Mark, did she answer all the questions out there with her news conference this week?

[whereisjustice]

MARK SHIELDS: No, of course not, Judy.
The questions will keep coming and keep coming. But there was one result of it that just hit me so hard. And that is the great advice, beware of any national leader — and I don’t limit this to Secretary Clinton, by any means — but who doesn’t have close to him or her contemporary friends and confidants who can tell them when necessary they’re absolutely wrong and go to hell.

And very few presidents — Jerry Ford did, to his everlasting credit. He was an enormously emotionally secure man. Ronald Reagan chose Jim Baker to be his chief of staff, who had run two campaigns against him, as examples of that sort of emotional security and stability.

I just ask Mrs. Clinton, who in your retinue, among your group of advisers, when you had the idea of having a personal computer e-mail service of your own, an individual one, who didn’t say, are you out of your “expletive deleted” mind? This is politically indefensible and probably morally indefensible and may be legally problematic.

And I guess that is what really bothers me. And I think that’s a question that persists even after all the details, whether the relevance or irrelevance of the e-mails turns out to be anything at all legally or substantively. That is a real problem.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-gerson-clintons-email-problem-senate-sabotage-iran-negotiations/

If you want to defend her against the indefensibale go right ahead. But let's be damn sure about one important fact.

This is NOT presidential behavior. Not for the USA, not for any government that claims to work on behalf of the citizens who elect them. This is the behavior of an self-serving, arrogant and unaccountable political class.

[pansypoo53219]

1. and so, the GOP wins again.

[aspirant]

3. No

America wins in the pursuit of truth.

[leveymg]

9. The GOP only wins if we don't come up with a viable candidate.

Hillary would appear to have disqualified herself from that group.

[merrily]

77. If by "we," you mean the Democratic Party, Hillary has been its choice, maybe since

she and Obama had that meeting in 2008.

She's been its obvious choice since at least 2012.

Doing all it can to avoid primaries has been its choice for longer than that.

If you are talking about we, as Democratic voters, I don't think we have a lot to say about who runs, who gets the support of the Party, its own purse, the purses of its loyal donor group and the campaign support of party stars like Obama and Bubba and, more recently, Warren (and therefore of the media) and who gets the opposition of all the foregoing. (Ask Lamont, Dean, Meek and Sestak if those things matter. )

Democrats who want to post about reforming the Party can do that and are doing that. Democrats who want actual reform in the Party need to start thinking of what is possible, likely, etc., then make a plan for pursuing that IRL.

[leveymg]

82. It's refreshing to read 100% realism, no denial added, for a change. n/t

[merrily]

83. Thank you. Funny is my first choice. Real is my second.

[leveymg]

84. You can't be really funny unless you're real.

At the heart of every good joke is a taboo truth. Not every joke that gets a laugh, however, is any good.

I was thinking of illustrating that, but know you don't need the comic book version.

[merrily]

85. In person, I'm funnier (I hope) than I am on a political message board.

Politics these days does not seem very funny to me.

[blm]

91. Personally I'd love to see Warren run because I do believe she can win

and she fits very close with my personal beliefs, along with Bernie Sanders.

But I am fully prepared to defeat the GOP nominee who will probably be named Bush.

The BEST thing I can see from a match up of Bush v Clinton is this SIMPLE TRUTH about what voters will actually be feeling during the campaigns and on election day - Which WH would they re-install given the choice between Bush and Clinton? That is the actual question that the the majority of presidential year voters will be considering, much more simple than various policy details. I also think that is what will matter all the way down the ticket in 2016 which will include many progressive, populist Dem candidates.

[whereisjustice]

12. 100% pure echo chamber bullshit. You better give people a better reason to have only Hillary around

If conservative Democrats like yourself don't want to lose elections, you better start representing liberals.

[merrily]

78. People like the Koch brothers win biggest when Democrats go right.

That's why they donated to the DLC and sat on Executive Committee while deciding the GOP could also benefit from a party within a party.

BTW, your kind of argument would seem better suited for the Hillary Group or GD than for this group. I wouldn't make this post in the Hillary Group because members of that group should not have to face the same kinds of posts within that group as they face in GD. Similarly, this group is supposed to be a safe haven for those who think DLC/Third Way/No Labels, et al. represent a bad direction for the Democratic Party.

[rhett o rick]

104. What a sad defense for her behavior. "We must overlook what she did so we can

defeat the GOP." Do you think that winning is more important than having principles? The ends justify the means?

But worse is your implication (funny how implication is the only way people try to defend HRC) that she is our only hope. First of all she isn't a shoo-in against Bush. Secondly the grass-roots Democrats are tired of the status quo and the Third Way politics and are looking for change.

[Fairgo]

112. Second that for the third time

There is a hollowness to the argument that is more dangerous than an outright attack from the right. When we identify with the color of the flag rather than the values it represents, we become ethically unmoored. Eventually idealism is replaced by a relativism of personality that co-opts critical thought. I want a benchmark of core values and a platform of kpi's against which all comers are assayed...names, hair cuts, catch phrases, nicknames, and uniforms mean nothing to me. To argue that we cannot have someone who would measure up to our values and vision because they are not marketable is the final con of this hollow politic. It's exactly backward. Find the person who will be the best servant to the platform, and the marketing will take care of itself.

[blm]

2. It's only presidential when Bush, Cheney, Rove did it. Ever try media comparisons

of the number of press stories when it was learned that Bush WH not only Destroyed millions of emails, but, were also primarily using private RNC servers to email?

NYT gave it a paragraph.

The story was largely ignored.

9-11, Iraq war, Plame outing, US attorney firings. I refuse to buy into the hype from corpmedia and GOP who barely suppressed a yawn when Bush did FAR, FAR worse. There is nothing reBenghazi to be found at State - Gen. Petraeus was in charge of Benghazi - it was a covert CIA operation and Petraeus had dozens of agents and operatives on the ground there before, during and after the attack.

