for something nefarious to be found. If the emails had been properly segregated, this story would be over. The entire business account would have been given to State and it would be in their hands, end of story. But, it will never be satisfactorily resolved now. And worse, there is a real possibility that a business communication was deleted and it could come back to haunt her and the Democrats.

The problem is not the use of a private account, as I see it. The problem was the co-mingling of emails on a private account. Had she maintained a private account strictly for business, okay. Had she used a State account and mixed business and personal, while not the ideal set-up, okay. State would have possession and review. Her set-up is the worst of all options.

She printed out her emails to submit them as records.

However, the printed version of an email is not the complete record. Emails contain all sorts of data - header information - that is meaningful and relevant, and if she is telling the truth, now destroyed.

I trust we all learned the significance of metadata as a consequence of the Snowden revelations.

There's no above-board reason to print documents that can be submitted in electronic format - none. The only reasons are to destroy the metadata, and to make it difficult to access those records in the future.

I don't think we can assume she or her staff were technically savvy enough to realize they were stripping headers.

Looking at email that gets turned over is no guarantee that we're seeing all of the emails that went through her system that could have been selectively purged earlier. From outsiders' points of view, the likely reason for using a private server is the ability to do just that, which couldn't be done without scrutiny on public servers.

Now, there could be some legitimate reasons for item #3, which might, if legitimized and shown to be justifiable, might perhaps have people feel that her or those managing her own servers would be less apt to "cover up" things in deleting emails.

If it can be established for example, that many senators and other people in public office were afraid of what was involved with NSA spying, and perhaps even opposition operative spying on emails, and other points of failure in public email, then it might appear to be more justified in trying to avoid these problems. In my book though part of item #3 is asking why someone who wants to lead our country wouldn't take the time to provide leadership in FIXING these problems with public email and IT infrastructure instead of avoiding it and using privatized solutions that basically let her give the right far more ammo against her and ammo to say that government should be downsized and privatized.

Diane Feinstein's recent comments on her having big problems with NSA spying on senators, etc. when she has been used to help justify a lot of government spying in the past I think provides us a pointer as to how many on Capitol Hill might feel that the government infrastructure they use is problematic in keeping "vulnerable" data to the opposition online that leads them to do what Hilary did.

If Hillary Clinton had taken the time earlier before making this move to private emails, going on the record with the public or at least with the Obama administration so that she could be on record that these problems need to be fixed and demanding a plan for doing so, then I think that would be reasons to consider a BETTER candidate for 2016 in that she's willing to take risks to fix our system that needs fixing, rather than just avoiding those problems.

and get on with debating real issues.

And those in the middle will vote for the candidate they believe will do the most for them; no matter what formula they use to arrive at that conclusion.


It's a big nothing burger.

Let the DUers who hate her so much vote Republican when Hillary gets the nomination.

The Gore campaign was hounded by the media over trivial shit, and responded to that hounding in about the most inept ways I can imagine.

The result was a close race. Close enough to win (or "win&quot . The media's attacks and the inept response served to paint Gore as either corrupt or inept.

Now, the Clinton campaign is being hounded by the media over trivial shit, and is responding to that hounding in about the most inept ways I can imagine.

Golly....wonder what might happen to the election if we keep going down this course.....

If and when she announces her candidate and proves to be inept I will of necessity be concerned. As of now I will withhold judgment.

And the only reason she has not announced yet is positive tax and donation benefits. She has her staff in place. They are already advising her. And they are doing a really, really, really, really, really shitty job.

Any minute now

She could ignore the concern trolls, as she's done nothing wrong. Usually ignoring trolls makes them go away. Electronic watergate my ass!

Understanding history is beneficial if one is to use it as a reference.

The only people who care about this, are the people who have no intention of supporting her, if she chooses to run.

Jeb Bush, Christy, Jindel, Rubio, just for starters...So, this is a lot to do with nothing. Just another faux witch hunt, again.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-republicans-who-did-exactly-what-hillary-did?cid=sm_fb_maddow

if I hadn't already turned off the alarm clock.

