I Would Have Waited 24 Business Hours.

[msanthrope]

Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Truly...I remember the Vince Foster/Travelgate/Rose Law Firm/Lewinsky years of the Clinton White House.

And here's the thing I learned.....wait. Gird your loins. Find out the truth. Don't believe lies.

Looks like HRC is the clear...and on a day when DU should be roasting Bibi Netanyahu. ....some have chosen to attack Democrats with lies from the House Benghazi Committee.

[hrmjustin]

1. She is the third way boogeyman you know.

[msanthrope]

5. She's got the Republicans running......but note well who took today

to roast her, and not Bibi. ..

[hrmjustin]

18. It did get rather hysterical and ridiculous at times.

I can think of one in particular but...

[msanthrope]

24. You know.....I read The Daily Beast and realized that actual

journalists still exist. So it's been a good day, overall.

[RobertEarl]

27. The OP should delete this

It is attacking a DUer and not attacking Bibbi or our enemies.

[msanthrope]

29. Who am I attacking? nt

[Electric Monk]

48. William Pitt, obviously, and I haven't even been following this all that closely. nt

[Agschmid]

49. A lot of us weren't around back then and dont get the reference to any attack.

A lot of people on DU jumped on the bandwagon for this story, I just don't see it as a callout.

[msanthrope]

75. Attacking Will Pitt? My OP is an attack? Perhaps you mistake

my amusement. I'm sure you do.

[Agschmid]

31. Disagree.

[hrmjustin]

44. I rather think not.

[yardwork]

45. Oh really.

[Hekate]

59. No thanks

[zappaman]

87. Nope.

Try again, Bob.

[uppityperson]

98. Oh Bob, there you go again.

[Agschmid]

2. Yup.

Kicked.

[seveneyes]

3. The predicate waits for none

It's always there with its next question when one arrives upon the truth.

[Rex]

4. Get them purge lists ready!

On your mark, get set, purge!

Seriously, we all found out that HRC uses a shitty hotmail account like everyone else. My question is why the SOS IT team cannot secure her excellent forms of communication for 200 million a year. I know Go Daddy email accounts cost a lot, but DAM.

[BainsBane]

7. Was it really hotmail?

[Agschmid]

11. No... But kinda close.

[Rex]

12. No idea, just some public email account. Could be google gmail.

My point is why doesn't she (or why didn't she) have the best level of communication at the SOS level? Her IT team should be fired.

[wyldwolf]

8. "we all found out that HRC uses a shitty hotmail account like everyone else."

No we didn't and no they don't.

[msanthrope]

13. Purge? Hells no.....It's too much fun watching the Walt Starr audition. nt

[Rex]

16. The amazing Walt Starr rides again!

"The email are coming, the emails are coming!"

[msanthrope]

20. I've got special popcorn.....it ignites by flameout. nt

[Hekate]

60. Ohhh that sounds good. I'll bring extra butter. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

68. SO SHE'S LYING ABOUT BEING A GRANDMOTHER, THEN!!!!!!

Everyone knows REAL Grandmothers prefer AOL.

[Rex]

69. She was paranoid the CIA was going to spy on her!

[Warren DeMontague]

70. Those CIA ticket packages are way too expensive for me

http://liveforlivemusic.com/news/cid-travel-packages-grateful-dead-50th-anniversary-chicago-soldier-field/

seriously, that 3 day "Dulles bros". package can set you back a cool 6 figures on stubhub.

[Rex]

72. I hear they put LSD in Ben & Jerrys icecream.

They want her top secret plan blueprints.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. DAMN YOU KRABS

[NanceGreggs]

6. Well said ...

... and those who preferred to dis a Dem rather than dis Bibi are notably marked.

[wyldwolf]

14. I'm certainly not going to forget them

And you know what's interesting? Clinton supporters have had A LOT of opportunities to jab Warren and Sanders for things and, for the most part, we haven't.

[msanthrope]

17. Exactly, Nance.....note well who went after HRC, but not Bibi. nt

[one_voice]

9. but they need their 100's of comments...

and all their rec's...you know to show how persecuted they are here on the DU...

