such crap. It's about finding rationalizations for disliking Hillary. This email "scandal" is nonsense, just like all the other "scandals" right wingers have come up with over the years to attack Hillary. It's all lies. She has NEVER been found guilty of any wrongdoing, and republicans have been working their asses off for decades to get her on something, anything. Not gonna happen. She's done nothing wrong. Sorry to disappoint you.

But denials by fans will have no effect on the investigations. Let's just hope the Democratic Party survives what is coming down in the next months.

...like a third rate burglary is Watergate. Think about it.

is it intentional?

I have seen this response from multiple Hillary fans here and I think I figured out why:

You tuned out Hillary criticism because of the Right Wing Attack Machine.

It was incessant and insane and over the top for so flaming long, what else could a sane person do?

But you are making FACTUALLY INCORRECT STATEMENTS in order to keep doing that. You aren't listening to the current situation - this is NOT right wing attacks, this is the NSA and the FBI and people are flat out telling you doing this shit gets people jail time BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY IN JAIL FOR IT and career STAFF KNOW BETTER.

Whether you like it or not, She Screwed Up with this stuff.

And it was UNNECESSARY. She was ignoring what she didn't want to hear - work related emails have to be gotten from a work computer because hackers - and had her team using their easily hack able phones to get emails instead, and now we have a hacker IN CUSTODY who has copies of them.

Oops.

Sloppy. Criminally Stupid. VERY Bad Judgment.

Please take your fingers out of your ears and listen.

I had tuned that nonsense out too. But I have an open mind and when I started seeing sensible people saying things, I realized I had to at least listen.
These Hillary supporters don't WANT to listen. They are consciously avoiding listening. And that never works out well for those who do that.
It is obvious that the person who wrote this OP is not one of those RW crazies, but a very intelligent person who has the background to be informed about such things.

Of course she has not been found guilty of wrong doing. First, this is still in the investigation stage. Second, the post itself suggests that it will be her aides, not her for whom there will any clear cut proof. Unlike the OP, I suspect they are not worried - secure that she almost certainly will become President. They likely remember how many pardons of people guilty in Iran/Contra were given by GHWB.

The question he asks early on, how did Blumenthal have access to very secret documents is a very troubling question. We KNOW it was not Obama's choice - as it was from him that SB was banned from getting a SD job. It is very troubling. In general for anything that secret, you need both the clearance, which he did not have, and the need to know -- and he had NO government job. It is true that people in private companies with government contracts can get both clearances and would have need to know on things they are working on.

Could Clinton have granted a contract to the Clinton Foundation to pay various people, or even just Blumenthal, as her adviser? Could she have tried a work around like that to get around Obama banning him? Is this an ultimate betrayal of all her promises to Obama? Would granting a contract to the Clinton Foundation be a conflict of interest?

Now, before Clinton supporters attack this as speculation - which it is, I ask they try to construct any other way that SB could have had legitimate access to the classified information he clearly accessed.

Your creds add some weight to the material, IMO.

Absolutely frightening.

The opinion of some, on reviewing this info, is that Hillary was running a rogue foreign policy outside the eyes of Obama, using the Foundation as bankroll and intermingling rogue activities with legit activities -- thus implicating her aides in the enterprise.

but they never disclosed what they talked about? I wonder now if Obama discussed this investigation with him.

I do not think that would be proper. Unless Obama is really furious about her betrayal of him and there is a great game of chess going on.

I'm pretty sure that means Hillary will not be indicted and will skate on this.

There wouldn't be anything to discuss with Bernie about it since my guess is Obama's never going to let Hillary face any consequences.

Great OP by the way. Thanks for the details. I've bookmarked it.

No way in hell Obama lets anything come from this 'scandal'
If Hillary faces any legal consequences it would shed the Obama administration in a bad light, so far his administration has been scandal free. To have this kind of scandal involving his former SOS and succeeding presidential candidate blow up in the summer proceeding the election would be devastating to Obama's legacy. Therefore this will be dealt with at he appropriate time, meaning Loretta Lynch will declare that the DOJ has reviewed the evidence and found no wrongdoing by Ms Clinton or her staff, end of story, let's all get along with electing Hillary.
The media will drop it other than to report Hillary has been saying this all along. Republicons who squeal will look no better than Obama birthers. Reublicons will be saddled with Trump as their candidate and they will most likely be dealing with his many skeletons and their looming disaster of the unfolding Trump fiasco. Hillary will be elected winning 40+ states, she will only serve one term paving the way for President Elizabeth Warren to succeed her.

