CNN.Hillary Clinton Deleted All Emails From Server.

[mylye2222]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/

See DUers . Not just RW press reported the story.
HRCs taste fir secrecy shouf get Dems really really ask themselves about wherever they want her as tveir next POTUS.
Add this to the new emerging story re. favoritism obtained investissements by McAuliffe as well as other Clintons people. .....

[hrmjustin]

1. It is a nothing story.

[wyldwolf]

2. Why do Clinton critics remind me of Roscoe P. Coltrane chasing the Dukes?

[hrmjustin]

7. Lol. Well questioning is fine but I think that it is a nothing story.

The public will still vote for her

[mylye2222]

10. Maybe. since they are conditioned that she is "inévitable".

Clinton Team did a perfecr job getting people think it is her or Chaos. And alsi a perfect one in silenting any other who could comit the crime of daring to challenge Quenn Hillary.

[hrmjustin]

12. Queen Hillary?

Are we on a RW site? I think we are better than that. I would never use language like that against Warren or Sanders.

[mylye2222]

17. By Queen I mean she is certains she has a free pass fir nomination.

Many Dems know that. She is certains her good name and her still ultra popular husband could even dispense her to bothering having primary challengers.

[hrmjustin]

21. I know what you mean but you are still wrong to use it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Some people are so far left they end up on the right and they don't even know how they got there./NT

[hrmjustin]

30. Well I think people should remember Hillary is A Democrat in good standing and xhould

not be personally insulted. Questioned is necessary but not insulted.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I admire your faith in people./NT

[hrmjustin]

34. Lol well I have my moments myself.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. I take everything I read here with a grain of salt./NT

[hrmjustin]

37. I do as well.

I understand many here want a real choice and are not happy at how the race is shaping up.

I get that but spme of the stuff posted here leaves a lot to be desired.

[mylye2222]

40. You are right. .. on first part

The "primary" will be a vast , unfunny comedy.

[hrmjustin]

42. Well if you want people to oppose her they need to get in the race.

[sabrina 1]

173. Which Progressive Candidate will receive the amount of funding from Wall St that Hillary has?

And how would even the best possible candidate compete with the kind of money?

Would the Party back someone who DOESN'T have that kind of funding?

Would Hillary be willing to make it a fair contest by refusing Wall St funding?

Your question is disingenuous assuming you know that these days the words 'viable candidate' mean 'heavily funded by Wall St' candidate.

[hrmjustin]

174. Disingenuous Sabrina?

I rather think not. Have a good night.

[sabrina 1]

175. You told us to get our own candidate. You neglected to say how much it would take to

compete with Wall St money. Either you don't know about this problem and WHY it has kept many good Democrats from running, or you chose to ignore it.

If you don't know the problem, then my apologies. If you do, then why would you even suggest that people on DU could possibly compete with the obscene amounts of money being poured into the WH race?

[hrmjustin]

176. Obamz did in 2008.

[sabrina 1]

177. Yes, that worried me a lot as a longtime supporter of his. But he ran on a Progressive Platform, so

I set aside those concerns. Now we know better. Hillary did not run on a progressive platform.

She supported mandated insurance, Obama did not.

She supported Commissions to determine how to deal with the deficit, Obama did not, in fact he stated that Commissions were 'an end run around the Constitution'.

He swore to protect SS.

She was iffy about that.

He opposed torture and vowed to end it.

She hedged on that question.

We've learned now that once you take Wall St. money, you are indebted to them.

It's 2015 and people are a lot older and definitely a lot wiser than back in the old Bush era where things seemed pretty simple.

[hrmjustin]

178. It is not Hillary's fault that she is popular in the party and has money to run with.

You want to beat her then organize.

[sabrina 1]

179. When Hillary is polled against Warren eg, she loses. There are only now 32% of the registered voting

population listed as Democrats. Polls claiming that she is popular with Dems are polls where no other Dem is opposing her. So you can cut those numbers in half at least since while most Dems WILL say 'yes' I support the Dem, including people like me who do not want her as a candidate, those polls are meaningless.

But let's go with the polls. The biggest voting bloc in the country right now is the Independent vote. At least 10% of former registered Dems, have left the party and are now registered as Indpependents. Guess why they left!

So, to win, getting approx 30% of the vote, and I'm being generous, will not win for Democrats.

Who do you think, other than party loyalists, are going to vote for Hillary?

The Independent vote on the left, are not going to do so.

Certainly she can't be expecting the Republicans to vote for her.

So how do you expect to attract the left Independent vote who left BECAUSE of the Third Way/DLC policies which Hillary symbolizes?

If she is the nominee, Dems are risking a big loss. And if that happens, it will be the fault of those who are so stuck on 'winning' they refuse to listen to the people who can make that happen, the voters.

[hrmjustin]

181. Every poll I have seen has Clinton ahead of Warren.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

189. " When Hillary is polled against Warren eg, she loses..."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

[treestar]

180. Then what do you suggest?

What laws, what procedures, what revolutions do you suggest? As long as it takes a lot of money to get high profile, there is going to be "Wall Street Funding."

[mylye2222]

39. So now satiring her obvious behavious ins insult?

[hrmjustin]

41. Right Wingers call her that. I get you don't like her but calling her Queen Hillary is wrong.

How would you like if someone on DU used that term for Warren or Sanders?

[Hekate]

120. It's not satire to use RW sources and RW language.CNN may not be FOX, but it's no longer reliable...

CNN is no longer a reliable source for news about -- well, much of anything, really.

If you are interested in following up, here's an interesting article in Mother Jones:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/03/mitt-romney-email-hillary-clinton

[marym625]

79. I don't think it is aimed at Hillary

I think it's aimed at the people who seem to think that if you aren't for her, you're not really a Democrat

[hrmjustin]

83. It depends on the poster and what they post.

[marym625]

88. True.

That was just how I read it.

[Hekate]

123. Boy howdy does it ever. nt

[hrmjustin]

128. Some posters go overboard.

It happens.

[marym625]

82. uhm.

I see more of people that have forgotten where left is and think the line between left and right is too far left

[Major Hogwash]

209. I don't think it is over yet.

We've only just begun.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. ...

[Android3.14]

62. Because you have poor taste in television shows?

[wyldwolf]

66. maybe. But watching the left and right fall all over themselves is quite entertaining.