When does the US government run out of money?

made the corruption of that administration glaringly obvious. In the end, aside from Nixon and Agnew resigning, 40 government officials were indicted or jailed.

H.R. Haldeman and John Erlichman (White House staff), resigned 30 April 1973, subsequently jailed

John Dean (White House legal counsel), sacked 30 April 1973, subsequently jailed

John Mitchell, Attorney-General and Chairman of the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP), jailed

Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy (ex-White House staff), planned the Watergate break-in, both jailed

Charles Colson, special counsel to the President, jailed

James McCord (Security Director of CREEP), jailed


I think it is worth noting that some current politicians voted for Nixon/Agnew and then continued to vote for that publicly criminal Party of convicts, don't you? I certainly question the discernment, priorities and motives of anyone who claims to be for the people while voting for burglars and liars, cheats and villains.

And now the AP is suing the state dept on the basis of violating the FOIA.

I think that is where the parallels come in.

expedition. I do notice that those who want to see known criminal activity as a parallel to this email thing very often also tirelessly endorse politicians who voted for the corrupt Nixon administration, then for his understudy Ford, then for the Precious One, St Ronnie twice, then for George HW Bush.
I don't trust anyone who watches her Party burglarize and go to prison for it who sticks with that Party and with the cast of creeps who carried out that corruption. Why do you?
I remember Watergate. So do those who kept voting for those crooks anyway. I'd like to know why they kept voting for a Party that had so many officials in prison for crimes against this country.

I believe the person you referred to voted for Nixon twice while the person your interlocutor incessantly and relentlessly attacks voted for Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern in those elections.

House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.

So, you know. Elephants never forget.

handled - they will tell investigators when and what was deleted, or if the system was in fact set up to evade maintaining records by completely erasing all deletes automatically with no internal backup.

Lets not forget the emails of Christy, Perry, Rubio, Jeb Bush......they all have identical issues where Hillary is being scrutinized.

It already has begun.....just another arson fire to put out.

LOL at "This won't be an issue for certain if she isn't the Democratic nominee."

I hope with all of my heart that doesn't happen.

(Ignoring it will not make it go away.)

Potential Presidential Candidates as well.

Jeb Bush, Christy, Perry...look here....

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-republicans-who-did-exactly-what-hillary-did?cid=sm_fb_maddow

snip>

Barbara Petersen, president of the First Amendment Foundation, told the WSJ that Jeb Bush “did exactly what Hillary did.” The former governor and his aides “went through those emails and decided what were public-record emails and what wasn’t.”



By some accounts, the messages Team Bush chose not to share related to “politics” and “campaign donors asking for favors” – topics that may be relevant in a presidential campaign.



Bush is hardly the only one among the likely GOP presidential candidates with this email problem. Indeed, most of the Republican field should probably hope this issue goes away quickly:





* Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R): Though he called Clinton’s use of a private email address an “outrage,” Walker is at the center of a Wisconsin controversy surrounding his use of a private email address.



* Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R): The Republican lawmaker deleted emails from his private account during his tenure in state government, despite using his personal account to conduct business related to his official duties.



* New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R): The Bergen Record reported this week, “Nearly a year before revelations that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used her personal email account for official business, the Christie administration was chastised because members of its own staff communicated through private emails. And that criticism came not from Governor Christie’s political foes, but from lawyers hired by his team to investigate the burgeoning George Washington Bridge lane-closing scandal.”



* Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R): Both Republican governors conducted official business from their private email accounts and have not released the emails for public scrutiny.

Whew.

It is sinking...

to private email.

That would have been the smart thing for Hillary to have done as well. Obviously.

This is as important as what fork one used at dinner on Downton Abby.

I wonder what the difference could be?

tenure in office, this may be a decent proposal.

But not until then.

And no one with two brain cells to rub together thinks this is anything like Watergate.

Well said.