It would be ironic if the one and only real scandal of the Obama administration turns out to be a Clinton scandal.

...and it is predicted that he would resign if Lynch refuses to prosecute against his conclusion of criminality. Producing a Watergate type Saturday Night Massacre.

There's no way that this goes away in your scenario.

Comey is a right wing hack, a former deputy of Ashcroft, his opinion will carry no authority because of his perceived bias. The Clintons will chop him up like chum just as they did to Ken Starr. If Comey recommends charges he will validate everything Hillary has been saying about 'the vast right wing conspiracy'
Hillary is safe, the Clinton machine has dirt on almost everyone in Washington, why is Bernie the only one willing to stand up to the Clintons? cause Bernie is clean, he has no skeletons. The Clintons are the most powerful couple in the world, maybe in the history of the world. Hillary will not be denied her turn at the controls of power and Obama is on board to do everything in his power to make this happen. An indictment over a matter as obscure as the handling of written information in the digital age isn't going to get off the ground, I'm sorry but the American people just don't care about Hillarys email address. Hillary will continue the bread and circuses for the commoners and the men in suits will play their game under the umbrella of uniparty kleptocracy.
Bernie has served his purpose, he has provided token competition for the Clintons, but now they need to wrap this thing up. I'm not sure if Hillary's exoneration will be the first step or the third step but sure as the sun rises tomorrow it's coming.

I hope for Clinton Fatigue...but like you say, it's unlikely. Kleptocracy at its basest/finest.

Still have some hope for at least more of a showing by Bernie Revolutionaries, but fear it is just too little, too late.

But the kleptocracy is ours, the Clinton foundation and the Democratic Party.
The only consolation is it could be worse, we could be looking at another Bush.

we'll get the chance again in 4 years. Thing is, she loves a good fight...here or abroad.

Meanwhile, we must strengthen the FDR Democratic Party, now known as Progressives, into a leftward bloc of influence.

Third-rate burglary. I think you underestimate Comey. His record indicates he is far from being a hack. It was Obama who appointed him as Director of the FBI.

There is one scenario you left out. Say things do go as you speculate. The House is most likely to remain in GOP control. They will be looking for any pretext to open impeachment hearings. First up, FBI agents who will detail the evidence they collected. Followed by Comey, who will discuss his recommendations to indict and how Lynch and the White House responded.

I don't see this going away, nor should it. Hillary may never be charged, but being tried in the court of public opinion would be very difficult on her and on the country.

For a crime that happened before she was elected. As soon as hillary has the delegates sewn up the DOJ through no less than loretta lynch will give a statement giving hillary political cover. That will be enough to keep the story quiet during the campaign and assure hillary's election. Once hillary is elected the story goes away.
We all laugh about Obama playing 4 level chess, the clintons have been setting up this run for the presidency for.25 years. it's no accident there was.a private server, hillary was at.the head of the state.department and in effect she is playing chicken with the government. Hillary must be elected.to continue the status quo in Washington, I mean the establishment republicans will end up supporting her over trump.

since the Democrats gave her a multitude of passes on issues/bad judgment/imperialism... small and large, the Republicans will not be so kind. They hate her...and she welcomes their hate.

Even if the Obama Administration/Lynch provide political cover/whitewash for her, there will be constant "what are they hiding" charges, FOIAs, etc. I do not believe she can win the White House. Independents will not come out for her...it's that kind of crap that caused many to become independents.

Almost all polls show Bernie beating any Republican by percentages out of the MOE. The Democratic establishment wants Hillary. Not so much the general public, IMO.

The worst case scenario is another Watergate-like situation. Remember how insignificant it was in the beginning? It was peanuts compared to the potential of this.

I think Comey takes this very seriously, and even though the poster below calls him a hack, he does have a reputation for being a straight shooter. Here are some interesting points about him:

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/272290-comeys-fbi-makes-waves

Comey has a reputation for speaking truth to power, dating back to a dramatic confrontation in 2004 when he rushed to a hospital to stop the Bush White House from renewing a warrantless wiretapping program while Attorney General John Ashcroft was gravely ill. Comey was Ashcroft’s deputy at the time.

That showdown won Comey plaudits from both sides of the aisle and made him an attractive pick to lead the FBI. But now that he’s in charge of the agency, the president might be getting more than he bargained for.