Setting traps, only for the Clintons to slip right out of their grasp.

[sabrina 1]

91. You are not on the Left then?

[wyldwolf]

98. You know what's absolutely hysterical?

After close to 14 years on DU, with a very long post history, people here still think they can box me in with that question and change the subject.

[sabrina 1]

172. You spoke about 'the left' in a derogatory manner. I was responding to your

characterization of 'the left' as if you didn't belong to it.

[Rex]

184. Just read his signature line.

Say it all imo.

[wyldwolf]

186. yeah, what Rex said.

[Rex]

211. We need all the moderates and centrists we can get to keep insane people like Cruz

out of office. No matter how heated the rhetoric gets around here, I would hope everyone remembers that. It's not even about if I agree or disagree with you imo; it is about keeping America from turning into some strange fundamentalist totalitarian state for Jesus Rambo.

IMNSHO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. I compare them to Inspector Javert...Is that high brow or middle brow?

[Man from Pickens]

101. Why post the exact same comment on multiple threads?

Are you reading from a script?

[wyldwolf]

102. Why follow me around and critique my posts?

Are you a stalker?

[Man from Pickens]

112. Since when am I following you around?

That's flat-out paranoia. You've responded to more of my comments than I of yours, AND you initiated the interaction as well, now it's ME following YOU around?

Or is that just your standard deflection when someone asks a really simple question that you don't want to answer?

[wyldwolf]

118. Since you started critiquing my posts

I mean, you could have gave reasons why the left and right keeps fumbling the ball like a certain backwoods redneck TV sheriff, but instead you commented on my posting habits.

No, no, I don't send glossy autographed 8x10s.

[hrmjustin]

104. He can think for himself thank you.

[Man from Pickens]

116. Apparently in only a very limited, repetitive way

Fake-offhand comments that were constructed for calculated effects is one of those really fucking creepy things about HRC that wig me out and make it impossible for me to trust her, and that kind of breathtaking disrespect for others does not go unnoticed.

This kind of thing is why the more HRC is exposed to the world, the less people like her.

[hrmjustin]

119. HRC didn't make that comment but nice try.

[wyldwolf]

122. his reply really was odd, wasn't it?

[hrmjustin]

124. Yes. who knew you were HRC.

The first comment seemed like an underhanded way of saying you are a paid poster.

Script Made me think that is what the poster meant.

[wyldwolf]

121. and you should know. You're keeping quite the dossier

[Man from Pickens]

130. LOL

You're the one who started the engagement with a strong statement about you keeping a dossier.

Guess you didn't learn that that kind of tactic turns off a lot more people than it convinces. But don't let me stop you, it benefits the party greatly when you damage the candidate you favor by emulating her in this way.

Keep repeating that "Roscoe P. Coltrane" line, please, so that more people notice how creepy the repetition is.

[wyldwolf]

137. LOL

You're the one who started the engagement with a strong statement about you keeping a dossier.

Um.. our 'engagement' began in post #101. I made reference to you dossier in post #121. Are you sure you're keeping a correct post count?

Keep repeating that "Roscoe P. Coltrane" line, please, so that more people notice how creepy the repetition is.

Keep following me around and critiquing my posts, please, so that more people notice how creepy it is.

[cali]

19. maybe, maybe not. In any case, it demonstrates 2 things:

1) Mixing private and state emails is a piss poor idea. She could have avoided this by simply not co-mingling the two.

2) Drip, drip, drip. There will be more stories. And yes, they take a toll- as can be seen.

She's a gaffe machine. Not the kind of gaffes so often attributed to Biden, but a different kind; one that is more damaging.

[hrmjustin]

26. And she will still be president.

Everyone makes mistakes.

[cali]

43. Unless hillary gets really lucky, she'll lose dems the presidency

at least we'll be done with her.

If she faces Cruz, she'll win. Walker? Bush? She'll lose.

[hrmjustin]

44. .

[leveymg]

71. It's the 45% of the electorate who identify as Indep.'s that worry me. To them, scandals count.

Even if many committed Hillary partisans here want to wish it way, this ain't going away and will simply fester and look worse until Election Day. If HRC is nominated, we're probably toast.

[Major Hogwash]

84. What about Congress?

Does Hillary have long coattails?

Do you think Hillary will have any impact on the fact that more Republicans are up for re-election in 2016 in the Senate than are Democrats?
Would a Clinton campaign mean that the Democrats would take back control of the Senate?

Do you think enough people who would vote for her, would also vote for a Democrat to be their Representative in the House of Representatives, so that we can take back control of the House?

[Jackpine Radical]

46. Yes, you're right.

It's not exactly the death of a thousand cuts, more like the death of a million paper cuts.

She may not make it to the Primaries at this rate. I don't think I'm the only one who's considering the possibility of her stumbling; I think that's why Chamber of Commerce O'Malley is waiting in the wings, to pick up the New Dem banner if needed. And he'd make almost as good a VP candidate as Joementum did.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. Yet she is crushing her Republican opponents in the polls...

Show me a persuadable voter who will vote against Hillary Clinton because she used a private e-mail address and I will streak across Dodger Stadium when they play the New York Yankees...

[Jackpine Radical]

85. I absolutely agree. Few will change their vote over this.

However, it pushes everyone a little closer to that edge. That's what I was getting at with the "million paper-cuts."

Straws, camels, fer Chrissake.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. I am a poll junkie...

And I will concede there does seem to be some slippage in her favorability ratings, not as great as some cherry picked polls would suggest,but slippage nonetheless... However she still does well against her Republican opponents...

At first this looks like a paradox but it really isn't... If I have to choose between a Big Mac and a shit sandwich I will choose the Big Mac though I don't have a favorable opinion of Big Macs because a shit sandwich is unpalatable...Hillary is the Big Mac...The Republicans are shit sandwiches...

[Jackpine Radical]

96. The ;problem with polls this far out is that they are contaminated by factors

that won't matter so much as the election draws nearer. Name recognition, for example. With the exception of Jeb, who can tell one of the Republicans from another? How many would even recognize Ted Cruz's name? Or Walker, for that matter--at least outside the Tea Party circles he plays so well to?

And who has NOT heard of Hillary?

Favorability/unfavorability factors tend to change over time, not so much as a result of rational processes, but more as a result of conditioned visceral responses. The problem is that Hillary is giving the opposition too many unnecessary occasions for eliciting these disgust responses and pairing them with her.