Keeping the focus only on HRC and State is pure political opportunism.

[aspirant]

5. Truth has a way of expanding

and shining a revealing light.

[whereisjustice]

11. It is entirely appropraite to keep the focus on the party nominee whose "they did it too"

defense is childishness. If Democrats want their candidates to emulate Republicans, then they should vote Republican and stop trying to make Democrats accept Republican behavior as something that must be defended at all costs.

[blm]

13. I don't buy that spin - The criticism was of the media's approach to both.

What do you think of the media's focus on this relatively small infraction in light of the enormity of the email issues from Bush WH that were roundly ignored?

What do you think of this email matter being blown up to continue Benghazi probe that would be RIGHTLY focused, not on State, but on CIA and Petraeus IF it was to be seen as a credible probe and NOT just political opportunism, and standing on top of 4 dead bodies to exploit the political opportunity?

[RiverLover]

14. Did the Bush WH have an offical .gov email address or did they do all of their email

through a private email account on a private server located off the WH grounds, while accepting private donations to their charity from foreign countries & corporations?

I think Bush is one of the worst things to ever happen to our country. Both Bushes & Fox "News" all tied at the top of that list for me. But there is NO excusing what Hillary has done. And now our party has made the incredibly poor decision to ride this out with her as our only real contender for 2016.

We've got some court cases that will be decided, coinciding with the primaries. Think about that. And think about what could happen if she has to turn over the server & what might come to light from that...

Its shameful. Looking back, so many people are going to be so sorry to have taken this path. Not just the Clintons.

[blm]

16. Bush WH used the RNCs server for a great deal of their emails. Guess corpmedia isn't

mentioning it as important so, I understand why you need to ask.

See - none of those emails were read by investigators looking into 9-11, or Iraq war buildup, or Plame outing, or US attorney firings.

But, by all means, let's cheer the corpmedia on as they keep turning up the heat under this small hill of beans being blown up a fake Benghazi 'investigation', even after they spent years yawning over lost and destroyed emails and private servers when it was Bush WH they were covering.

[whereisjustice]

15. She made a choice - her paranoia & personal convenience was worth the damage to the Democratic Party

it was a case of horrible judgement and should not be dismissed.

Every low level Government employee knows they cannot use their own email accounts for Gov. business.

But in typical Clinton fashion, she made the determination that her self-interests are more important than those of 300 million Amercicans and gave a giant FUCK YOU to the Democratic Party reformers and populists, although clearly the far right wing conservatives like yourself see absolutely nothing wrong with allowing Gov. officials to destroy inconvenient emails.

The only one bringing up Benghazi in this thread is you.

[blm]

17. I said exactly why the Benghazi committee is keeping focus on HRC and her emails instead of

where it belongs.

It's all part of the same story.

And now you claim I'm a far right wing conservative? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

And you came to that conclusion using your considerable comprehension skills that you applied to the email story, too, eh?

[whereisjustice]

18. The morality is simple - should she have used a private email server and allow

only herself to decide what emails should be turned over to archives or not? Should she have placed her own self-interests above those of the Democratic Party? Do you think we are better off having public officials maintaining keeping public records away from the public or not? Do you think that as someone accepting money from foreign governments while acting as Sec. of State is moral and ethical?

To pretend that this is some sort of academic question of no relevance to Democratic government reveals you as a far right wing conservative. No one who has the best interests of the American people in mind would defend her actions.

[blm]

20. LOLOL - I do know what I am seeing here…..

and I don't think it smells right.

I've been one of the top anti-corruption posters here for over a decade. Anyone who blows up something small and not even illegal at the time, while refusing to acknowledge the EXACT SAME PRESS ignored far worse from Bush WH who actually DID commit illegal acts that cost 100s of thousands of lives, and cost trillions of dollars, is abetting the REAL privileged elites and accepting the spin of the REAL privileged elites who are paying handsomely for their spin to be posted in social media.

Your 'far right wing conservative' swipe reeks of desperate deflection.

And I am not even an HRC supporter and have been one of her staunchest critics here at DU for a decade. The difference is, I don't push the GOP talking points, and I employ perspective. I won't claim that the enormous volume of crimes committed by Bush WH is 'no different' than a private email server that wasn't even illegal for the SoS to use. Bad judgement, possibly, but not illegal.

I know 99 - 1 isn't a tie score. The 'no difference' crowd sez it's a tie. I can't even pretend that level of ignorance. You seem to be happy with it, though.

[whereisjustice]

21. Answer the question. Was it moral and ethical to hide public transactions as a public official?

The only ones who believe this is an irrelevant academic concern are right wingers.

And we know Hillary is economically and militarily deferential to the far right.

That's not leaning in, that's leaning to the far right.

[blm]

22. You didn't answer anything I said yet petulantly demand answers?

You're acting more like a spoiled tactician than a discussion forum poster.

It's clear she did what others did with her use of private email - it should have been wrong for anyone. But, it wasn't for her SOS emails.

I also don't expect you to deliver any perspective regarding the corpmedia's motivation in how they are choosing to handle these emails given the way they handled the story of MILLIONS of Bush's WH emails that were deliberately DESTROYED.

Not buying your BS labeling of me as a RWer - reeks of desperate deflection.

Only far right wing conservatives or libertarian Waterbuddha fans go to left forums posing as progressives so they can attack Democrats under cover. Sure sign is that while they are pointing out flaws in Democrats, they persistently avoid applying perspective or comparisons with Republican crimes of office and against the constitution.

We've been aware of the tactic since Nixon's Republican operatives infiltrated Vietnam Vets Against the War.

Same as it ever was.

[whereisjustice]

23. Does she represent the Democratic Party or herself? Was it moral or ethical?

That is the premise of my OP. You decided to change the topic to Benghazi and Republicans.