“He takes very seriously the fact that he works for the executive branch,” added Leo Taddeo, a former agent in the FBI’s cyber division. “But he also understands the importance of maintaining his independence as a law enforcement agency that needs to give not just the appearance of independence but the reality of it.”

The split over Clinton’s email server is the most politically charged issue facing the FBI, with nothing less than the race for the White House potentially at stake.

the good of not only the party but The American People... The Totality of the hard evidence to be exploited whether she is indicted or not is without question the most extensive in the history of any presidential candidate in the history of this country. The media has demonstrated its penchant for propaganda favoring the Wall Street candidate to the detriment of DEMOCRACY.

In a General election the evidence easily available to anyone who looks for 5 minutes will be used by the opposition to eviscerate her.

Before the shit hits the fan. Your scenario here is laughable. So since I want to see her e-mails and transcripts I would be just like a birther? Integrity is important to me, and I won't let that go even if she is president. The media will drop it.

They better not. Although they should be talking more about this.

I hope so.

Especially since you told us your background/creds.

I think it was either "Hey, enjoy your run but we and our donors are backing Hillary" or it was an attempt at the talk that failed - the one that you hear all candidates get, basically the "Play ball or go home" type of talk.

"30k emails just sounds like she is working harder - who cares?"

Then I read your thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1509720

Then I did some investigation and had my own little freak out
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511517415

And reading this thread, I am thinking Yup, I was heading in the right direction: Bill and the Clinton Foundation.

Oddly enough, I don't think he's being Dr. Evil - probably just bored and doing deals and getting money because he can now.

Retirement - ugh.

that Obama was very unhappy with Hillary as SOS and that she was forced out because of it.

This all makes that seem very likely.

.

I trust Robert Parry. He has been in the trenches since Iran Contra.

a morning show on KPFK. Might have been Sojourner Truth with Margaret Prescod:
http://www.sotrueradio.org/

You should be able to find the archive on http://archive.kpfk.org/, but I don't know what day it was or if it was even that show.

.

I guess no one reads anything anymore.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/security-logs-of-hillary-clintons-email-server-are-said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html

The question of whether Mrs. Clinton’s server was hacked is separate from whether a crime occurred. But if the information was never compromised, it provides a basis for her supporters to portray Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private account as a mistake, but ultimately an inconsequential one.

Barring any changes, the F.B.I. investigation could end by early May. Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges and if so, against whom.

Federal law makes it a crime to knowingly remove classified information from secure government channels or to allow classified information to be removed through “gross negligence.”

Many of the “secret” and “top secret” emails were written or forwarded by Mrs. Clinton’s senior aides. None of the emails were marked classified at the time.



I like the last sentence: NONE OF THE EMAILS WERE MARKED CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME. Guess they should start employing psychics at State and other agencies to determine if anything will ever be marked "classified" at any time, that should do the trick and think how many psychics will be employed!!!

why there are hundreds of threads and posts about it here.

The server issue isn't Benghazi or emails... it really is an investigation by real investigators, not a Kangaroo Court of right-wing partisans.

Anyone who promotes this story is part of the problem.

Anyone.

I work in cyber security and fully understand the ramifications of ignoring data handling protocols. This is a very real problem and points to her flippant handling of our nation's security.

Anyone who doesn't understand the dangers she created is part of the problem.

Anyone.

And, P.S. Watergate started as a simply burglary, too. Where an investigation starts has no bearing on what becomes of it.

Any criticism of Hillary is either misogyinistic attack or a "Hillary hating" GOP creation by the VRWC.

The email/server controversy has been investigated by the FBI more months now dedicating 100+ agents. This is no Bengazi .

the government has since said contain classified information. Does team sanders want all 300 people indicted and stand trial along with Hillary

any criticism of Hillary is obviously just someone being mean.

In answer to your question, I am not sure (about the stuff in the link).

I have observed at my places of employment how blasé people can get about the tools they need to do their job. An easy example is "lock your computer every time you walk away" but do you know how tedious it can get? Except when you are working with confidential stuff, it is company policy BECAUSE but....

So are 300 people guilty of forgetting that stuff they work on actually matters/needs to stay on secure sites? Probably more, actually. Rules for confidentiality and clearance have evolved from BEFORE electronic communication and we are incredibly blasé about it.