[wyldwolf]

19. mega dittos! ;)

[msanthrope]

28. Laughter is as sharp as the lash. nt

[Number23]

41. "you know to show how persecuted they are here on the DU"

You truly could not have nailed that harder.

[treestar]

77. +1

[pnwmom]

10. It's no accident this "report" was released the day before N.'s speech. n/t

[msanthrope]

15. Of course not...but it's damn amusing seeing who swallowed it, whole. nt

[RiverLover]

23. Like Rachel Maddow? /nt

[msanthrope]

25. You sound concerned. nt

[Bobbie Jo]

21. heh

[elleng]

22. ALWAYS, as with wars and other hostilities/crimes,

WAIT!

[JustAnotherGen]

26. Kick and Rec

[Cha]

30. I did wait.. and what I read last night it seemed like it was not a BFD.. EarlG sure got it..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017249171#post65

The NYT did a lousy sloppy job.. as reported in the Daily Beast..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=1930

mahalo msanthrope

[msanthrope]

32. We are in great company, then. nt

[Spazito]

33. I did the same...

Something stunk from the moment of the "Breaking News", I was pretty sure it would not turn out as first reported by the NYT. I also figured there would be a rush by some to buy it hook, line and sinker.

[Cha]

35. Oh, there was a rush alright..

Spazito

[Spazito]

39. LOL, Perfect!

[stonecutter357]

34. K&R!

[Nye Bevan]

36. But Breitbart said it, which means it must be true, no?

Bank it.

[msanthrope]

38. Let me go fact check on RT......nt

[Number23]

37. Rec #23!!!! I love when that happens!

and on a day when DU should be roasting Bibi Netanyahu

Yep.

[msanthrope]

42. Perfect timing! nt

[Throd]

40. As a rule, I always wait at least 24 hours before I start flapping my arms about anything.

Too often, the various media outlets want to get the story out first, at the expense of getting it out right.

[DinahMoeHum]

43. (sigh!) The "Nothing-But-The-Best-For-The-Oppressed" syndrome

strikes again.

[TwilightGardener]

46. I'd like someone to defend the ethics and propriety of what she and her staff did.

I'd like someone to defend the Obama administration allowing her to basically run her own separate operation out of the state dept., complete with her own email server and surrounded by her own campaign loyalists and staffers. This makes both Hillary and Obama look a little icky.

[sheshe2]

53. I'd like someone to defend the ethics and propriety of what Boehner did, by...

inviting BiBi to....

"...This man from a foreign government walked into the United States legislative Chamber and tried to takeover U.S. Foreign Policy...."


"...He said you should trust me and not your president on this......I am the man you should trust,..I am your true leader on this question of U.S. geo-politics. To protect yourself, you must listen to me and not to this president..."


"...Startling situation,...to allow someone to come in, knowing that was going to be their message in the Chamber of the U.S Congress. This was a decision made by Boehner and certainly complied to by Netanyahu and his Ambassador Dermer. They went into the U.S. Congress to take over U.S. Foreign Policy today from the president. It's a remarkable day when the leaders of the opposition in Congress allowed this to happen..."


"...Think it through....What country in the world would let a foreign leader come in and attempt to rest from the president, control of U.S. Foreign Policy...."


"...This was a takeover attempt by Netanyahu with his complying American partners to take American Foreign Policy out of the hands of the president...."

Segami http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026305972

I'd like someone to defend Boehner allowing him to undermine this President and our political process as he was surrounded by his own loyalists and staffers. This makes both Boehner and his team look a little icky.

See what changing a few words can do for you???!

[TwilightGardener]

55. What does that have to do with this? I don't agree with what Boehner did, I didn't

support Netanyahu and the GOP undermining the President's foreign policy, but this is a separate issue. After the Bush emails fiasco, and how sleazy that all was, why was a cabinet member allowed her own exclusive email system, away from all oversight, to conduct all her business? All of it. Not occasional private email use. Not even half private/half government. Who else was allowed to do this?