I'm not going to discuss Benghazi on this thread.

1. Conservative Democrats using the defense that Republicans do it are simply acknowledging that differences between the two parties are closer than they appear.

2. Conservative Democrats saying they don't care if she runs her own email service for public business are the same ones who defend the NSA spying on US citizens by claiming the constitution is quaint and out of date.

3. She isn't even president, yet conservative Democrats want everyone to line up with unchallenged support of the presumed nominee for president no matter how foolishly she behaves. Past and present behavior is a good indication of future behavior.

4. Now, regardless of all that, this is my OP, I will decide what the topic is. The topic is not Benghazi or whatever it is you are rambling on about.

So, answer my questions about ethics and morality and their applicability to the Democratic Party or go away.

[blm]

74. The search about the emails is because of Benghazi - Big picture

You can feed into the horsepoo all you want, but, expect backlash from those who won't play your 'no difference' game.
So, deal with that….or go away.

[Thor_MN]

80. She made a choice of following the standard practice at the time.

Calling a horrible choice in the hindsight of what data practices are today is utter bullshit.

And dragging it out endlessly is the goal of the GOP. Wonder how much that pays, to keep rehashing lame talking points?

[whereisjustice]

86. Defending the excuse of horrible ethics and morals by claiming "everyone was doing it"

just makes her less likely to be the Democratic Party nominee. This is what happens when Democratic conservatives collect a lot of money from Wall Street banks, and foist a prickly candidate with triangulating principles on us and ordering us to support them.

This is a problem of her own making and if she wasn't smart enough to understand what a STUPID idea it was to not only run her own server, but to not archive them according to regulations then she does not deserve the nomination.

We've seen it before

1. Do something unethical.

2. Deny you've done anything unethical.

3. Drag your dead mother into it (this is a new low).

4. Admit that you did what you are accused of, but argue over the semantics of the rules

5. The Democratic Party uses up all good will, finacial capital and political capital defending her.

6. We are set back for a decade or so.

She's not worth it.

[Thor_MN]

90. And the GOP thanks you for doing their dirty work.

[rhett o rick]

105. You must recognize how silly that statement really is. But I guess it's all you've

got. The GOP are stupid. If they were smart they'd recognize that HRC agrees with them on foreign policy, economics and the heavy handed Security State.

[Thor_MN]

107. You can't possibly be be even close to serious.

If there is some intended humor or sarcasm in your post, it failed miserably.

The GOP is fighting tooth and nail to discredit her. And using tax dollars to do it. Helping them discredit her is helping them with their goal.

Hey, if people have "another candidate", bring them on. I like options, but at this point, no one is stepping up. So what we have is a bunch of supposed Democrats, helping the GOP destroy one of our candidates.

[rhett o rick]

108. I don't buy your, "the enemy of my ememy is my friend", crap. The Republicons are stupid and

don't realize that their enemy agrees with them on everything but social issues. They don't realize that when the chips were down, she dumped the Democratic Party as fast as she could and not only supported the Republicons and their worst decision in our history, SHE LITERALLY HELPED THEM SELL THE LIES. Many that didn't trust Bush and Cheney did trust her and yet she betrayed them leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. People died, I can't get over how people can pretend that didn't happen, that she doesn't share responsibility. I thought it was only the Republicons that would sell their souls for a victory, but nope, some Democrats are also willing.

[Thor_MN]

109. So you don't buy that people doing the exact same thing are helping each other?

I'm not suggesting any collusion, just that if one isn't getting any benefit for doing the work, they are doing the job for free.

I'm not defending Hillary, just damn sick of seeing supposed Democrats feverishly working the same talking points as the GOP.

[rhett o rick]

110. I don't buy your logic that if the Republicons don't like HRC then I must

keep quiet. I really don't "keep quiet" very well and I'm not a fracking "supposed" Democrat. I am a Democrat and question those that are willing to overlook H. Clinton's 2002 betrayal. "It's ok that she helped George W. Bush kill thousands or hundreds of thousands." No it isn't ok. She must accept her responsibility.

Now while the Third Way / DLC / New Democrats all love HRC, the progressive Democrats don't. Maybe we should be looking for a candidate we can all like?

[merrily]

79. Not unnoticed AT ALL. Democrats, including Hillary, condemned Bush the Lesser over that

She said the Constitution was being shredded. She also directed the other people at State to use government servers. This is typical of Hillary thinking that the rules that others should follow are for, well, others while she gets to do whatever she thinks is best for her.

Please also see Reply 78.

[blm]

88. The corporate MEDIA did. Perhaps you can explain the discrepancy in their

wall to wall coverage of something that was not illegal and their near silence over the millions of emails destroyed, 'lost', or redirected to RNC server during the Bush years which skirted investigations into 9-11, Iraq war buildup, Plame outing, and US attorney firings?

Try to apply a sense of PERSPECTIVE in your reply. I don't buy the 99 equals 1 theory of the 'no difference' crowd.

[merrily]

92. Not really. Also I didn't say "no difference," but you said "unnoticed."

Speaking of "no difference," there definitely is a difference between "unnoticed" and "not emphasized as much."

I am not sure how you define "corporate media," but I don't think media ignored the Bush thing either, or I would not have heard of it at the time and I did hear of it then. I am not even sure that the media actually did make that much less of the Bush thing.

[blm]

93. It most certainly did ignore the enormity of the Bush WH emails.

If you are not sure the media made less of the Bush emails, then perhaps you should research the difference before you criticize those of us who DO pay close attention to media bias and supported the work of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Media) for over 2 decades.

[merrily]

94. Again, "ignored" and "made less of" are not synonyms.

[blm]

95. In newsmedia, when the probing articles are 100-1, yes, it's ignoring the ENORMITY

of the story.