[tblue37]

132. Good post. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

192. All I can say is find a candidate in the primaries and back him or her to the hilt...

All I can say is find a candidate in the primaries and back him or her to the hilt if you are convinced she can't beat the Republican clown car or more accurately the Republican clown who emerges from the Republican clown car.

Barack Obama was re-elected despite garnering a smaller share of the caucasian vote than any Democrat since Walter" Lost 49 States" Mondale... There is not one Republican in the race, imho, that can climb that demographic mountain.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

28. We need 127 more threads dedicated to this...unless we are Democrats,then we would have one, and it

would be pretty boring

[hrmjustin]

31. Well we got to talk about something.

[KoKo]

93. What about our U.S. War Policy? That would seem worthy for discussion. n/t

[hrmjustin]

94. That is a great topic.

[Jackpine Radical]

103. I'm up for it.

Personally, I think the Middle East is an open, festering wound that we largely created, but which now seems intent on worsening its own inflammation and spreading its own toxins. It will not get better in the foreseeable future, and nothing we do is going to make it get better. The most we can accomplish there is to expend our children's inheritance on a pathologically wrong-headed program of carnage and destruction.

[hrmjustin]

105. The region is a mess but I rather they do the fighting.

Not our military.

[Jackpine Radical]

107. Absolutely.

We have blown our "honest broker" credentials with our stupid Israeli policies, and the whole region is a patchwork of tribal, religious and political subdivisions, none of whom like each other very much.

[hrmjustin]

108. We need to stop thinking we are the policeman of the world.

[Jackpine Radical]

114. Wow, there is some kind of irony there.

I just flashed on our militarized police at home in contrast to our "policing" military abroad. They're merging. Sometimes you're not sure if the pic is from Tikrit or Ferguson.

[hrmjustin]

115. True. We are a war like society.

[Jackpine Radical]

126. This brings me to one of my favorite rants; I'll try for a short version.

All our metaphors are derived from wars or competitive sports. Wars on cancer, drugs, poverty, cancer, etc.

Why not growth metaphors, healing metaphors, nurturant and compassionate and communitarian metaphors?

By limiting ourselves to the former, I think we truly limit our imaginations and the range of options that we can even consider when we face challenges.

We need to change the dominant myths/archetypes/metaphors/themes of the culture before we can bring significant change in our world views and orientations to reality.

[hrmjustin]

129. Carlin had a bit about that.

I agree we need to stop glorifying war and start glorifying diplomacy.

[Jackpine Radical]

203. I'm thinking in somewhat broader terms than "glorification" of war.

We don't just glorify war; our whole culture is immersed in violence to the point that we can hardly conceive of solutions based on, say, nurturant motives. The archetypes of violence and vengeance are ascendent, all our metaphors are war metaphors.

What is peace?

Most people define it in merely negative terms--peace is when we re not at war, peace is when people are not fighting. So peace itself gets defined as the absence of something else rather than as an active condition characterized by positive values such as love, generosity, nurturance, compassion and positive happiness.

You have made ho secret of your Christianity. I'm not a Christian (more of a Buddhist/pagan or something), but I certainly endorse what I consider to be the heart of the Christian message, which I take to be the ascendence of love as the primal principle. The work we need to do on our culture to restore it to a humane society is far deeper than we generally imagine.

[hrmjustin]

204. That is a very good point.

We associate peace with ordinary time. Just living our daily life is peace.

We need to as a society explore what peace really is so that we can not only improve our nation but always be leary of bringing war to others.

[Jackpine Radical]

205. The absence of noxious elements isn't much of a goal.

We need, positive, concrete, envision able goals to work toward rather than merely a list of things we DON'T want.

[hrmjustin]

207. Agreed! Our society is in need of those goals.

[tblue37]

134. And another good post. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

206. Thank you.

[Logical]

74. Thanks for the detailed explanation! nt

[hrmjustin]

76. Lol. i try.

[dixiegrrrrl]

171. Because the National Spy Agency has all the mails.

Congress can ask pretty please and get them, surely.

[zappaman]

3. Keep trying. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

4. How in the hell do you think this disqualifies her as president.

The official emails was downloaded to the gov server, why would it be a problem for her to delete them from her server.

[guillaumeb]

9. because it is vital to continue

discussion of this non-issue to distract from the fact that the GOP now represents the party of lunatics.

Plus the 1% is still robbing the country blind.

[Thinkingabout]

13. Or distract those who would like to see Hillary not run like the GOP because they do not

have an answer and I do not see any one posting qualifications of other candidates which they want to run. You do not convince anyone to vote for another candidate by trashing Hillary. Put your candidate up and give their qualifications, how are they qualified to be president.

[AgingAmerican]

38. Maybe we should wait until they actually announce they are running first?

Just a thought??~~!!

[Thinkingabout]

49. Trashing Hillary has been a constant combat for months, doesn't seem to matter if anyone has

announced.

[morningfog]

187. Only emails sent to .gov accounts may have be retained

All other emails were not sent through the state server. And we know that other state employees were also using private accounts for state business. So there is no way for any independent party or the State dept to verify whether all her records were properly retained before she decided to delete them all.

[Thinkingabout]

188. Then you are saying the emails she sent to the gov server was saved.

If this is true then her first statement is true and all the emails she sent to the gov server should be retained and already available. It would not seem reasonable to not retain emails sent from the server but whatever.

[morningfog]

190. I am saying the only thing that is certain here is that

The emails she sent to .gov accounts should be recoverable from the state server. They were not automatically preserved, but should be recoverable with effort.

BUT, that is only for the .gov accounts. We know that, like Hillary, other state employees used private accounts for state business. We joke that Hillary emailed state employees and officials on non-.gov email accounts.

What we don't know is how many of those there were. We don't know how Hillary determined what was "business" before se scrubbed the server, and there is a good chance business emails were deleted.

[Thinkingabout]

200. If the reports of emails getting lost from the server and archive then it is the same story

all over again. Why would the emails sent to her from the state served not be saved? I do not understand why only the sent from Hillary to the state server would be save and not those sent back from the state server. It would seem there could be a simple search of emails going to Hillary. Again, it seems like a small party balloon which turns into a hot air balloon.

[LittleBlue]

5. Yeah, please run Elizabeth

No more of this shady crap. We need someone who doesn't constantly need to claim plausible deniability.