[MannyGoldstein]

56. Some sort of inference, perhaps?

Don't try to figure it out. You can't.

[joshcryer]

61. Bush *deleted* 22 *million* emails.

There's no evidence that Clinton wasn't archiving emails and that they were deleted or destroyed. If that turns out to be the case then you can shit on her like everyone loves to do. There's no comparison to what we know Clinton did and what we know Bush did.

[TwilightGardener]

64. They weren't being archived with the government. Until the big 50,000 dump,

following the State Dept. request. Is that all of it? Who knows? But they were in her exclusive possession for years, until recently--and thus the Benghazi committee only discovered this stuff recently, despite past requests to State. She controlled that info, and the release of it-- not the federal government. That's what was objectionable about her separate private system. It appears to be a way to have the upper hand, and to hide or slow-roll discovery. "Bush was worse" does not work with me. Of course he was, I never voted for or supported him.

[joshcryer]

65. This is Filegate all over again.

If you think the Clinton's or Hillary Clinton is "hiding something" you're falling for the same Ken Starr / Karl Rove nonsense that has permeated the Clinton's entire public office career.

That's what's so precious about this. Bush actually destroyed files, had a 30 day retention policy, and the files went kaput, but the Clinton's, their entire existence, have kept a paper trail of enormous proportions as to be ridiculous, and somehow the scrutiny is on the Clinton's, nevermind what Bush did. Who cares what Bush did, that's just deflection, etc.

No, it's a fact! Look at the Clinton library's files that were released. Nearly a quarter of million pages of filings, every memo, every fucking correspondence.

All non-classified Clinton files are to be released by August as per State Department timelines. They're busting their asses to release every damn non-classified piece of data there is. If you think something nefarious is going on within Clinton's inner circle, you will have to provide more than "she used a private email."

Because you know where those millions of emails were deleted from? The White Houses' own fucking servers. The "30 day retention policy" meant that Bush was deleting shit from the servers in the White House.

My bet is that Clinton decided to set up an outside server to literally cover her ass since she's been basically the target of relentless attacks from the moment she was in the public spotlight. Good fucking luck proving a damn thing wrong. The right wing loves to throw out "supposition" and "speculation" but they never show any wrongdoing, after a decade of Ken Starr's harassment, after decades of investigations going all the way back to Whitewater.

The Republicans have set a standard so high for Clinton that she is so careful that this is absolute nonsense. Let the Benghazi committee request the emails, she'll happily provide them with anything they want. And it'll quietly blow over because there's nothing there. But you can be sure to be at the public hearings in the audience (first come first serve basis!) cheering on the neocons trying to sink her over witchhunts.

[TwilightGardener]

66. I do think there's more to Benghazi than what's known, but both parties

and several agencies would get gored if too much was revealed about what the CIA and State were up to. It will all stay classified, and the GOP will try to only wound Dems with it, while leaving the murky real understory untouched. Anyway, I don't think the Bushes and their allies have an ounce of integrity among them. I also don't think the Clintons do, either.

[joshcryer]

71. And that's exactly what Karl Rove wants.

He wants you to think that the Clinton's don't have an ounce of integrity among them. But the relentless decades long witchhunts against the Clinton's proves that they are probably the most squeaky clean of any top level officials by far. They literally had to deal with their entire public lives investigation after investigation after investigation.

Go watch American Experience: Clinton. Ken Starr spent $70 million over a decade trying to prosecute the Clinton's. It's beyond absurd the attacks that they have withstood.

[leveymg]

58. Good question. You won't get many takers.

They don't engage on the issues. Denial and attempted obfuscation is their thing.

[treestar]

78. Easy. It's the government.

It's always behind on technology. It doesn't have the money or the same motivations as private businesses do. Look at the phone on the Oval Office desk.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

47. Kick and Rec !

[joshcryer]

50. I had to come out of hiding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026305024

Not a peep from email-gaters.

Still not posting "on the reg" until the FCC publishes its new rules (which, incidentally, the Republicans are holding up).

