Don't know about Condisleezy.

Not so. I edited my initial thread, to debunk this type of claim.

The only reason it wasn't against the law at the time is because no one ever dreamed someone would do that.

As soon as she left office, setting up a private server for govt business was made illegal.

And the Democratic establishment supports this person! Its astounding. Deeply disappointing as well.

the other 2 had private email accounts in addition to their dot gov accounts. Not the same, and I suspect that Maher is making the same mistake.

Think of the difference between having an MSN email account and setting up your own private Yahoo in your house.

And believe me, those 2 are the last people I would defend for just about anything except breathing. But on this, it's apples and oranges.

but Bill Maher knows better. He knows the difference, he knows that Powell did not set up a server at his home. He is just depending on the public to not know the difference and he is trying to take advantage of that and influence public opinion.

His constant carping about liberals and his spinning is more than I can take. He actually showed a clip of Clinton saying something like "we need more love in this world" and said that demonstrates not only why we need a woman president, but that woman. HRC is the biggest hawk running for pres in either party. Ask the ppl in Honduras, Libya, Palestine, Iraq etc about Hillary's spreading love around the planet. I bet they have a different take.

... is he a new inductee?

and

Typical Hillary supporter reaction. They do not address the thread or the facts of the thread. They just make immature childish remarks. The reason they do ths, because they have 0 argument. Nothing is on their side when it comes to making an argument to address these type of statements made by Hillary supporters.

So I am waiting. Address what Maher said last night. Is what he said the truth or a lie? Which is it?

It's to be expected, really.

Save your liberal "street cred" yet no danger of taxes going up.

saying that her system was the same system that they set up for Bill when he was president. (making it sound to me like it was literally the same box, etc. which I guess is not true??) She also added that their house was guarded by secret service.

But...I never heard about it after that. To me, these are the things that should be repeated
1. Same system they set up for Bill
2. Secret Service guards their home
3. No evidence of tapping into system
4. No classified emails when composed/read.
5. Predecessors used yahoo - much less safe

These are strong arguments - and she had a chance to make them the other night when asked about indictment

strong arguments. Not at all. Secret service agents probably did not even know about the server. Plus they are not assigned to guard a server.

Same system set up by Bill. Bill had a private company set up a server for himself. This had nothing to do with the government. She may have used the same company, but just because Bill did it as a private citizen does not make it legit for the sitting SOS to do the same thing. So I do not know why this is a good defense at all.

Just because someone may have not or may have hacked into it does not make it ok that she had a hidden server. Not even President Obama knew of this!

Again, because her predecessors used yahoo, she thinks she can take it up a notch and use her own personal server. That is not a defense that a judge would allow. Because that guy robbed a bank and got away with it, I will do the same thing and do not deserve to get punished.

Man, if these are the best defenses someone can come up with then Hillary is in a lot trouble

And hackers, good ones, are not known for leaving trails or evidence.

You have a point about Yahoo = less safe. But iirc, there were about a dozen between Powell and Rice combined, as opposed to thousands and thousands on Clintons. So, exponentially not safer.

Bill lived in the WH as prez, so not the same as a server set up in a private residence.

The thing that gets me, she knew she was gonna make another run at the WH. So she showed, at the very least, extraordinarily bad judgment setting herself up for this whole debacle.


on edit: Your user name evokes such warm memories of the old DU, back when Little Boots was soiling our WH! I did the name change, when the opportunity came up. I was such a dumbass and was using my real name ... then I found the cretins that live to stalk DUers on the nether regions of the net. But 'Laura PourMeADrink' is a classic!

But because you love Bernie...who doesn't? You're grasping at nonexistent straws here. I understand..natural impulse to spin everything the wrong way for an opponent. Of course SS can't stop a hack..but they can stop people from physically accessing the box.

Of course they can prevent physical access, but most hacking is not done that way. So the fact that SS was there to protect it isn't relevant to the issue.

I don't "love" Sanders, I respect him and his positions so I feel he's the best choice. Please don't denigrate my choice of candidate by relegating it to a cult thing. It's neither true nor fair, and I know most DUers are better than that. It's not spinning for Sanders, it's just a fact.

And I still love your name! To the - well, not good - old days! There weren't many of those with shrub around.

on edit: Holy Shit! I just noticed we registered at DU within hours of each other - howabouthat!

on that same day in Nov 2004....LOL * "Great minds think alike, and so do we"

Agree, of course, protection by the SS does not protect hacking. But, it
does prevent physical theft.

System was never hacked.

No laws were broken.

Yes, Bill was a former president when box set up for him

Although it was 2009/2010 - think worries about cyber security have grown exponentially since then.

In no way shape or form would I denigrate anyone's selection
I voted for Bernie but respect people who vote/voted for Hillary.

You don't "love" Bernie. Ok - but reminds me of what Bill Maher said the other night about how there are a group of words progressives can't say and you don't know what they are until you say them and people pile on.

My only point *which I totally failed to get across is that, to me, if you are against Hillary, then there's not enough there there.

I get your stance. And respect that great minds have differences of opinion. The beauty of this all is that even with differences, we can still agree on points that bring us (the DU body!) together. There is a common adversary. The bush legacy, trump and the clown car chasing him, the devastation that the GOP wants to bring to the commonwealth, etc.

It will have to do.

circumstances, he'd be reaping praise from many.

The Justice Dept cares, the FBI cares, the State Dept cares.

What a ridiculous statement:

"If Sanders had done it in similar circumstances, he'd be reaping praise from many"

Let us just make some shit up. Just make up an imaginary scenario and then make a ridiculous claim based on nothing, but the disliking of Bernie and presto a valid argument (but, only in the mind of a Hillary supporter).

Hoyt has to rely on imaginary, what if's in order to slander Bernie. As for HRC all the things she has been rightly criticized for actually happened!

I don't like my president or my roofer to be being investigated by the FBI.

If an email address ending in ".gov" (or .com or .edu or .mil or...) ever received classified, that is the breach, whether it's a government server or a private one.

why did Hillary not take advantage of a SCIF? It would be the safest thing. Why a server at her home? It is an outlandish yhing to do. So outlandish no one has ever done something like this before. It iust smells of someone trying to hide things. Could it be her office and its connection to her and Bill's foundation? Someone does not go through all this trouble just for the mere sake of convenience. There has got to be more to her decision to do this other than convenience. Even Obama did not know about this. She hide it from her boss, for God's sake.

However much some people may wish that was the case.

not a groupie to any politician. The problem with you and your ilk is that you are devoted to a specific politician or personality. You are not devoted to a set of ideas. So if that politician you are so enamored with changed their stances 180 degrees that does not bother you one bit. I, on the other hand, would leave the politician the moment he/she abandoned the democratic parties ideals.

stray from the truth from time to time....glad to see I'm not the only one who noticed his "mistake" last night.

Benghazi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

again avoiding the facts that Hillary used a private server. If you were not such a sycophant you would see how crazy it is for a SOS to set up a private server for themselves. Not only that she kept it from her boss! You know who was her boss again? Oh yeah, the President!