[Thinkingabout]

14. Give a list of Elizabeth's qualifications.

[TheCowsCameHome]

20. Can't, Hillary must've deleted it.

[mylye2222]

24. Well...

She is a strong voice abd a champiin of real liberal ideas. She speaks the truth on corpiration. She unlike Clintons cares most about ordinary people than herself and her ambition. Good start isntit?

[Thinkingabout]

51. This does not cut the needs for becoming president, I can have the same ideas, doesn't make

me qualified. You are not knowledgeable on the Clintons or you would have heard about the Clinton Global Initiative which helps those in need all over the world, try another attack, this one is not the one.

[MannyGoldstein]

110. Warren got the CFPB started,

kept Larry Summers from having another turn at us, kept Antonio Weiss and some other Wall Streeters out of government, and has been outspoken about the need to reduce student loan debt, regulate the big banks and keep them from gambling with FDIC insurance money, and raising - not cutting - Social Security benefits. Warren also beat an incumbent Senator to win her seat, starting iirc 20 points behind and finishing 7 points ahead. And she voted against arming "Syrian rebels" to "fight ISIS" and believes the TPP to be awful for the 99%.

Your turn: how does Hillary match up on these issues?

[Thinkingabout]

155. Warren's vote is a problem, congressional members has access to more security briefings than is

Given o the public and she still voted no. The ISIS issue is not over. More will come.

[MannyGoldstein]

163. 1. Why is her vote a problem?

2. Will you please take a moment to answer my previous question, since I've answered yours?

[Thinkingabout]

169. I get an uneasy feeling about Warren's ability to listen to security briefings and take proper

Action. ISIS is a serious problem, don't know if she can protect the security of the nation. She can take the stand as a member if congress but not as president.

[Thinkingabout]

168. I do not know where Hillary would be on CFPB since she was not in congress at the time

Hillary on corporations

•OpEd: Disagrees with progressives on corporatism & military. (Dec 2014)
•Take back $55B in Bush’s industry give-aways. (Apr 2008)
•FactCheck: Pushed Wal-Mart for women managers & environment. (Jan 2008)
•World Bank should impose rules on sovereign wealth funds. (Jan 2008)
•Bush defanged the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Dec 2007)
•FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)
•Outraged at CEO compensation. (Oct 2007)
•Stop bankruptcies to get rid of pension responsibilities. (Aug 2007)
•Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
•Close lobbyists’ revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
•1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)
•Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jun 2007)
•Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
•Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
•1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program. (Jun 2004)
•1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued Arkansas. (Nov 1997)
•Businesses play social role in US; gov’t oversight required. (Sep 1996)
•Family-friendly work policies are good for business. (Sep 1996)
•Angry at unacceptable acquiescence to greed in the 1980s. (Jun 1994)
•Serving on boards provides ties but requires defending too. (Aug 1993)
•Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
•Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
•Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)


Hillary on Social Security

•Privatization off the table; but maybe payroll cap increase. (Aug 2014)
•No lifting cap on payroll tax; that taxes middle class. (Apr 2008)
•Bipartisan commission, like in 1983, to address crisis. (Apr 2008)
•FactCheck: No, teachers & police won’t pay if cap over $102K. (Apr 2008)
•FactCheck: Yes, removing $97,500 cap affects middle-class. (Nov 2007)
•Have a bipartisan commission on Social Security and its tax. (Oct 2007)
•1997: Hillary warned against privatizing Social Security. (Oct 2007)
•$1000 matching tax credit for first $1000 in 401(k) deposit. (Oct 2007)
•Solvent until 2055 under Bill Clinton; now has lost 14 years. (Sep 2007)
•Nothing else on table until fiscal responsibility returns. (Sep 2007)
•Make sure nobody ever tries to privatize Social Security. (Aug 2007)
•Soc.Sec. one of greatest inventions in American democracy. (Oct 2006)
•Social Security protects families, not just retirees. (Feb 1999)
•All should join the debate now to preserve future solvency. (Feb 1999)
•Respect unique power of government to meet social needs. (Sep 1996)
•Elderly poor are hit hardest by delays in COLA increases. (Jun 1994)
•Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security. (Mar 2007)
•Create Retirement Savings Accounts. (Aug 2000)
•Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)


She did not say a lot about NAFTA when it was getting voted on but did not like it.

[cascadiance]

111. For starters, I think she professionally has more knowledge of our society's economic conditions...

... than just about ANYONE else in politics now and why the middle class has been screwed over the last few decades, as this was what she was professionally studying and speaking out on before she got in to politics. Americans that get to know her realize that she connects with and understands their plight more than just about anyone else out there in a time where average Americans need help and the economy itself needs that help more than it has since the Great Depression early last century. And not only does she demonstrate knowledge about it, but she demonstrates a will to fight to change and fix those circumstances, a trait not shared by her professional colleagues from her former profession.

Watch this video made from a speech she gave back in 2008 before Obama even got elected, let alone before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was considered to understand what she brings in this capacity.

I want leadership that has traits like this more than anything else, and who has the motivation and intelligence to be able to have staff to delegate other responsibilities of the presidency effectively. I think Warren gives us the best opportunity for this.

[Thinkingabout]

149. A good start but surely there are other issues.

[cascadiance]

157. This is THE issue that most Americans want fixed now, that corporate America is working against us..

... through their buying off control of both major parties. Warren has provided leadership on other issues as well, but this provides the core issue support that most Americans want to see someone working on, but see the heavy corruption in Washington working against them on.

[Thinkingabout]

159. Is she working on this issue, yes, has it gotten resolved, no. The president is required to handle

More than this issue. What else can we depend on Warren doing if elected president.

[cascadiance]

161. I see Warren more apt to provide the ability to lead on other issues...

... to go with this core strength, than seeing someone like Clinton lead us on this core issue, no matter what experience she has in other areas.

America realizes that unless we hit core issues like this one and others that the corporate lobbyists are aligned against (such as the TPP, student loan debt, election reforms such as public financing and shutting down Citizen's United ruling notions such as "corporate personhood" and "money is speech&quot , we're not going to solve anything and continue with the status quo that continues to drag this country down. I think most Americans will see that the character of someone like Warren standing up to the banks where she has shown both knowledge and courage to do so, will feel that she's more apt to stand up to the corporate power infrastructure on these other issues than Clinton will, who has embraced sharing power with these corporate elites rather than bringing necessary control on to them.

