2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDWS unwittingly made HUGE news yesterday, and Chris Wallace missed it. Holy crap.
Wallace was questioning her closely about the emails and server. She was getting increasingly nervous.
He asked her to clarify her assertion that the investigation spells trouble for Hillary is "ludicrous."
In reply, she said, in part:
"She was using email in the same way as previous Secretaries of State have done, and it was according to the policy she was allowed to use ... pause... OTHER THAN THE PRIVATE SERVER."
Look at that!!
This is the first admission that the private server was not allowed!!
Wallace missed that. He went on to something else.
Watch the clip. This exchange starts at about 1:33.
The headline should be something like this:
HRC surrogate says her private server was not included in allowed procedure.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Vote for Tim Canova!
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)and voting for Tim Canova do not need to be connected.
I dont know what has happened to people who call themselves liberal when they come up with this right wing garbage.
NO liberal
NO progressive
uses fox for anything but toilet paper
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The words are hers. She is allegedly a Democrat.
Deal with it.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)She was not saying that what Hillary was doing was allowed, except for the private server.
She was saying that what Hillary was doing had also been done by previous secretaries of state, except for the private server. She was answering Wallace's interruption. And he followed up accordingly.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Which blows up Hillary's constant argument that she was doing with her emails exactly what Rice, Powell, etc. had done.
She didn't. She transmitted and saved her emails via a personal and unsecured server. And that's why she is in trouble.
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)I think it's perfectly fair. Like I said, if it's HER words and the clip is unedited it's irrelevant that it's from FOX. Those are HER words, NOT Chris Wallace saying she said that.
Now if you were showing a clip where you were cheering on one of the hosts of FOX or made them look good, that's another factor entirely.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 25, 2016, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)
I agree that Fox is a despicable right-wing propaganda arm (and that MSNBC, is largely a tool of the Third Way establishment), but DWS's remarks were her own.
Fox didn't make them up or put them in her mouth. She actually said them.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Because that is an interview of the Chair of the DNC.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)She's bucking for a cabinet position so we are stuck with her until they blow the election in November.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)the sooner you all realize the peril this poses to the general election, well.. I won't be holding my breath. Your candidate could shoot someone on fifth avenue and you'd still be defending her.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Same goes for politicians who embrace the likes of Henry Kissinger, Robt Kagan, and the Koch Bros.
However, it appears that a number of DUers are strong supporters of neo-liberal economics, neoconservative foreign policy, and other extreme RW views.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)If you are complaining that it's Fox News, what is wrong with the content? It doesn't appear edited, sound doesn't appear to have been replaced, it is a Democrat speaking and it is her own words.
So what is it that you have a problem with?
.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You really want to call her that?
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)DWS' words? She said it right there on video! Does the truth burn?
PufPuf23
(8,819 posts)-- the loss of 100s of Democratic seats in federal, state, and local elections
-- failure to provide a slate of viable Democratic candidates for POTUS 2016
-- support for GOP candidates over Democrats in her home state of FLA
but DWS is really creepy.
Why does Democratic Party leadership support this person as head of DNC?
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)fleur-de-lisa
(14,628 posts)DWS unwittingly made HUGE news yesterday, and Chris Wallace missed it. Holy crap.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511830490
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Dammit more sourcing of Fox News for the purpose of baselessly ripping on Democrats. In the last 10 days I've seen more links to FN and the NY post and even the Washington Examiner.
I thought RW OP hit pieces were not allowed at here.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Apr 25, 2016, 02:52 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't find the post disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What a whiny alert. DWS clearly said it in the clip, so why is this 'baselessly ripping'? Jesus, grow up.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's not a smear or a hit piece if its video and the candidate or surrogate's own words are being held up in front of us in plain sight.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Give it a rest. Go outside and get some fresh air.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is essentially true and FOX is the only network giving coverage to this issue. So if you want broadcast news on the subject, this is the source where you might find it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is an interview with the chairwoman of the Democratic party.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Juror 7 is right.
An interview with the chairwoman of the Democratic Party is fair game, no matter who recorded it.
antigop
(12,778 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)This admission is a first.
Exploit it.
It is now time for other news people to ask follow up questions of DWS.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Koch brothers, Fox News, Republicans, World Net Daily...
All allies of Not Hillary.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)My party -- the Democratic Party I know -- instead of hugging, would investigate, prosecute and jail the guy who lied America into war.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Why is there a propensity for Hillary to get photos taken with scoundrels?
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)greets the "Compassionate Conservative"
How sweet.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...but, you know.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 05:28 PM - Edit history (2)
I guess you have a problem with her own words. The same way you all have a problem with quoting Clinton when she's changed her stance on something for the xteenth time.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's insulting and absurd for you to claim that her appearances there are somehow sacrosanct and off limits for Democrats to discuss. She's an official in OUR Party. She goes to yammer on Fox News by her own choice and free will. She does not get some free pass by choosing right wing media to do her turns for.
Debbie supports Republicans over Democrats at times, is against cannabis reform and has many other qualities and positions I do not at all support. I hope she loses her seat in the Congress.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Compassionate Conservatives! Ha! They are trying to court he otherwise and it backfired. Their problem is they really think they can win over a few republicans!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)What kind of alliance and help is that?
Marr
(20,317 posts)You act like this is some twisted, editorialized version of events.
randome
(34,845 posts)And stating that a private server was not used by previous SOSs. When you're on camera, it's easy to get your thoughts jumbled a bit. Plus, even if it was outside protocol, in case none of you have been paying attention, that does not mean it was anything illegal.
The cackling glee of some of you -"Oh! We've really got her now!"- is pathetic to behold.
There is a reason why you have to go to youtube for your gotchas and no one else is as clever as you are to have caught this -it's because you didn't catch anything.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)So you and DWS confirm that she used a private server.
This server, located in her home, a physical piece of hardware that houses the email client and stores all emails that pass through the client, contained highly sensitive and classified information from State, NSA and CIA. This server was maintained and backed-up by individuals and companies without security clearances and had next to no security on it for the first three months she was SoS and was vulnerable to hacking.
You see no issue with this?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I see a lot of issues. But mostly I'm trying to figure out who lead her, or any of her predecessors to believe this was a good idea. Everything that has happened was predictable ahead of time and to the most casual of persons who handles this kind of information. Heck some COMMERCIAL companies prohibit the use of personal/private communications systems for basically the same reasons, loss of control of the information.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)by the way, her predecessors did not use a private server. Only HRC.
The first several months, the server was unsecure. Wide open. And she was on a trip to Asia. Surely she was hacked by foreign entities.
Are you suspecting that someone set her up for this? Or just that someone was exceptionally careless.
I am still astounded that no one noticed or called her on this, or that the intelligence agencies did not pick this up and report it to the WH.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I tend towards the theory of never attributing to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity.
I tend to believe that her interest was in maintaining control of her correspondence. And some knuckle head who should have told her not to do it somehow decided it would be permissible. The strange part of the story is that this person has never been identified to my knowledge.
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)She was at the start when the Internet created and the Secret Service didn't teach her that stuff?
antigop
(12,778 posts)and stammered.
hmmmm.....
amborin
(16,631 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Perhaps she has been, or will be, "interviewed" by someone.
This "permission" is a blatant lie that they have been telling. Looks like it just got real for DWS. What we also see is that she isn't willing to put her own foot in the trap for Hillary.
The first rat to leaing the s(t)inking ship. Good catch, indeed!