Have you ever watched one of the "old" (1990s) movies where everyone is looking for a thumb drive? Just send it as an email attachment or load it to a cloud server, and two hours of drama is over - you can do it on your phone, and probably not even complain about the data charge anymore.

Brave new world. Sigh.

Consequences of their actions. Especially the career folks who damn well knew better. Why do Hillary supporters think she should be above the law. If any republican had done this you'd be calling for their heads. We are a nation of laws, this is a matter of national security. i thought you guys were tough on protecting the country.

I can feel the wishful enthusiam in you OP.
Good luck

That's the tactic which a lot of people do. It's a self satisfied retort that somehow laughs at you knowing the poster deems themselves better than you.

Again thanks for the observation and the word.

There's a LOT of fear behind the smug.

The whole campaign is running scared, presenting as smug.

HRC created a reputation of untrustworthiness and she has no one to blame but that woman she sees in the mirror every morning as she brushes her teeth

She did these things and bears 100% of the blame why so many Americans see her as a corrupt, untrustworthy and lying politician.

She did that and she and her supporters should own up every last bit of it.

GOP did it. In fact HRC is more honest than Sanders. Look it up. it's true

I didn't actually read it. I copy the text into a text reader and listen to it. WOW! I had heard hints from here and there that it wasn't about the emails, but actually hearing from someone who knows what they are talking about from experience. . . that's really worth something.

I've already seen some of the dismissive comments in this thread, but they obviously didn't read it, it's just their knee jerk (with an emphasis on "jerk&quot reaction. Many people are determined to stay ignorant.

Thanks

I'm still getting up to speed on this, but what I have read so far is mindblowing.

Again, she has created a huge problem that didn't need to exist, and I too think it has to do with hiding the greed and graft.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/

Anyone who doesn't know the information at that link, doesn't know what's going on with the Clintons. It's huge and it's serious.

It's obvious that Hillary thinks that she too, like the banks, is too big to jail.

This is overwhelming arrogance. If an ego that corrupt is put (back) in the White House, with the access and far-reaching powers that go with that, it could be every bit as dangerous as Trump.

It is harder to indict a major party nominee than a former official.

And harder yet to indict a POTUS..

Hurry! Hurry! Get those feds off my tail!!

For some reason she felt it was worth the massive risk both politically and legally. The primary reason I can think of is $$$$ and influence.

This all could have been easily avoided, yet she chose to take the risk.

As you are someone who has handled such type of material, I am curious exactly how this works.

An email arrives...is it marked "confidential", "secret" "classified", OR is it simply the material in it that is of a classified nature, and it is incumbent on the recipient to know it is classified?

For example, you reference Blumenthal may have copy and pasted information from his "private intelligence source" and sent it on to Clinton. In such a case any notation of classified could have not been included in the copy and paste, yet the receiver of the email would only be able to ascertain if it was classified if they knew the information was classified. OR is it the responsiblity of the receiver to know what is classified from the content itself without a label indicating it is classified material as such.

It seems this is an easy way for a third party to get around classified information. Simply copy and paste it and send it without any label indication it is classified.

Not casting any aspersions on Clinton here - just seeking information. Kind of a dangerous precedent.

I have no experience with this level of information, but it seems like that is what happened, based on what I have been reading.

I said earlier in the thread that rules were set up BEFORE electronic communication became commonplace. It is also easy for people who didn't "live" in "this is how we deal with secret stuff" to ignore these types of rules because they are focusing on the big picture (fix problem) and not paying attention to the tools (email, excel, word).

Which means the hackers can get stuff, which endanger the nation.

She told Jake Sullivan to remove the "identifying header" and copy and paste the content into an email sent to her unsecured server.

Read from the bottom up:

That's the way she rolls alright. That's why she wants it so bad, there's still more taxpayer dollars to pocket for her and her friends.

The WH might as well be turned into a glitzy casino. Casino Maison Blanc.

Rather than waiting for the FBI, etc. Maybe Bernie could tell her that if she drops out, for the good of the country, he will give her a full pardon.
That way, she's cleared and the country doesn't have to go through a big mess.

You need to accept the fact that right or wrong Hillary will suffer zero consequences over this.
Of course Hillary used the private server to hide the fact she was mixing Clinton Foundation 'business' with her official duties as SOS. This is the Clintons, they are pros at this game. Hillary will be the next President, especially now that it looks like Trump will be her opponent. Hillary best represents the interests of those in power all while wrapping herself in the flowery words of populism. Bernie is a direct threat to those powers as is Trump. Hillary is a lock to be the next CIC so just get used to it, the election will be little more than a formality.