[Thinkingabout]

162. I hope like hell she is working on getting support in the Senate, getting bills passed in Congress

Is where the first action has to happen. Build a relationship with senators on both sides just may be able to produce results.

[cascadiance]

183. We need someone at the top willing to stand up to corporate power. TPP is an example...

... where the current man in charge is actually advocating for corporate power over people power instead of what Democrats should be doing in this instance. It is an illustration why we need someone like Warren to start working to take down the corporate power in this position, and not just in the Senate. She's one of just 100 voices there, where she would have the veto pen that could veto something like Fast Track that someone like Obama (and likely Hillary as well) would be championing when they JOIN FORCES with corporate leaning Republicans to work against the interests of the people when they are working for the powers of corruption in Washington.

Our democracy is at stake with who we choose to lead this country in 2016. Many of us aren't taking that choice lightly! And it's not just a case of "picking the right party"! We need to pick the right person to give us leadership in fixing this corruption.

[leftofcool]

55. Yes, like lying about your heritage and your real estate deals.

[cascadiance]

117. And you all accuse many who support her of using the right's Bengazi attacks on Clinton...

... and now you resort to echoing right wing crap here to criticize Warren.

[tblue37]

141. Actually, her Native American heritage is something that was known and passed down

in her family and among family friends.

On edit: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/elizabeth-warren-is-part-native-american
A Mother Jones article supporting her heritage claim.

[Major Hogwash]

210. Thank you for that post.

I get sick and tired of people at DU trashing Warren for being part American Indian.

[tblue37]

212. That article explains that some of her cousins have always embraced their heritage and

are actually active in Native American rights groups in OK.

[Backwoodsrider]

6. typing give away

Based on lack of typing skills this could be Fox viewer.

[Revanchist]

64. I think she's a non-native speaker of the language

She's French and I'm not sure how long she's been speaking/writing in English.

[Hekate]

106. She established that early on. Yet, and I find this curious, she has an intense & persistent...

....dislike of our former Secretay of State. For a non-resident non-citizen -- well, we do encourage all comers in our debates here, it is true, so perhaps I should not criticize. However, I wonder at what point we will hear a positive contribution to our dialog?

[Backwoodsrider]

202. well I think she is a shill

sent in to bash whoever. She isn't the only one. These are the cyber times we live in

[still_one]

8. Not to add to the email story your assertion that CNN is not part of the RW is not entirely

accurate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2098019

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/22/post-truth-cnn-turns-to-drudge-report-to-revive/190832

[zappaman]

11. Exactly.

But some have not yet stopped flogging this dead horse.

[TheCowsCameHome]

15. Go get 'em, Hillary !

'Ol Trey is already popping Tums by the boatload.

[Thinkingabout]

16. They don't have anything except for RW talking points, this is not evidence.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. I will not defer to Trey Gowdy (R) South Carolina but to Elijah Cummings (D) Maryland

“This confirms what we all knew — that Secretary Clinton already produced her official records to the State Department, that she did not keep her personal emails, and that the select committee has already obtained her emails relating to the attacks in Benghazi."

[Ms. Toad]

23. .

[boston bean]

25. I have NEVER, EVER seen MSM carrying Right Wing water before!!!!!

[whatchamacallit]

29. It's becoming clear that

Democrats love sunshine, transparency, and accountability... until they don't. They used to be more antiwar too.

[RiverLover]

68. +1

Sadly. Not a proud time for us Democrats.

[Maedhros]

92. An anti-war position is useful only for attacking Republicans when they control the White House.

When a Democrat is President, I don't think some people really care.

[emulatorloo]

33. LISTEN UP: GOWDY (R, Benghazi) IS THE SOURCE FOR CNN'S STORY

&quot CNN)Hillary Clinton permanently deleted all the emails on the private server she used to do official business as secretary of state, the Republican lawmaker who subpoenaed the emails said late Friday.

Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, chairman of the House committee investigating the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, said Clinton's lawyer informed him of the news."

It is just more of the same shit, just served on a different platter.

I have no interest in Clinton being our nominee. But sick and tired of DU'ers aligning themselves with the morally bankrupt Republican Hate/Lie Machine.

[Autumn]

36. Good, this non issue is over. Now the republican will STFU and move on from this.

Yeah, the republicans will move on from this.

[Renew Deal]

45. It sounds like she did the right thing

She handed over work email and deleted the rest.

[99Forever]

47. Really?

Prove that.

[leftofcool]

50. Yes, really! She has nothing to prove nor do her supporters.

No one is privy to anyone's personal emails, period!

[99Forever]

52. Proof.

Not weasel words, excuses, or dodges. PROVE that the only emails that were deleted were personal.

I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.

[Renew Deal]

58. You want to see her personal email?

[99Forever]

61. No.

I want a candidate smart enough to choose a staff who has the brains to foresee the shitstorm this arrogant kind of fully preventable crap lays them open to. Clearly, that isn't HRC.

[Renew Deal]

65. I think she was smart enough to know that the VRWC never ceases

If her email was on Govt servers they would get on her for something else.

What makes Hillary an interesting potential candidate is that she really understands how the US govt and politics operates. She's the opposite of Obama

[cascadiance]

127. Then WHY didn't she complain about that publicly instead of falling in to their trap?

WHY didn't she complain about others' unauthorized access and misuse of this access if this was her concern on government servers, and get that problem FIXED, instead of just making this problem worse? I would expect someone who wants to be president to take leadership to FIX such problems and make a government email infrastructure one that all decent politicians could trust rather than do what she did. I would think if she had nothing unethical or illegal to hide, that she would have gone this route, and would have had even more reasons for people to support her for president instead of the path she took.

The fact that she didn't do this calls in to question for people of all political persuasions to question her true motives for using a private email server, even if we don't have any proof that she did anything wrong. All she did was give Republicans and the right another tool to win the White House in 2016!

[Hekate]

136. Because then they would accuse her of whining, like accusing her of having a cackle. nt

[cascadiance]

139. If she wanted to have groups like NSA cleaned up, it would have been a PLUS for me!

... and I think many out there leaning towards Libertarians might have also seen that as a positive move on her part too.

If every time a politician speaks out that something is broken and not working is regarded as whining, then what is the point of having government, as then just about every politician by that definition would be a "whiner".