Simple question, do you even recall any widespread coverage of the Bush WH emails story? According to your previous relies the answer would be NO. Most people don't because the volume was never raised and widespread coverage NEVER materialized, so, most media isn't even bringing up comparisons to the Bush WH in this story. 10 years down the road we will all remember the widespread coverage of the Clinton emails because of the sheer VOLUME.

[merrily]

96. It's not "unnoticed" either, though I guess you edited after my replies.

[blm]

97. It was by you, apparently, someone who considers yourself informed.

No wonder most Americans and most current media figures don't even think to mention it.

Congratulations on your level of focus to SERIOUS crimes of office while you pay utmost attention to something not even considered illegal.

Now, who does that?

[merrily]

98. No, Bush's deletions were not unnoticed by me--because media reported on them.

I already stated that upthread, so you knew when you wrote that post that Bush's deletions had not gone unnoticed by me.

And you have no clue what I do and do not consider myself.

Congratulations on your level of focus to SERIOUS crimes of office while you pay utmost attention to something not even considered illegal.

Please stop BSing about me. In fact, stop talking me. If you have to make up stuff about me to prove your point about media coverage, then something is very wrong.

[blm]

99. To what degree? When media volume goes to 100 on this story and 1 on those

of SERIOUS crimes of office, then why do you go along with the professional perception shapers?

[merrily]

100. Still prefer going ad hom to discussing issues. How boring and ineffective!

[blm]

101. Wrong - it's the reality of US news media.

And THAT is far more dangerous to democracy, itself, than this particular batch of emails.

If you have the guts to cut to your bottom line than be forthright about it - This batch of Clinton emails is a FAR bigger story for news media than anything pertaining to the Bush WH emails and the enormous discrepancy in coverage is warranted. Just come out and agree with the media's approach openly instead of skirting around it - you ACCEPT the discrepancy and see it as appropriate.

Media Matters:
>>>
Looking back, it's curious how the D.C. scandal machine could barely get out of first gear when the Bush email story broke in 2007. I'm not suggesting the press ignored the Rove email debacle, because the story was clearly covered at the time. But triggering a firestorm (a guttural roar) that raged for days and consumed the Beltway chattering class the way the D.C. media has become obsessed with the Clinton email story? Absolutely not. Not even close.

Instead, the millions of missing Bush White House emails were treated as a 24-hour or 48-hour story. It was a subject that was dutifully noted, and then the media pack quickly moved on.

How did the Washington Post and New York Times commentators deal with the Bush email scandal in the week following the confirmation of the missing messages? In his April 17, 2007 column, Post columnist Eugene Robinson hit the White House hard. But he was the only Post columnist to do so. On the editorial page, the Post cautioned that the story of millions of missing White House emails might not really be a "scandal." Instead, it was possible, the Post suggested, that Rove and others simply received "sloppy guidance" regarding email protocol.

There's been no such Post inclination to give Clinton any sort of benefit of the doubt regarding email use as the paper piles up endless attacks on her. Dana Milbank: "Clinton made a whopper of an error." Ruth Marcus: "This has the distinct odor of hogwash."

As for The New York Times, here's the entirety of the newspaper's commentary on the Bush White House email story in the week following the revelation, according to Nexis:

---
Last week, the Republican National Committee threw up another roadblock, claiming it had lost four years' worth of e-mail messages by Karl Rove that were sent on a Republican Party account. Those messages, officials admitted, could include some about the United States attorneys. It is virtually impossible to erase e-mail messages fully, and the claims that they are gone are not credible.
---

Three sentences from a single, unsigned editorial. That's it. No Times columnists addressed the topic. By comparison, in the week since the Clinton story broke, the Times has published one editorial dedicated solely to the subject, and no less than five opinion columns addressing the controversy.

Just to repeat: In 2007, the story was about millions of missing White House emails that were sought in connection to a Congressional investigation. Yet somehow the archiving of Clinton's emails today requires exponentially more coverage, and exceedingly more critical coverage.
>>>>>

[merrily]

114. Thanks so much for implying that I lack courage and integrity, yet without proving

that anything I posted was factually wrong or lacking in integrity.

[CrispyQ]

81. The media is just one aspect of our electoral process that needs overhauling.

I half suspect that they've realized they won't get as much advertising dollars from the democratic party if HRC is the shoe-in for the nomination. Start trashing her now, so the dems feel they have to put up more candidates & then the candidates will have to spend money on TV advertising.


Our electoral process a convoluted, fucked up mess all tied to profit.

I am so sick of living in an everything-for-profit system.

[blm]

89. I hadn't thought of that - it is such a simple truth.

Salute.

Hope you make that into a thread in GD.

[leftofcool]

4. Oh Goody! Another anti-Hillary thread I get to trash! Keep em comin'!

[aspirant]

7. Be careful

This PRG, a group not GD, discussing and debating YES, trashing NO

[whereisjustice]

10. Well fuck me for demanding our leaders behave like real people instead of prima donnas.

The Hillary crowd believes Hillary exists for us to spend all of our limited resources supporting her.

Fuck that and the $300,000 per speech she rode in on.

[840high]

27. ...^ that

[aspirant]

8. Political press conferences have 3 results

First and best = ends with the politician asking "are there any more questions" and the room is silent

Secondly and incomplete = the handlers pull him/her away from the microphone when the room is still resounding with questions

Lastly and unacceptable to the people = NO press conferences at all, just plain mystery.

[GeorgeGist]

19. Jim Baker?

Bwahahahaha. That's rich.

[NYC_SKP]

24. No, not presidential, more like Russian Emperor or Royal Monarch behavior. She is disqualified.

She is simply not qualified.

[eppur_se_muova]

25. "Remember Caesar, thou art mortal." nt

[MADem]

26. Horseshit.

George W. Bush's White House DESTROYED five MILLION emails.

Didn't see you lining up to cry about that...!