Didja forget about the hubub over him accidentally releasing personal information of other people in the email dump?

faux outrage with much angst, wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth, congressional committee after congressional committee, wasting our money and their time, while America ignores them. They've cried "Wolf"--or should I say "SCANDAL!" so many times that everybody is just starting to ignore everything.

the standard of "it's OK because (insert war criminal name here) did it too" is revolting

and for those of you finding this situation bothersome, get used to it! Because defending Hillary means defending dubious ethical practices, legal gray areas, and special treatment that no normal person would ever in a million years get - for as long as she hangs around. And that nauseating task is irrevocably yours if you're running with her as your candidate.

fishing expedition!

1) Don't get between a dog and his dinner. It only upsets him or her.
2) Were your lol emoticons about his observation in toto or the thinly veiled sexism contained therein?

A summation of the evidence.

It would be like someone who thinks of himself as a Hindu and having a Filet Mignon for dinner.

Such an obvious attempt to misdirect.

And misdirect what?

This scandal is as likely to derail Hillary Clinton's candidacy as I am winning the next Powerball and I haven't even purchased a ticket.


Oh, woman + cackle+bucket of water=witch.


If you are a woman and that doesn't offend you I respectfully ask you to reflect on what your priorities are.

There's a certain implication there, you know, hunting for a witch.

But it was a good hide. MFP went way too far.

But i have seen people push the envelope on gender, race, religious , sexual identity issues, et cetera.


On another board I used to tussle with this poster on racial issues... He would refer to African American women as Shaniqua. Now I know there are African American women named Shaniqua but he picked the most cliched name and used it as short hand for all African American women.

On Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:14 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

no need to hunt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6359196

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

sexixt crap

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:18 AM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Absolutely sexist crap.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Scene from wizard of Oz? Hillary is a witch? I don't favor Hillary but stfu with the sexist shit.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not sexist; petty anti-Hillary crap, but not alertable.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree - this is sexist crap. Criticize if you want, but leave this garbage at the door.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

But the posters who defended him need to look in the mirror.

You can't call yourself a liberal and deliberately traffic in sexist, homophobic, racist, anti-semitic, xenophobic, et cetera imagery, you just can't...

I think it going to get worse.

You can still read it and learn what our community thinks of sexist sentiments....


Witch, really???

It's like Jr. high sometimes.

He was too clever by half. I don't agree all the time with my friends on this board but I believe they are clever enough to reveal a metaphor.

And they don't mind using the same tactics and sources to attack her.

Sid

Yes, they bond tightly with using the same anti Hillary tactics as the right wing propaganda machine. They far left has blind hope.

Except the right doesn't claim to be sensitive to issues of gender, race, nationality, et cetera...


We're supposed to be the enlightened ones.

I revel in the fact she will be our nominee and your inability to stop it.

a post from 2007 just resurfaced with your name on it as a reply to me

The first part of my construction referred to the sexist imagery.

I can elaborate on the second part of my construction if you so desire.

...another example of how the anti-Hillary people seem drawn to petty insults, while the pro-Hillary people have offered no similar trash talk about other people's candidates.

And what about Reep email records?

Bush
Cheney
Powell
Romney
Scott Walker

etc

She needs to change the narrative and put the GOP on defense. This thread suggests all defensive maneuvers. Necessary only to a point. We need to put the other side on defense here.

1. Perry and Jeb and Colin Powell did the same thing, more or less.

2. The GOP will do everything they can to attack and discredit, blowing up small things into huge attacks, just like they have done with Obama for years. This and Benghazi have to be seen as the political maneuvering of a GOP who fears her candidacy. Repeat, repeat repeat: the GOP are trying manipulate voters with exaggerated and dishonest attacks because they want to reclaim the presidency. This is the background message to all attacks and must be clarified. We always get too caught up in disagreeing with the content and ignore the context. The context is the truth; the content is more of a "he said, she said" bunch of lies to refute defensively.

nt

Instead, she kept bringing it back up when the media attention died down. Now it's a story because "people are talking about it".

True she did kinda mess up the stonewalling effort. That is all she had to do...the issue would have dropped like a rock imo.

I don't believe I could ever address your concerns.