I worry that the slow drip is going to be so slow that it will be too late to ditch Hillary as our candidate if something really serious comes out.

(assuming anyone remembers him, after being airbrushed from history)

Though reading Game Change, his senior campaign team had pledged to blow up his candidacy if he got close to the nomination because they didn't want his scandals to come out during the general election. I am not sure that Hillary's staff would do the same especially since so many of her senior staff seem to mixed into this email mess.

But the punishment for getting caught with shady emails could be a lot worse.

We'll never really know what information has already been destroyed in the emails. Possibly some scandalous stuff.

was it 10 boxes from his personal email, one box, one page, one email? We don't know. I would like to know.

And he denied it when asked about it earlier this year. This isn't good.

but one email is one thing, ten boxes would be quite another. It matters which it is.

They were told not to use personal email for government work.

If he sent one or two emails from home and just forgot to use his work email that is one thing. If he habitually did so that is another. Just like if I drive 76 in a 70 zone that is one thing, if I drive 55 in a school zone that is another.

... I sometimes used personal email for work purposes, because the federal system sucked.

I'd say it's a screw-up, but a fairly minor one right now.

it took 20 boxes to print one email.

No, we don't know. The article did say "20" boxes. How big or small were the boxes? I guess they could be one page apiece.

Sure looks like it.

Hillary's aide used personal email to conduct government business and lied about it.

You can hide your head in the sand and lash out at people who discuss news if it dares to criticize your candidate or you can deal with reality.

that I remember is when all the gun nuts were cheering on Darrell Issa's Fast and Furious witch hunt.

I would hope you might.

Automatically accusing anyone who legitimately questions the actions of President-elect Clinton of being a right winger or a Freeper is really bottom-of-the-barrel stuff.

You get your choice of either a cigar or a kewpie doll.

were the clues

But then, I don't believe in ghosts either.

I don't envy you, but I wish you well just the same.

Maybe you've got the rest of the Hillary bashers on ignore. I get it. But I prefer to see everything.

But that is the whole point to the whole email drivel isn't it?
Like the NYTimes hit piece. Get the discrediting message out there & send out some sort of correction after the fact.
This has been going on with the Clintons for 25 yrs.
Let me predict how this ends. It doesn't. It all gets stored away and dredged up as the Clintons continue their rise to the top.

Big yawn. Again & again.

time in government is straight up Freeper-ville?

Of course I am a real low life for questioning your assertion.

Amirite?

Regards,

TWM

et tu?

Last poll I saw on DU, 15% favored Clinton and 85% were Freepers.

Wake up!

And give me your money, all of it!

all of nothing comes out to nothing.

I will be mailing that to you first thing tomorrow.

You drive a hard bargain. Mercy please.

some may get that impression.

Printing email is almost as reprehensible as using a personal account for work-related stuff or a work account for personal stuff.

(I'm guessing he was asked to print them? As if no one has heard of portable hard drives?)

if that is what they asked for. I can think of many reasons one would be asked for printed versions instead of electronic ones. One is the cost of printing is then being born by the producer not the asker.

My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek in that sense.

That said, it would be a whole lot easier to analyze and search digital versions.


(Maybe he provided both. Although somehow I doubt it.)

"A lawyer for Reines told POLITICO many of the documents won’t likely be classified as federal records but that he was “over-inclusive in providing material to the Department — in hard copy as the regulations call for — so that the Department could decide what to retain and what to return."

I know someone who works for the Federal Government, and I got the impression that FOIA is taken quite seriously

and she would know that. It is no different than in the days before email when people could work on something at home instead of at work. FOIA would still apply to what a person did at home back then and it still would apply to emails from a private account now.

sure, FOIA applies to material offline, once you find out it even exists. But for all practical purposes, for FOIA to mean anything, you have to know that the email ever existed

but would the requests be for emails by subject and not by location. In other words, would a request read something like emails from or to HRC about Bengazi sent in the month of September and not emails on such and such a server?

FOIA rules are very very strict in that agency

"A source familiar with what was produced told POLITICO the bulk of what was turned over were news clips forwarded to staff from an outside vendor, which ran between 125- and 150-pages worth of stories each day. The source said those went to both Reines' official and personal email accounts, leading to boxes upon boxes."

State Dept under Hillary drug their feet in responding to FOIA requests. Some of them are years old. And ones that were settled have been re-opened now that Hillary admitted her emails weren't part of State's system.

Here's one example of FOIA lawsuit - http://www.politico.com//blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/judge-slams-state-department-over-hillary-clintonrelated-210878.html

"Hackett said Reines sent over the document boxes with a cover letter, suggesting they contained a hodgepodge of work related items also mixed with personal messages.

To clarify, the judge asked Hackett if Reines was “asked to produce in his personal email system, federal records… and he produced 20 boxes of emails in his personal emails. Is that” your understanding?

Hackett said it was."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillarys-former-spokesman-turns-over-20-boxes-of-emails-120791.html#ixzz3hKl3x5gY


Let us not jump to conclusions like The New York Times

That is COMPLETELY different from what is being celebrated and high-fived here.

"That went against a directive from Obama and Hillary. Hillary sent out a directive telling State Dept. employees to use .gov email for .gov work."

Breaking her orders and those of Obama is now her fault for what? Not being able to read minds? Not inserting a mind control chip in his head and making him follow orders?

The 'scandal'was dissipated right there in the article itself. Thanks for proving Hillary had nothing to do with it.

EOM.

If the WH was supposed to be aware Hillary was using a private email account just based on her email address, then Hillary should be aware of any emails from her aides sent from their personal email address.

And we still don't know if the personal e-mail address was one from Hillary's server or not.

as a “special government employee".

Weiner’s Wife Didn’t Disclose Consulting Work She Did While Serving in State Dept.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/nyregion/weiners-wife-huma-abedin-failed-to-disclose-consulting-work-done-while-a-state-dept-aide.html

More of the same old same..

this is pure Freeper-ville.

I'm not saying that the Clintons and their associates haven't been targeted by the right.

I am saying this does not excuse them from legitimate scrutiny.

When you seek the highest office of government you should be open to such scrutiny.

with them, some might be missing or have stuff that didn't, uh, print...I don't really know...thanks bye.

then there "maybe" a problem. Anyone could show up with a copy of a email which was not turned over even if Hillary had missed it by accident and even if there was no issues which damned Hillary in the "New" email, the Republicans will make a big deal of it.

In my mind it would have been better if Hillary had just turned over her servicer months ago and we would have been done with this issue, I feel she was given bad advice into how to deal with the email issue.

in regards to Sydney Blumenthal. An email to Hillary Clinton on Libya showed up in his subpoenaed emails that wasn't in Hillary's emails.

And we have not even started the General Election yet.

They are releasing batches of emails on a monthly basis through January. There is also 2 outstanding FOIA requests from the AP that a judge is pissed about because they are years old and he feels State Dept is stonewalling. There is also emails to be turned over by at least 2 other senior staffers.

It makes me furious that she knew she was going to run for president from the second she lost the nomination and still handled the GOP a goldmine in this email mess. There was no reason for her to set-up a private server and it hurts Dems that we have to go off-message and spend time cleaning up her mess. Not to mention all the time State has to spend dealing with cleaning up her after her.

No, not as long as the two parties try to shove Clintons or Bushes down our collective throats.

We are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

That's what I'm hearing in the grapevine anyway.

Now let me look through my news apps to see who is running this story the most--Aha! just as I thought. So very predictable.