[whereisjustice]

28. Horseshit your horseshit. Democrats acting like Republicans SUCK. Just because a douchebag like Bush

does it, doesn't mean everyone gets to do it.

It's never been easier to tell the difference between wrong and right.

That's because BOTH parties are moving farther and farther away from doing the right thing and clsoer to doing the wrong thing for political expedience.

You've just moved the two parties even closer together than I thought possible.

Goddamn it if every fucking apologist for spying, war, torture, big oil, PhARMA, Monsanto doesn't suck another million votes out of the Democratic Party.

After kicking ethics and morals out in the street and claiming to play by Republican rules, you'll foist an ill-suited candidate like Hillary at us and be the first to whine about Democrats not voting.

Way to GOTV.

[MADem]

29. She did nothing wrong. She did nothing illegal.

Why are you pretending that she did? She complied with regulations. Bush didn't. Why are you creating a false equivalency when there isn't one? You're proud of mischaracterizing her, too, apparently.

Why are you beating this dead horse, over and over again?

Way to GOTV indeed. You win the prize.

[whereisjustice]

32. Bullshit. She did something wrong! You sound like Goldman Sachs defending mortgage fraud

Tell me what is morally and ethically correct about her behavior? Every low level Govt. employee would get reprimanded for running heir own email server for official business.

Stop defending the morally and ethically bankrupt elite political class from the same rules that the 100s of millions of people have to follow.

Just goes to show how low Democratic Party has fallen. You should be ashamed for defending the practice of "self-regulation" just like the Republicans. On the right-wing wing detecto-meter you are pegging it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-emails-timeline-rules-allegedly/story?id=29442707

2000

Hillary Clinton was recorded telling a donor that she didn't like using email.

Home video footage from 2000, shot at a fundraiser by a donor, Peter Paul, showed then-Sen. Clinton talking about how she had chosen to avoid email for fear of leaving a paper trail.

"As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I?-- I don’t even want-- Why would I ever want to do e-mail?" Clinton said.

"Can you imagine?" she asked.

2005

The Foreign Affairs Manual was codified by the State Department, which ruled in 2005 that employees could only use private email accounts for official business if they turned those emails over to be entered into government computers.

That ruling also forbade State Department employees from including "sensitive but unclassified" information on private email, except for some very narrow exceptions.

2007

In the midst of the 2008 presidential race, Clinton took a jab at the Bush administration's use of non-governmental email accounts.

"Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps. We know about secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," Clinton said in a 2007 campaign speech.

2008

Much of the mystery surrounding Clinton’s emails came from the fact that an IP address associated with the clintonemail.com domain she is believed to have used was registered to a person named Eric Hoteham on Feb. 1, 2008. No public records matching that individual can be found and it is possible that it was simply a misspelling of the name Eric Hothem, a former aide to Clinton while she was first lady. An Eric Hothem is now listed as an employee at JP Morgan in Washington, D.C.

The IP address for clintonemail.com, along with others registered in Hoteham’s name, are all connected to the Clinton’s address in Chappaqua, New York.

2009

Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to former President Bill Clinton, registered the clintonemail.com domain on Jan. 13, a little more than a week before Hillary Clinton took office as secretary of state on Jan. 21.

It was also a year when another rule went into place regarding the use of private email. According to the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations in 2009, if an agency allows its employees to use a personal email account, it must ensure that the emails are “preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”

[MADem]

33. No, she did nothing wrong. The archivist of the United States is satisfied with her

preservation of the documents, so your scary bolding is simply an internet-tough-guy way of tossing unrelated shit into the mix.

It does not apply to her.

FAIL.

[whereisjustice]

45. nonsense, here's what was said on the record

Clinton admitted her decision to carry one smartphone device rather than two during her tenure as secretary of state might have been a mistake. Apart from that, though, Clinton maintained her conduct regarding her email was by the book.

Others aren't so sure. For instance, Clinton said it was "undisputed" that "the laws and regulations in effect" when she was secretary of state allowed her to use her personal email account for work. Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University in D.C., disagreed. He said the Federal Records Act of 2009 "in effect discouraged the use of personal email for official business."

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/11/392375453/hillary-clinton-defends-private-email-use-under-state-dept-rules

First, it’s important to note that NARA guidance confirms that email messages constituted federal records at the time Clinton used her personal email while conducting official business. The guidance (on the books at the time) stated “E-mail messages are records when their content (including attachments) meets the definition of a record under the Federal Records Act. See also 36 CFR 1236, and specifically 36 CFR 1236.22, which provides additional requirements for electronic mail.” https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/analysis-of-the-state-department-emails-in-hillary-clintons-possession-and-much-more-frinformsum-352015/

Now, answer the question - is it moral and ethical for Sec. of State to self-regulate and determine what and what shall not be preserved of her regular state dept. communications?

[MADem]

46. I can't "answer the question" because she did NOTHING that was immoral or unethical--or ILLEGAL.

Stop throwing non-applicable laws up there to try and make your case. You're failing and flailing when you do that. And, news flash--it is up to the person creating the records to be "the decider" as to what should be archived. So, sorry, Charlie--that tuna just ain't good enough for Starkist!

Should I listen to the archivist of the United States, who is familiar with the applicable law....or someone who is spouting the same mendacious shit that right wing trash sites like the Daily Caller and Brietbart are spouting?

Oh gee, so hard to choose!

[whereisjustice]

47. Is it moral and ethical for public officials to keep public records private and decide which ones

should be archived?

Answer the question.

And, btw, she did, in fact, violate record keeping regulations.

[MADem]

49. According to the Archivist of the United States, the answer is YES.

I will believe the judgment of the archivist of the United States before I will believe people who are repeating right wing memes.

[whereisjustice]

50. Clinton violated record keeping regulations, where does the "national archivist" say

it is moral and ethical for public officials to keep public records private until requested and then public officials may filter and decide which records to release from their own private record keeping system?