[Renew Deal]

195. She was the Secretary of State, not the head of IT

And if you know anything about these things you know it takes months for changes to happen if not longer.

"I would think if she had nothing unethical or illegal to hide, that she would have gone this route"

You must be a big patriot act fan.

The republicans were doing the exact same thing. That's why Bush released his email. He knew they were going to try to make an issue of this. In the end it is a non-issue other than exposing loose governmental email policies.

[cascadiance]

196. Whether she's the "head of IT" has nothing to do with a decision to use private email...

... and not have that publicly on the record that she's doing so instead of using government infrastructure, which would be preferred by most politicians who consider themselves Democrats.

Now, still the fundamental question you and others here are NOT answering is WHY did she choose to move mail to a private server and not have it be on public record why she did so? If there were problems she either was aware of herself or was made aware of by others (if you feel a director of IT is needed to make that recommendation) that had her wanting to do this, then why couldn't she just simply go on record and state that these problems existed, and that until the "months" that you say it should take to fix these problems were fixed, that she would choose to use a private email solution to avoid such problems. If she had legitimate reasons for using private email, why couldn't this have been done?

WHY should she do this just because the Bushies did it? If they did it, in my book it would be a reason NOT to do it!

I'm a techie and I fully know far more than many here how long some technical issues need to get fixed. And some issues aren't technical either so much as they are that of access (NSA, etc.). I could see perhaps some legitimate concerns she might have that would have her want to avoid using some broken IT infrastructure, but the answer again is to push to get that infrastructure fixed, and not to just surreptitiously do something stupid in effect hiding email and pretend that voters won't think feel that doing so raises a lot of unanswered questions.

[Renew Deal]

197. Question...

"WHY did she choose to move mail to a private server and not have it be on public record why she did so?"

She did not move mail to a private server. She started a new account on a private server. She turned over her work mail for the "public record." Of course, her people decided what was work related.

"then why couldn't she just simply go on record and state that these problems existed"

Lots of potential reasons. The most likely one was that she knew what she was doing was legal and she didn't want the exposure of a .gov mail server. We saw that those were being spied on and we know republicans would want to dig through her mail. That's why I like what she did in this case. She basically protected herself from RW fishing expeditions and did so legally.

"WHY should she do this just because the Bushies did it? If they did it, in my book it would be a reason NOT to do it!"

I agree. It is unethical. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't have its advantages.

[cascadiance]

201. Whether it was legal or not doesn't answer the question why she didn't PUBLICLY state...

... that she was doing what she did, and WHY she did it if she had good reasons. That would have insulated her from the right wing hit news attacks she has going after her now.

She in effect MOVED where her work mail that she was sending and received from a .gov server to a private server. Now whether she moved specific emails to this private server isn't the issues. She moved where she was conducting her work email responsibilities from the .gov servers to the private servers, and there still remains a question as to WHY!!!!

If she felt that Republicans were going to spy on her mail, then WHY did she not just alert everyone publicly that this was potentially going on, and that her advisors felt that in order for her to not feel that abusive parties would try to look at it in an unauthorized fashion, she had would need the government services fixed so that this couldn't happen immediately, or that she would move her mail resources off these servers until they got fixed.

That would show that she legitimately wants to use .gov servers if they are made safe and working properly in way that the right couldn't twist into a conspiracy theory. Now, if she had some illegitimate reasons for moving these mails offline, then it's not surprising that she didn't make this public, which is why the right is going after her, and many people, not just those on the right are concerned that she might be doing things unethically, even if they don't have proof of anything wrong in front of them.

Bribery has been made "legal" too by many current laws too. That doesn't make it the right thing for Democrats to be engaged with too, just because it is "legal".

[cali]

70. Was all her personal email actually personal?

No.

[Renew Deal]

73. How do you know that?

[Hekate]

133. I think even HRC's funeral plans for her mother and sonograms for her daughter would not be enough.

[Ms. Toad]

145. Correct regarding personal e-mails, for the most part

But think of a similar situation: You're financial manager. You dump your personal money in with your client's money in a single account, without a specific tracking mechanism that identifies the money when it goes into the account as yours v. clients. You then take out a bunch of money and hand over the rest to your clients - telling them that you only took out yours.

No one has a right to your personal money. But but when you manage other people's money - and don't set up a tracking mechanism to track each deposit as it goes in, your clients have a right to some independent forensic accounting to make sure that all you've taken out is your money.

Clinton was doing the exact same thing with personal correspondence, and correspondence that belongs to the public.

NO ONE is complaining that she isn't entitled to privacy in her personal emails. The problem is that she made them public, at least to the extent necessary to reconstruct which ones were state department business, when she intentionally co-mingled with them with State Department emails.

Destroying the server, so no one ever has the ability to reconstruct them is inexcusable.

[Thinkingabout]

54. Prove it to who, the RWers, they will continue with a non issue. They do not have an answer for

Hillary, this is their problem. If they did not cater to the TP crap then perhaps a candidate would develop.

[Renew Deal]

56. Prove what?

That she did what she said she did?

If it's not illegal, then it's not really a story. I think it's unethical to use personal email when work email is available, but it was permitted.

And I think that this entire episode has shown Hillary to be right to be paranoid.

[99Forever]

63. Prove that she didn't delete damaging non-personal emails.

Not empty words, actual proof.

[Renew Deal]

67. That's not possible

And in her case, that's a good thing.

If anyone received a "Damaging" email sent to her that she didn't make public they should turn it over. So far there has been no such discovery.

[99Forever]

72. And that is exacty where you are wrong.

It's sad that you are willfully blind to just how damaging this is to the entire Democratic Party.

But go ahead, believe any line of bullshit that fits your preconceived opinions.

No freakin' wonder we keep getting beat at the voting booth.

[Renew Deal]

75. What do you mean by we?

Last edited Sat Mar 28, 2015, 11:31 PM - Edit history (1)

NY is about as blue as it gets.

[99Forever]

86. I mean WE...

... as in WE the People.

You can't even convince me and I'm a lifelong Democrat. just how are you going to go about selling this to those that aren't?

Even if I didn't have problems with HRC on a number of VERY KEY and important issues, I'm flat out tired of defending against the drama that constantly surrounds the Clintons, instead of seeing some real effort put into saving our democracy from going completely down the drain before it's too late.

