That's why!

more publically; but please explain what you are "talking about."

That's all. I would be equally puzzled if a post called "Bernie caught slaughtering unicorns" was kept off the front page.

the front page, capisce?

be about Bernie and the nomination, otherwise people here are doing it solely to harm the Democratic Party and it's likely nominee.

Did someone tell the FBI this? From what I hear the typically don't waste their time on invented things as there are real issues to tackle and I have yet to hear they are over staffed

Hillary herself admitted she did something wrong, the report simply details the extent of her mistake.
That is newsworthy and factual, if you see it as an attack then go ahead.
Just like the speaking fees Hillary knew what she was doing, even if nothing nefarious happened, it gives the wrong impression. She had no practical need to set up the private server, apart from accessing her mails from her Blackberry, just like she had no need to give all those paid speeches apart from wanting to fill up her coffers.
A one point she should have considered the consequences and said no, it's not worth it, it might look bad if I decide to run for the presidency again.

And she was unclear about the reasoning and the extent of her f**k up.
The lack of clarity cannot be others' fault.
If she had simply said "I'm sorry, I had assumed that I had followed proper procedure but I didn't, I am turning other my server to the State Department, which I trust will be able to determine which emails should become part of the official record, while preserving my right to privacy." There, done, she has nothing to hide.

witch hunt
witch hunt
witch hunt

Do you really think that's going to make this go away? Period my *ss.

and I am not sure threads in GD appear in the home page.

And they're not just GDP posts either, one is a Latest Breaking News post.

His house, his rules. Clear enough?

Maybe he gets a vacation once in a while. Be a nice guest in his house. You can imagine the bern drives him nuts, it's embarrassing for his platform, and reveals grass roots sentiment.

rip into each other and the Admins dont want our dirty laundry on the home (front) page. News about the report in "Latest Breaking News" would be there if it received enough recommendations.

It's not a conspiracy - just some housekeeping. People are also free to "trash" the forums that infuriate them, and I think the top three are GDP, Hillary and Bernie! Lol!

In this case it's a GDP post, not a Bernie or Hillary group post, and a LBN post.
There's no reason why they should be kept off the front page.

And it had the highest number of recs this morning.
Title "State Dept. watchdog: Clinton violated email rules"

But the #2 thread is from "Latest Breaking" and it isn't showing on the home page either!



HILLARY CLINTON AND HER STAFF MAY HAVE COMPROMISED COUNTERTERROR OPS WITH ‘SLOPPY’ COMMUNICATIONS http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141465357

They're in order with the newest listed first. The thread you're linking to was started last night at 10:12 pm Central time. It's listed on page 7.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=latest_threads&sort1=latest&sort2=all&sort3=86400&page=7

It's not surprising that in 14 hours many other threads have been started on the site pushing it down.

It's also on the homepage: http://www.democraticunderground.com/index.php

How anyone who has read the report can come up that interpretation is beyond me.
You must not have read it yourself or you wouldn't have made that post.

From the excerpts you include in your post, it seems like he insists on comparing her actions to that of Colin Powell back in 2001 when his staff didn't even have internet access. There's a difference between using a private server and a commercial e-mail service. His argument is, well Powell did it so she could too, whereas the report is critical of both of them.
Since I don't have a law degree I'll ask you a simple questions, why was there a need to completely erase the server after they had delivered those thousands of e-mails after the FOIA request? Why would anyone destroy so much personal correspondence? Imagine if you were to write your biography how valuable that type of record might be. How about personal e-mails from friends and family, if these were letters or photographs would you simply burn them?

of all his emails, as the policy said he should do. Instead he simply deleted the emails when he left office. And when the state department asked for them, they were told they were gone.

The law about public records makes no distinction between private emails at AOL and private emails on a personal server. But yes, you're right -- the report is critical of both Powell and Clinton. But there were NO consequences, no Congressional investigations, when Powell failed to turn over ANY emails. Just when Hillary turned over 55,000 of them. This is a BLATANT double standard.

With regard to your question about Hillary, I can't speak for her. But if I thought enemies in the government wanted to go on a public fishing expedition through all my private emails, I'd want to erase them, too.

It's also about the security risks which were much more relevant in 2009 compared to 2001, the policies in place were also much stricter by then. All in all, the whole idea of setting up a private server in your basement showed a certain level of naiveté about how the internet functioned. You didn't have to be a computer genius in 2009 to know that foreign powers could reasonably be expected to break into a personal server using an unsecured commercial internet connection. The report even shows how Hillary was worried about opening certain suspicious looking emails. I don't think she would have been that worried about opening her State Department email, if she had chosen to use that.

same period of time we know that hundreds of thousands of .gov emails were hacked by the Chinese.

Hillary's server, by the way, was set up with security measures. They were very conscious of security. But no system is perfect and Hillary was right to be concerned about anything that looked suspicious.

She said she messed up.
It was a bad decision, take her word for it.
Now we know how bad a decision it was.
Then we'll find out if it was illegal too.

The .gov system was very clunky and eminently hackable.

Just a guess.

The pass notes to one another while sitting in bathroom stalls.

Then they flush them.

there. It is a way to make sure that they do not show up in any other section.

It was a good place to come to after the elections in 2004 and it still is in some way. Once this election is over and all the paid posters are gone it will be much more pleasant to be here.