You are just digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. I don't mind you defending Hillary. I mind you lying.

By the time Clinton took office, federal expectations for archiving electronic records were clearer than they were under Powell’s tenure. That does not absolve Powell for not being able to locate his records a decade later, or for not turning them over to National Archives back then. But it does mean that Clinton was held to a more definitive standard. Moreover, this common defense among her supporters is used to deflect the central issue: that Clinton exclusively used a personal account, and did not provide records until she was requested to, after she left office. That is the most relevant point, so the Democrats earn Three Pinocchios.
Three Pinocchios


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/10/the-misleading-democratic-spin-on-hillary-clintons-emails/

[MADem]

51. He said she broke no laws and violated no rules. I'll believe him before I believe

newspapers with spurious agendas.

He's a government official, and it's his JOB to know what the rules are. So, nice day, have one--but the only interpretation that counts is his.

[whereisjustice]

52. lmao - really? Where is this quote you are referring to? There is no such quote from national

archives regarding this latest Clinton fuck up. You are making shit up.

[MADem]

55. Now you're being rude and disruptive and accusatory. Smooth move!

You need to do some reading -- at places other than Drudge. And you shouldn't call people liars--it's UNCIVIL.


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-03/hillary-clinton-camp-pushes-back-on-email-story

The aide also said that assertions from the New York Times and others that different records rules applied to Clinton than to her predecessors is wrong, since the National Archives and Records Administration did not issue guidance updating its rules until fall 2013, months after she left office. The same rules applied to Clinton as had applied to Powell.

While NARA’s preference is that officials not use an e-mail alias, Archivist of the United States David Ferriero said in sworn testimony in 2013 that “nothing in the law that prohibits them.”

“We don’t care how many accounts you have as long as those on which you’re doing federal business are captured for the record.”

David Ferriero, National Archives and Records Administration

I'd say someone "fucked up" (to quote YOU) here, and it ain't Clinton. Now get over yourself and stop throwing insults -- it's no substitute for facts, and you're woefully short of those.

[whereisjustice]

56. Nope. Where does he say Hillary did nothing wrong regarding latest revelations? Waiting....

I get the feeling that it's gonna be a long wait.

[whereisjustice]

57. lol- using an "alias" or "multiple accounts" is absolutely not the same as a private email server

you are misunderstanding how email works and misquoting this man and using an old quote from 2013 to defend the indefensible practice of private email and holding on to public records long after leaving office.

He is referring to using an alias and multiple accounts ON AN APPROVED EMAIL SYSTEM THAT HAS APPROVED ARCHIVAL PROCESS.

Hillary had none of the above.

Doesn't matter if its a republican or democrat, it is absolutely 100% wrong.

Funny how you don't like "spurious newspaper reports" and then defined Hillary with exactly that.

I even posted the EXACT regulation she violated while she a public official.

She was wrong. by denying her error, she's just making things worse.

What next, is she going to argue about what the meaning of the word "is" is?

[MADem]

58. No, I am not. You're the one who has it wrong.

The regulation you proudly posted had no clear guidance on email. That's why Obama signed a new one in 2014 specifically addressing email.

Hint, hint--Clinton was GONE from SECSTATE when he signed it, too.

You need to get over yourself, stop being rude, and stop behaving in an uncivil manner. You aren't making your case.

Here--more light reading for you--from a source that knows more than you do on the topic:

http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2015/nr15-23.html

Major updates to the Presidential and Federal Records Acts include:

Strengthening the Federal Records Act by expanding the definition of Federal records to clearly include electronic records. This is the first change to the definition of a Federal record since the enactment of the act in 1950.

Now step off.

[whereisjustice]

61. Until you provide the quote where the national archivist says Hillary did nothing wrong, you are

simply making shit up.

Here is the regulation that Hillary violated. 2009.

This is the CFR of record. It is a fact. She violated this CFR.

You can say you don't care, but it is a fact she violated this very clear regulation.

[MADem]

64. Calling me a liar again? Keep it up!

She did that. She provided hard copies of all her work emails to State. That's how they were preserving them when she was there.

Stop tossing up a highlighted page of a regulation and expecting me to get excited about it. Just because someone used a blue highlighter, so what?

Get over yourself. She complied with the law. And even if she didn't (but she DID), she would not be frogmarched. I know that disappoints you, because every time I refute your assertions, with links, all you can do is stomp your foot and whine that I'm "making shit up." This kind of pouting doesn't acquit you well at all.

The Federal Records Act requires agency heads to "preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures and essential transactions of the agency." But the law doesn't spell out any consequences for violations — nor is it apparent Clinton violated the letter (if not the spirit) of the law.
"There's not any blanket prohibition on any federal employee from using a personal email account to conduct government business," said Potomac Law Group partner Neil Koslowe, a former Justice Department special litigation counsel who has worked on cases involving the Federal Records Act.

Read more: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202719885284/Clinton-Legal-Liability-Small-In-Email-Mess#ixzz3UQmpFztu

[whereisjustice]

66. Show me anytime in the last 12 months

where the National Archivist said Hillary did nothing wrong. I want the quote where he said it.

Until then, you are making shit up.

Here's what I found. This is far from the endorsement of Hillary's behavior as you claim.

Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University in D.C., disagreed. He said the Federal Records Act of 2009 "in effect discouraged the use of personal email for official business."

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/11/392375453/hillary-clinton-defends-private-email-use-under-state-dept-rules

[MADem]

67. He made the statement in sworn testimony in 2013. That was clear from my link.

You keep whining and moving your little goalposts. I've provided you with cites, try reading them for a change.

And maybe you need to look up the word "discouraged." It apparently doesn't mean what you think it means.

You want her brought up on charges that she wasn't "discouraged?" Please.

You're done.