[Renew Deal]

193. Most people don't need to be convinced

Most people are trying to figure out how to pay rent. They don't care about a made up email scandal.

One of the features of dealing with the Clintons is the drama. It's part of the bargain. I understand why people would not want to fight these old fights. There are definitely disadvantages to dealing with the Clintons.

[Hekate]

131. Prove that you stopped beating your wife

Prove it.

[99Forever]

138. I'm not running for political office.

Ask that question of someone that is.

So, are you conceding that it can't be proved that the only emails deleted by HRC and Co. were irrelevant personal emails? Or is that simple equation over your ability to conceptualize?

[Hekate]

140. Tsk tsk. What weasle words you use. You can't answer my question.

When did you stop beating your wife?

[99Forever]

143. That's the absolute lamest attempt to divert the point being made by anyone yet.

You REALLY aren't very good at this. You could easily be one of Hilary's top advisors. You seem amply as qualified as those that told her what a WONDERFUL idea it was to have her own "private" server.

[Hekate]

144. Oh, give it up

[99Forever]

146. You're laughing?

Hey, that's no surprise.

[Hekate]

148. Somebody needs to have the last word, I can tell. So, go ahead...

[99Forever]

150. Passive/aggressive much?

[LadyHawkAZ]

48. Last week: EHRMEGERD! ANYONE COULD HACK IN AND READ THESE!!!1!

This week: EHRMEGERD! WE CAN'T READ THESE!!!1!

Ah, the sweet smell of desperation sweat.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

182. This ^ ^ ^

[spanone]

53. Zzzzzzzzzzzz....

[Rex]

57. LOL. Wolf Blitzer. You probably didn't know this but CNN is

just as bad as Foxnews. Wolf Blitzer got his start on the 700 Club...you know, Pat Robertson's parasitic dynasty. SO anytime you see CNN...remember Republican-lite? Remember how we say nobody wants to vote for a Republican-lite when they can have the real thing? Well CNN panders to the RWing in hopes of gaining ratings. They are not a reliable source of information.

IOW, CNN is going to smear Democratic candidates from now until the day of the election. A lot of people think CNN is unbiased, not at all LOVED Glen Beck until he had his first breakdown.

As far as the emails go, really I cannot stress enough how of little importance it is. She didn't get a federal email address. She should have been given one, but evidently nobody in the Feds has enough time or money to update and make sure essential personal in the president's cabinet have all the tools they need.

Mini rant on.

So what did I learn? What the FUCK do they spend 250 MILLION dollars on then? Why do I feel ill when I think if we were to tear open the 'book' and read the ledger...it would make all our heads spin like we were drunk on whiskey?

Getting off the subject and asking, so how much is a Reagan hammer now costing the military in 2015? Some of you know what I mean. 2,000 dollars? 20,000 dollars? So did NOBODY end the insanity of hyperinflation? What is it going to cost us? Do they contract IT out to shitty nobody lazy fuckers that can't get Hillary Clinton a god dam email address for the job she has?

As an IT director, I don't hold her responsible for anything and would personally be embarrassed at how completely horrible I am at my job. It takes me all of 15 minutes to add 100 email accounts with outlook and office365. Then I wait all of 5 minutes for the host to update and DONE. 100 new emails ready to go. I refuse to believe in 2015 or actually dread thinking how much a fucking hammer costs now if the government is forced to buy one. Probably a jillion dollars for one email account that takes no time to make and now is going to allow fuckhead GOPukers to drag this out for months and months and months.

Like I said, the only person that can beat HRC, is HRC. The GOP has no chance against her.

I guess the Feds IT department or whatever fucked up system they use should really get full credit. Stupid me, I thought the government already had established email servers etc.. when I was still using BBS! Some of you know what I am talking about. Bulletin Boards lol. Why do we have a DHS again? Seems like that would be a good job for them. Or they just contract out to idiots for decades. Whatever.

Rant off.

[PoliticAverse]

59. No Copies of Clinton Emails on Server, Lawyer Says

WASHINGTON — An examination of the server that housed the personal email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used exclusively when she was secretary of state showed that there are no copies of any emails she sent during her time in office, her lawyer told a congressional committee on Friday.

After her representatives determined which emails were government-related and which were private, a setting on the account was changed to retain only emails sent in the previous 60 days, her lawyer, David Kendall, said. He said the setting was altered after she gave the records to the government.

“Thus, there are no [e-mail] emails from Secretary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state on the server for any review, even if such review were appropriate or legally authorized,” Mr. Kendall said in a letter to the House select committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

The committee subpoenaed the server this month, asking Mrs. Clinton to hand it over to a third party so it could determine which emails were personal and which were government records.

Read the rest at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/us/politics/no-copies-of-hillary-clinton-emails-on-server-lawyer-says.html

[samsingh]

60. i hear bush did the same thing - jeb - the little shrub

[Renew Deal]

69. The only reason he released his emails

Is so the republicans could attack Hillary to the same thing.

[pnwmom]

80. Good. This is the end of it then.

Last edited Sat Mar 28, 2015, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)

She made the decision as to which emails were State-related, and she sent them to State. She, and only she, made the decision, just as she would have if she had had two accounts -- a .gov account and a personal account. If she had had two accounts while at State, then every time she typed an email, she would have decided at that moment whether it belonged to .gov or not. And if she'd wanted to, she could have not sent certain emails through .gov. And on one would have been the wiser.

So this has all been a huge fuss about nothing.

[cascadiance]

135. I think it is more apt to be mails that she RECEIVED through her government account...

... than ones she sent. Yes, she could have chosen to use a private email account to SEND emails she didn't want looked at and still maintained her government account emails and just send out non-controversial official emails through that infrastructure and no one would be the wiser as you note.

But if she had RECEIVED mails from others that sent her emails on topics that she didn't want on her government email account and perhaps wanted to also keep her personal email account more private too, then that would likely motivate her to want to have those public emails moved to a private domain area where she and her staff could control more of what stayed there and what was purged off or kept "private".

[pnwmom]

151. Government employees would have been using their .gov accounts to email her.

Who do you think would be sending her emails about State matters to her personal account instead of in some more confidential way, like a phone call?

People in government still use the phone.

[Thinkingabout]

152. If the emails was sent from the gov server then they should still be on the server unless deleted

Beyond the sender/receivers control. It has been said there was some problems with the gov server, don't know.