Carrying water for Republicans is so damn easy these days. Geez.

[Cha]

51. thanks, josh.. I kicked it again.. for being Perfect!

[msanthrope]

74. Stop attacking people Josh!!! We're supposed to forget the stupid shit they get

themselves into.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. Yeah, remember when it turned out that Lewinsky's blue dress wasn't stained with...

me neither.

Might I enquire as to what it is you learned from Lewinsky?

[msanthrope]

76. What I learned from Lewinsky? I learned a great deal about the people

who focus on a 20 year-old blow job.

Take this excellent thread by Purveyor......on Rand Paul's obsessing over Lewinsky.....it's priceless.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024511963

On that thread, I posted a bit from the legendary James Wolcott, who wrote so well about Clenis envy that Rush Limbaugh, and types like him display.....

On Some Sad Laps, No Heads Bob

ByJames Wolcott
11:18 AM, April 15 2005

This morning on Air America, Jerry Springer ran the tape of Rush Limbaugh's bizarre outburst against Al Gore's upcoming cable news venture for "yoof" (as they say in British papers), mocking its mission to represent the viewpoints of young people by claiming that the only thing kids cared about today was blowjobs, which were rampant in the nation's high schools today thanks to Al's good friend Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Maybe it should be called "The BJ Network," Rush railed, since blowjobs were now the only thing occupying the empty minds of MTV audiences--all those teenage Monicas out there hooking up with teenage Bubbas.

Limbaugh seemed to be implying at the top of his voice that blowjobs are an integral part of the liberal agenda, an argument which he may want to rethink. The popularity of blowjobs is difficult to metric but undeniable; they cause little harm and zero unwanted pregnancies. If the plentitude of blowjobs is part of the Clinton legacy, millions owe the former president a debt of gratitude and an annual pilgrimage to the Clinton Memorial Library in Arkansas.

Yet, like so many products and pleasures, blowjobs aren't evenly distributed in society. It's a renewable natural resource not everyone gets to enjoy, and I was struck by the vehement tone of Limbaugh's tirade. He sounded bitter. I've seen this rancor inflict so many middle-aged men. Reading about all the oral sex young people are presumably having, they feel envious and resentful. No classmates were treating them to afterschool blowjobs in high school! Nor were hot teachers like that one in Florida seducing them in parked cars. It doesn't seem fair. It doesn't seem just. We're living in the Golden Age of BJs, and men in Rush's recumbent position feel barred from Eden, forced to imagine the action from their recliners as they stare sullenly at their plasma screens. It's probably how many adults felt during the free-love Sixties as the lid came off the nation's libido.

Clearly no small part of the undying enmity conservatives like Rush (and many liberal men too) have for Bill Clinton was that he was their age (maybe even older) and yet was able to participate in the exciting blowjob youth movement courtesy of Monica Lewinsky's bright red mouth. How this made them seethe, and the fact they still mention it at the slightest farfetched opportunity shows that they seethe still.

Snip--more hilarity at link..

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2005/04/on-some-sad-lap

That Wolcott piece has been posted on DU before, and the entire article is worth the click.

[geek tragedy]

83. I learned that people who obsess over the Clenis are not very credible nt

[geek tragedy]

84. Is this persona "Kenneth Starr Manny?" nt

[MannyGoldstein]

89. Just wondering your opinion on something...

What kind of a person hates relevant facts so deeply that they'd alert on them? An ignorant person who doesn't know basic facts? Someone who knows the facts but just can't deal with them?

Your thoughts welcomed.

[geek tragedy]

90. Bill Clinton's penis is a not a "relevant fact" regarding Hillary Clinton's qualification

to be President.

20 year old blowjobs are not relevant to the issues of war, taxation, wealth distribution, stagnating opportunity, and civil liberties.

Semen stains on dresses are more within the purview of panty-sniffers, not policy wonks.

One does not see Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, throwing this kind of gutterball. Because they care about issues, not Bill Clinton's penis.

You are free, per DU community standards*, to try to rerun the Clinton impeachment trial as part of the 2016 campaign.