[whereisjustice]

68. Where is the quote where he said Hillary did nothing wrong. I want that quote not some generic

quote about email. I want to see where he said Hillary did nothing wrong.

Where is it?

[MADem]

69. Well, you can want in one hand....

I gave you the quote, and I told you the year. It applies to everyone in government service, including the SECSTATE.

Get over yourself.

[whereisjustice]

70. No. You said the National Archivist said Hillary did nothing wrong. Where is that quote?

Where is it? Or did you make some shit up?

[MADem]

71. He did. In sworn testimony in 2013. You are starting to sound like a broken record.

Get over yourself, and have a nice night.

[whereisjustice]

72. I want the quote where he said Hillary did nothing wrong. You can't find it. That's because

you made some shit up.

[MADem]

73. There you go, calling me a liar AGAIN. See post 71, again, and get over yourself, again. nt

[whereisjustice]

102. Do you even read what you post? He doesn't say "Hillary did nothing wrong."

by keeping state department emails on private server without any approved archiving system.

I want the quote that says he approved Hillary's system and she did nothing wrong.

You said he cleared Hillary of any wrong doing.

I want THAT quote, not some 2 year old bullshit quote that has no relevancy to Hilliary's latest fuck up. That quote you give does not say she did nothing wrong.

[MADem]

103. He didn't say "Every government official except the SECSTATE." You're flailing. Desperate.

I've told you, what, four times already, that you've gotten the quote. That quote related to every public official, INCLUDING Clinton. Too bad if you don't like that, that's the way it is, it's fact, it is sworn testimony, and you just need to get over yourself. It's amusing how you can't admit that you've been bested, and I haven't had to do stupid, childish, petulant things like engage in tough guy conduct OR call you a liar to do so.

Your Internet Tough Guy ways are evident for all to see--your hectoring, nasty, accusatory posts are part of the record here. Anyone reading your remarks in this thread can see them. When you can't make your point, you pivot and change the subject, you move the goalposts, you engage in name calling, bullying and hectoring...it's a classic tactic and I won't be cowed with that kind of immature crap--I see your game, and so does anyone else reading your rude, disruptive comments.

Since, as everyone can see, you've been relying on the NYT's slanted, inaccurate coverage for your sad little talking points (along with a few shopped by Brietbart, et.. al) , I think this link will get you up-to-date. Your sad little pooch ain't hunting:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/13/the-new-york-times-reverses-course-on-clintons/202894
The New York Times Reverses Course On Clinton's Emails After Public Editor Admits Fault In Reporting

...and neither are you. Major FAIL. Yet again.

[Divernan]

59. But HRC failed to capture her emails for the record.

You blatantly misquote the Archivist. First of all, he was testifying in 2013, and not addressing HRC's "I Was Not Having Contextual Relations With That Server" situation. Secondly, he specifically stated such accounts, must be CAPTURED FOR THE RECORD. That is what HRC deliberately neglected to do. Failing to turn over her emails FOR SIX YEARS and then only when she was publicly revealed to have failed to honor the letter and spirit of the requirement, does not satisfy that requirement. No wonder you failed to provide a link - you didn't have one to back up your claim. There were still requirements to preserve email records in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system before 2014.

Oct. 2, 2009: The U.S. Code of federal regulations on handling electronic records is updated: “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.” The responsibility for making and preserving the records is assigned to “the head of each federal agency.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/258284167/CoffinPDF-03052015-pdf

So as SecState, it was Clinton's responsibility to ensure proper recordkeeping. But she said (through a spokesman, because everything a Clinton says goes through a freaking spokesman) that she expected everything to a .gov address was being archived on the other end. There wasn't a response of "well, of course we are archiving everything on ClintonEmail.com!"

Great discussion of this situation on Friday's Diane Rehm show.

[MADem]

60. She sent her communications to State, where they were captured.

She maintained copies on her server, and sent the non-personal ones in.

And more to the point, the federal law everyone is screeching about did not specifically address email. Obama corrected that ... in 2014. AFTER Clinton left office.

http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2015/nr15-23.html

Major updates to the Presidential and Federal Records Acts include:

Strengthening the Federal Records Act by expanding the definition of Federal records to clearly include electronic records. This is the first change to the definition of a Federal record since the enactment of the act in 1950.

Here's more, since you won't be convinced by government regulations or the archivist of the US:

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/courts-litigation/id=1202719885284/Clinton-Legal-Liability-Small-In-Email-Mess?mcode=1202615549854&curindex=1&slreturn=20150215012155

The Federal Records Act requires agency heads to "preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures and essential transactions of the agency." But the law doesn't spell out any consequences for violations — nor is it apparent Clinton violated the letter (if not the spirit) of the law.
"There's not any blanket prohibition on any federal employee from using a personal email account to conduct government business," said Potomac Law Group partner Neil Koslowe, a former Justice Department special litigation counsel who has worked on cases involving the Federal Records Act.

[whereisjustice]

62. No she didn't. You are making things up. She did not copy .gov on every email. That's EXACTLY the

problem.

Making things worse, she used a crude automated filter to determine which emails would be turned over.

By the way, this is my thread and you are in a group. I think its clear for everyone to see that you are being disruptive and less than truthful.

[MADem]

106. You keep calling me a liar--but I'm not. Your incivility is noted, and sad.

This will get you up to speed.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/13/the-new-york-times-reverses-course-on-clintons/202894

Read it.

DU rules aren't exempted in a group. I don't think anyone approves of DUers calling other DUers liars.

[whereisjustice]

113. You attributed a quote to someone that was false. You made it up. What does that make you?

A story teller or a liar? Hillary has not been cleared of ANY wrong doing except in your own mind.

[aspirant]

34. Are you calling HRC a dead horse?

Do you hate Hill?

[MADem]

35. The dead horse is this bullshit claim.

Funny, the websites shopping these themes (Brietbart, Drudge, Daily Caller, e.g.) are all right wing.