FBI Director James Comey is a straight shooter. He will not quash a criminal referral. He would resign first. And then Obama will have a new Watergate on his hands.

I know Hillary is smarter than me and the last thing I would do is create a paper trail if I was up to no good. That's why I never understood this e-mail witch hunt.

And I don't think she's very bright when it comes to data security, information technology and data handling.

That she really thought someone could "wipe" a server to begin with is the first clue that this isn't her forté.

Anybody with an I Q > room temperature knows that an e-mail sent or received is essentially saved for posterity.

Honestly, I don't think she thought this through.

Who were leaving electronic trails sending classified materials via there Blackberrys and other non-secure means. Actions that are absolutely prohibited.

This is why the DoJ has over 150 investigators on this. They keep raising the number. They are on a political deadline

Remember, Watergate was just a simple third rate break in before it grew into what it grew I do not envy the administration one bit.

There was a break in of Larry O'Brien's office that the president paid hush money to cover up. Consequently the FBI was investigating a crime. In the current instance they are investigating a private server in search of a crime. Actually it's a security clearance.

If you don't see the fundamental difference between Watergate and now there is nothing I as a random internet poster can do to persuade you to see the difference...

At the end of the day it's just another partisan witch hunt by the enemies of Hill and Bill that ends up with nothing more than consensual fellatio by someone who was so proud of her sexcapades she wanted to share them.

Despite the fervent hopes, dreams, and aspirations of Secretary Clinton's opponents on the right and fringe left she will not be indicted.

Access to classified material is a crime.

So they are not searching for one. As I said, don't envy the administration. If they charge...scandal, if they don't scandal. What can I say? I hope they chose door number one, for the sake of the country I almost guarantee a scandal regardless. And this is an own goal.

Of course, if they don't nobody will be ever be successfully charged again for mishandling this material. Oh and a low level employee would have lost their job and faced prison time.

I do not expect partisans to get it though. Ergo we are wasting our time, On the bright side, if there is an indictment at least you will not be fully able to pretend not to understand why this is happening. For the record, so we are clear, I could give a shit who YOUR PARTY NOMINATES FOR THE PRESDENCY. I am a proud independent voter. And we do analysis, and we do not give to any campaign. I dare you, to find a donation from me to any politician.

My last was in 2008. I do not fall in love with politicians and expect to be betrayed by every one of them

But Sidney Blumenthal never ever had a clearance. Go over to the State Department Virtual FOIA room and you will find a shitload of those emails. He was given access to confidential info (violation) and SAP material. Those are felonies.

So let's see if DoJ charges. If not, well they are setting the stage for Watergate II

Hillary was the recipient of Blumenthal's e-mails.

If you have evidence Hillary sent Blumental classified information adduce it right now.

It's a shame people want to use the law to beat an opponent they could never beat at the ballot box. I used to play varsity basketball... It would have been like my hoping the opposing team's best player broke his leg...

Enjoy Hillary as 45...Live it ... Breathe it...Love it...

He did not get material from SAP material, generated by NSA, from thin air.

We are done, I cannot wait for the scandal. Either way, one is happening. It is self generated. It is not just hubris...as many others here think. It is paranoia, but it is an own goal. She metaphorically shot herself in the foot.

I do hope I got enough popcorn. Because this will be a hell of a show.

And if there is no scandal, and somehow they manage to squash it, I never want to hear again about corruption abroad. Amirite. Because this would be historic levels of impunity and corruption for the United States. But oligarchies work that way.

Because that is what you are saying. He got those SAP (special access, like super classified) from somebody with clearance. He did not get it from a random employee at NSA, guaranteed.

Watergate started like a third rate break in. The crime was the coverup. I suspect we are going down a similar path. I will remind you that by the end of Watergate none voted for Nixon and none liked him.

What part of we beat our opponents at the ballot box and don't sick law enforcement on them don't you understand?

I doubt Sanders understands how serious this is. Suffice it to say, people who get it, are not amused. This is a highly technical story. I mean the highly technical part. It will forever taint Obama's legacy, for example. But this has not one bit to do with elections. The fact you keep going to that tells me you really don't get it. Most Americans don't handle fhis material. Or highly partisan people don't want to get it. I suspect that if you sat down with somebody who has, and is not partisan, and they took you step by step, you might understand the issue.