[cascadiance]

156. I'm talking about emails sent to her from non-government servers...

... and set to her government account, which it would appear had been redirected to her private domain rather than spending time on a government server someplace where they could be archived. If it was simply a problem of government servers not working right, then she'd have even less to lose by making it an issue to get the government servers fixed so that she could use government infrastructure instead of private infrastructure the way a traditional Democrat would want our email to be handled.

She still has NOT provided us an adequate reason for her investing in a private email solution rather than just using the existing government infrastructure, when it shows no real LEGITIMATE value to do so, and only provides the right another avenue to attack her with. It was either a STUPID move on her part, or a one that has us question her motives. If she had a legitimate reason that the public could accept to do what she did, she should have told us she was doing it until a legitimate problem that provided her a legitimate reason for doing what she did got fixed.

I really don't see a reason for her doing this and being secretive about this.

[Thinkingabout]

160. She thought the emails sent to a gov email would be retained and I would think

If other gov emails sent emails to her personal, my personal email they would also be retained. If not, why is only the incoming coming emails retained, it would defeat the purpose of Hillary using the gov server to send emails if they would not be maintained.

[PowerToThePeople]

87. nsa should have them

Oh wait, those tools are just used against the general population citizenry. Not the masters. Dumb pttp. And now fbi wants to ban encryption? Omg.

[Hekate]

90. Governor Mitt Romney destroyed all the hard drives on his way out. Destroyed govt property.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/03/mitt-romney-email-hillary-clinton

[99Forever]

95. And he was wrong to do so.

Is there anyone here claiming he was in the right doing that? Please provide links. Thanks.

[Hekate]

97. I provided a link. Has Hillary destroyed government property?

I wasn't able to provide all the quotes because someone else in my household wanted to use the computer just then, so I hit send and figured my intelligent fellow DUers could just as easily read the Mother Jones article themselves.

[99Forever]

100. You didn't provide a link to anyone here saying it was okay for him to do so.

But you knew that.

And I bet I know why.

[wyldwolf]

99. Even DU's biggest bomb throwers are ready to move on to the next faux scandal

[TheDebbieDee]

109. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I just don't care. I'll prolly vote for in the

Missouri Primary and if she's the Democratic Candidate for President I will still vote for her no matter what! The country and the world as we know it may not be able to survive another repuke President with a repuke Congress and repuke Senate. Think about it......

[quadrature]

113. rumors...HRC was running her own Intel network

note: just rumors.

looks like it is possible other
people will be dragged into this

not possible to wipe the whole internets

[jwirr]

125. Put it won't be a non-story to the Rs and many voters. I do not understand why she would set

herself up for more investigations.

[Hekate]

142. She followed protocol for all government employees, apparently. But her name is Clinton...

...so BENGHAZI! Also, MONICA!

We here should know better than to be sucked into RW muck and faux scandals.

[jwirr]

147. I know but that is not going to stop the Rs. They use lies all the time. And she knows it. She

actually wrote a book about how they hounded Bill. I think she would have been better off if she had let them take a look at all the innocent emails before she deleted them. That would have shut them up. There are a lot of people out there who are going to take this the way the Rs do and refuse to vote for her because of that one small act. I actually feel sorry for her.

[Thinkingabout]

154. She knows that and it us becoming comical. If they had a Hillary grade candidate they would be

Pushing them, the likes of Cruz, Perry, Walker, Paul, Bachmann, Romney and Rubio to name a few there isn't much to push so they push their crap.

[sabrina 1]

198. We don't want a Wall St funded candidate, if that's what you mean by 'Hillary Grade'. But Warren may

be the one to get the obscene amount of money OUT of the Dem Party at least if she keeps on doing what she has been doing so well.

The very fact that Wall St is Threatening Warren, has already raised her profile.

We know how the public at large feels about Wall St corruption that collapsed the World's Economies.

You want a Wall St funded candidate, that's your decision.

But membership in the Dem Party has dropped by over 10% in the past few years, with many former Dems now registered as Independents.

The Independent vote is the largest voting bloc now in the country, of registered voters. Don't expect them to vote for a Wall St funded candidate.

So tell us, how does someone with such a small base of support, Hillary I mean, get that all important Independent left leaning vote, which has grown over the past few years, made up of people who oppose Corporate funded politics?

You can't win with even 80% of 32% of registered voters.

But you can win with a candidate who appeals across the political spectrum. Who might that be? It definitely is not Hillary Clinton.

[Kalidurga]

153. CNN is apparently RW now

I really don't care one way or another I don't watch mainstream news. And I don't care about Hillary's emails. But, I might just change my opinion of her with all these attacks on her I am thinking she might be more liberal than I give her credit for.

[nakocal]

158. CNN is owned by a corporation (which tends to the right)

Sorry but reporting on CNN can also be considered to be right-wing to far right-wing. They are owned by a large corporation and only care about their profits.

[brooklynite]

164. Okay, WHY would CNN not report on a story of an allegation by a noted Congressman?

Likewise, is the Christian Science Monitor part of the right-wing conspiracy?

How about The New York Times?

The San Francisco Chronicle?

And of course, the notorious Hollywood Reporter?

[FSogol]

165. Unrec. I'm guessing that what bothers you about McAuliffe is that he vetoed 20 GOP bills

this week. He vetoed 6 of them live on a radio program, just to taunt the fuckers in the State GOP.

[William769]

166. Psst.

Hillary supporters on DU asked Hillary to delete all e-mails from her server just to watch certain heads explode on DU. Guess what? It worked!

[hrmjustin]

167. Best response!

[William769]

170. ...

[Rex]

185. Shhhh!!!! She said don't tell nobody!

It was supposed to be a secret!

[Adrahil]

194. Hey, I deleted all my emails from my personal accounts too! Even the work-related ones!

CONSPIRACY!!!!!

[99Forever]

208. Are you being touted as the probable candidate for POTUS for a major political party?

Or were you SOS when those "work-related" emails were generated?


Hmmm?

[fadedrose]

199. Left on the server, the emails may have bored the committee to sleep

That's another reason that the scrubbing was a mistake. Not that it covered up anything, it could have turned out to be very embarrassing for the committee to have to admit HC was not lying....

And I am not one of her supporters.

It was a mistake no matter how you look at it.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

213. Kick for Webb 2016

Kick