Where could people be getting their "information" I have to wonder?

[aspirant]

36. So....

Last edited Sun Mar 15, 2015, 12:13 AM - Edit history (1)

only right-wingers use dead horse claims? Are you a right-winger?

[MADem]

37. No, but you are rude, disruptive and obvious. nt

[aspirant]

38. Is a dead horse always obvious

or could it be pretending. Are right-wingers sometimes pretenders too?

[whereisjustice]

63. This isn't general discussion. You are in a group. Behave yourself. You've been given far more

latitude to hurl around misinformation and bullshit than I am comfortable with and you are trashing my thread.

It's one thing to admit she did something wrong but you don't care.

It's quite another to deny the facts of her bad judgement and wrong behavior while denying the damage to her credibility and the Democratic Party.

[rhett o rick]

111. I agree completely. nm

[malokvale77]

40. Horseshit my ass.

It's the ammunition she keeps feeding the opposition.

Obama beat her with it. She is too mistake prone.

How do you know the OP wasn't crying over W's destroyed emails? Because you didn't see him/her lining up to cry. As a matter of fact, I didn't see you in that line either.

[MADem]

41. I was in that line--when it happened, too. nt

[malokvale77]

42. I'm glad to hear it.

I've been in line bemoaning every administration since they killed JFK (accept Carter's).

Is it too much to ask to have an administration that we don't have to line up and cry over?

[MADem]

43. Clinton did nothing wrong.

Stop carrying and dispensing the false narrative that she did.

Is THAT too much to ask? Apparently, so. The Daily Caller gets more play here than the Archivist of the United States.

[malokvale77]

44. I never said she did anything wrong.

I said she gives the opposition ammunition. There is a difference.

I don't carry or dispense the false narrative you accuse me of.

I do however believe, she will never inspire independents or fence sitters to vote for her. Obama managed to do both.

PS: I haven't ever read The Daily Caller. I assume that is your idea of a joke. Haha.

[tularetom]

30. "Hillary in 2016! Sure she made some mistakes but she's not as bad as Bush!"

That should get undecided voters out to the polls, don't you think?

[whereisjustice]

31. and we'll spend every goddamn dime and every human resource cleaning up after the mess she makes...

for the entire four years she is in office, meaning ZERO progress.

[malokvale77]

39. This kind of decision making on her part...

shows she is not "the most qualified person to ever run for President" as some on DU seem to think.

[whereisjustice]

48. we'll spend every last bit of political capital bailing her ass out every few months

she isn't worth it. Let her get by on $300,000 speaking fees. She doesn't need the presidency to boost her net worth.

[malokvale77]

53. We damn sure don't need a candidate with the same political garbage as the GOP candidate.

The Democratic Party can do so much better. What the hell is everyone so afraid of?

Hillary would never have been more than a Walmart lawyer had she not married Bill Clinton.

Being First Lady gave her a voice she would not have had otherwise. She is no Eleanor Roosevelt.

She is weak when it comes to campaigning, and will make too many mistakes.

There are plenty people in the party that believe in women's rights with the added advantage of belief in the rights of labor, the poor, the disadvantaged, and who are not oligarchic war mongers.

[whereisjustice]

54. +1 thank you for very good summary

[lumpy]

65. Must be love.....

[Divernan]

76. Diane Rehm & her distinguished guests back you up 100%, whereisjustice

I refer everyone to this video of this past week's Friday News Roundup on NPR/Diane Rehm, with her distinguished guests

(1) John Dickerson chief political correspondent for Slate magazine and political director for CBS. Author of "On Her Trail: My Mother, Nancy Dickerson, TV News' First Woman Star."
(2) John Prideaux washington correspondent, The Economist.
(3) Karen Tumulty national political reporter, The Washington Post.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-03-13/friday-news-roundup-domestic

They start discussing HRC and her ineffectual and inept handling of whole email debacle at 24:20 on the video.

What's a poor Hill Fan to do? Desperately shriek that Diane Rehm, the Washington Post, The Economist and Slate are all right wing sources?

It's an excellent discussion of all the ways HRC is in trouble with her blundering attempts to spin her self-regulated document dump, SIX YEARS AFTER THE FACT, as complying with the regulations in place while she was SOS - AND the fact that this matter will take months to get sorted. And that her paranoid insecurity is her own worst enemy and the reason she seems incapable of transparency.

Anyone else reminded of the attempted early spin on the Watergate breakin? Nothing here - just move along. But then along came Martha Mitchell. A grateful nation thanks you, Martha.

When the Watergate scandal broke, it was Martha Mitchell, wife of Attorney General, John Mitchell and who was often self-medicated with martinis, who started calling up reporters about her fears that Mitchell was being set up as a scapegoat. The Mitchells lived at the Watergate at that time. Among those reporters were Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. She didn’t know how much John was really involved.

When it became apparent to Nixon and Mitchell that she couldn’t be shut up, they had her kidnapped and medicated. She still managed to call a reporter in the middle of the night about the incident. Well, the rest as they say is history.

Is there anyone involved in Hillary's document dump who will step forward? What about senders or recipients of incendiary or politically sensitive emails to her personal account? Just because Hillary "disappeared" incriminating emails from her server in no way guarantees they won't be revealed by others. As many have speculated, the GOP will hold on to any they discover until the election campaign. Perhaps save them to spring on her in the midst of a nationally televised presidential debate. Now, more than ever, her candidacy would be a train wreck waiting to happen.

[whereisjustice]

87. Thanks, The Democratic National Committee seems prepared to use every last resource not

defending values and principles, fighting for equality and justice, - for example they could chose to prosecute Ferguson under racketeering and corruption laws.

We are defending the tortured ethics of the Hillary R. Clinton.

They consider this progress.

If Clinton is the role model for a new generation of Democrats, we are fucked.