Good luck with that.

*Because DU doesn't have many standards these days.

[geek tragedy]

91. Feel free to vote in this poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026313375

[msanthrope]

92. How is a 20 year old blow job a relevant fact to anything? Did you like the Wolcott

piece?

[geek tragedy]

93. I would not hold your breath waiting for an answer. nt

[msanthrope]

94. Too bad....Wolcott's take on the Clenis is priceless. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

95. *You* brought it up in your OP

*I* was wondering the same thing of you!

[msanthrope]

96. I most certainly did not bring up a blowjob in my OP! nt

[MannyGoldstein]

97. Sorry then, my bad.

So which other Lewinsky situation were you referring to?

[msanthrope]

99. The situation where the Republicans attempted subvert a legal election

through the misuse of impeachment. That's what I think of when I see "Lewinsky."

You apparently think something very different.

[MannyGoldstein]

100. Ah, so it *was* the same Lewinsky.

IIRC, President Clinton at first denied he'd done anything wrong, finger a-waggin'. All seemed well.

Then suddenly, something happened, and the President came clean. What was that something, if you recall?

[msanthrope]

102. Manny...if you have a point about 20 year old blowjobs, why not

say it, rather than employing the Socratic method to get my opinion on them?

[MannyGoldstein]

104. I'm referring to evidence that turned up after the "exoneration"

But I suppose that all some people can think about is the sex.

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, unless it limits your life.

[msanthrope]

106. Manny...I have no idea what you are referring to. Why not write plainly

what you mean?

[jeff47]

85. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Wed Mar 4, 2015, 04:36 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yeah, remember when it turned out that Lewinsky's blue dress wasn't stained with...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6309136

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

It doesn't get any lower than this--even Rush Limbaugh doesn't use this crap against Hillary.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 4, 2015, 04:43 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hey look! An alert troll!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There's nothing untrue in the statement. Nothing outrageous about it. No over the top claims or language or any insulting of member.

I think the alerter needs an alerting over harassment of Manny.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: what?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ridiculous alert. Hide denied.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[MannyGoldstein]

101. Sometimes I wonder if I'm paranoid.

But not now!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

86. I learned I don't give a fuck about Lewinsky n/m

[LadyHawkAZ]

107. I learned that no one actually gave a fuck about the dress, or the blowjob.

No one except right wingers, that is.

How 'bout you?

[MannyGoldstein]

108. Bill Clinton cared about the dress

He confessed to lying once the dress surfaced.

I guess we agree that Bill's a right winger.

[sheshe2]

54. Kick and Hell Yes Recommend!

[OilemFirchen]

57. Hereinafter it's safe to assume that all new Hillary Clinton scandals...

are a direct result of the massive TurboTax hack.

[Hekate]

62. Kick to the Rec. There will be a new one every week, then every day.

And for those that believe this trash, as PT Barnum said, There's a sucker born every minute.

[KMOD]

63. K & R

[Cha]

67. K

[SidDithers]

79. DU rec...

The High King of Derp struck again..



Sid

[msanthrope]

80. You Better Believe It. nt

[NCTraveler]

81. That isn't how the outrage brigade works.

Hard to manifest preplanned outrage when one is also interested in learning and being correct.

[msanthrope]

82. kick......

[zappaman]

88. Rec and Kick! n/t

[Major Nikon]

103. Results...

I Would Have Waited 24 Business Hours.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026308394

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I agree with most on DU that Lewinski shouldn't be brought up withe regard to Hillary.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026313375

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 4, 2015, 08:20 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Looks like the alerter needs a nap.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just because someone writes something you find abhorrent doesn't mean you have to complain about it. This is the U.S.A, the last time I remembered. Let people say what they want to say. While they still can. Quit whining.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post has been here all afternoon and you alert on it now? This seems appropriate in the context of the post.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is the truth
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see no reason for a hide - just share that thought with the poster if it is important to you - don't needlessly alert
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[msanthrope]

105. Wow....good for the jury. Thank you! nt