So we are clear, this has Butkis to do with the election, but all to do with national security.

Some of the people I have spoken with are veterans of the panoply of services that have handled this kind of material. They are not amused. It has nothing to do with elections. They would be facing jail time if they did this.

If it gets as far as Watergate party elders will have exactly the same conversation GOP elders had with Nixon...you need to step down for the good of the country and all that good stuff.

One side of me is going...have all this before the convention. My more evil side is going...have her elected. The impeachment will be fun. And yes, republicans will go there. And unlike a BJ in the 1990s...there are real crimes here, most likely. Hey, I can't wait for 1, possibly 2 brokered conventions. What's not to like!!! But political instability (a whole different kettle of fish) is really not that much fun.

You have a habit of wearing down your interlocutor with repetitive posting... Well, that tactic doesn't work with DemocratSinceBirth. You are libeling somebody I admire and I rather have a stroke than let you have the last word...Let that sink in...

The fact that you would turn the use of a private e-mail server into the crime of the century and say it's worse than Watergate reveals more about you than it can ever reveal about me...

The lines are drawn...The battle has been engaged... I will not let you have the last word...

Go ahead, it's your turn now... I have the rest of my life to respond.

Neither does slander.

Regardless, there is an actual FBI investigation, and another by multiple inspector generals the
FBI does not do civil investigations. Notice, I did not even mention the origin of this, the civil lawsuit over FOIA. We might not like those folks, (judicial watch) but watergate started with a third rate break in.

And please don't let me have the last word. The law is what it is and the facts don't care so please proceed, if you think this is war, the impeachment will be fun. Assuming it gets that far.

Someone is going to be shooting melons in their backyard soon, simulating the suicide of Vince Foster.

I really do.

Thanks for the laugh.

But I know my friend use to holler at his dog "sick ? sic Him" to scare someone he didn't like. The dog was on a leash , of course.

Its preferred past tense and past participle are both "sicced," though "sicked" is becoming accepted through common usage. (The present participle is "siccing.&quot

BTW, though still not preferred, the spelling you chose ("sick&quot is actually an acknowledged variant of the infinitive and present tense in descriptive dictionaries like Merriam-Webster.

IOW, I didn't need to make a big deal about it, and didn't really mean to. But how could I resist such a deliciously tempting multivalent pun? We grammarians don't have all that many grammar and usage jokes to share when interacting with normal people.

you will see that the existence of those two different words (which are nevertheless spelled the same) is the very foundation of my 3- or 4-way pun.

Is it appropriate to use "sic" after a word to denote irony?

One of my regrets is goofing off during English classes...

protecting oneself from being blamed for the errors. Since academics are famous for combing through colleagues' work--and everyone else's--to nitpick errors, such protection is needed. I know my jokey post was just that zort of nitpicking, but considering the layering of the pun, surely you can see why I found it irresistible.

Here is why the editorial "sic" is essential when quoting, though: A quoted passage must be quoted exactly, unless the quoting writer clearly indicates (with ellipsis points and/or square-bracketed editorial emendations) precisely where he has changed the original. "Sic" just shows that the quoting writer is aware of errors in the passage he is quoting.

Were you an English major?

you must use your own words anyway (to avoid charges of plagiarism), so any errors in your paraphrase are going to be your own, and therefore you can't "sic" them away--and probably won't even realize they are there, since you wouldn't make the error if you knew it to be an error.

As for your second question: I teach English at KU.

I also have a popular website called Grammar and Usage for the Non-Expert, where I post my targeted articles about specific grammar and usage issues that even many otherwise good writers feel iffy about. As the site's title indicates, I assume no prior grammatical expertise on the part of my readers, which is probably one reason why my site analytics (not the cheesy hit counters on each article) show over 12 million readers worldwide for that site. I pride myself on making grammar and usage explanations accessible to people who don't want to wade throgh a lot of technical jargon.

Here is a link:

http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/index.html

Did you teach the latter?


Should I say avid instead of huge because I am only of slightly larger than average size?

Dana Stubblefield both took 3 classes from me, and plenty of the Jayhawk basketball players were in my classes over the years.

I don't follow sports at all, but I teach required courses at hours that suit athletes' schedules.

I believe he plays for the Washington Wizards now.