So let me get this entirely straight (re: the Clinton email story)

[WilliamPitt]

The Daily Beast has apparently published a report that substantially undermines the NYT story on Hillary Clinton's email habits while at State. Fair enough, we'll let that play out.

Fact:

Because she didn't abuse the email rules doesn't mean she didn't vote for the Patriot Act (like a Republican);

Didn't vote for the Iraq War (like a Republican);

Didn't push the Keystone XL pipeline (like a Republican);

And isn't in bed with Goldman Sachs and their criminal friends.

Like a Republican.

This is what passes for a Democrat these days.

I'm glad she didn't screw up the email thing. It'll be one of the first things she's gotten right in years.

[leveymg]

1. No! The 2012 reg only implemented a '76 Amendment to the Act that mandated retention & disclosure of

"machine readable" federal records and messages. Heads of federal agencies have been required by law to keep and turn over to the National Archives all such messages regardless of their formant since the original Records Act was passed in 1950. The Daily Beast has it all wrong - not the first time.

We went through this issue when it was learned the Bushies didn't comply. The problem with the Act has always been that there are no specific criminal penalties attached for heads of agencies for noncompliance, but violation may form the basis for departmental charges. Now, exactly who is going to charge or fire the former SoS?

The law has been essentially the same since its passage in 1950, with a minor amendment in 1976 adding electronic ("machine readable&quot media. Failure to comply is and has been unlawful, but there are no stated penalties for violation by the head of the agency. http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/fed-agencies.html#unlawful

§ 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records

(a) FEDERAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION.—The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from that agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to the legal custody of that Federal agency.

(b) ARCHIVIST NOTIFICATION.—In any case in which the head of the Federal agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action described in subsection (a), or is participating in, or believed to be participating in any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.

§ 3107. Authority of Comptroller General

Chapters 21, 25, 27, 29, and 31 of this title do not limit the authority of the Comptroller General of the United States with respect to prescribing accounting systems, forms, and procedures, or lessen the responsibility of collecting and disbursing officers for rendition of their accounts for settlement by the General Accounting Office.

Here are the operative definitions:

The statutory definition or records in the Federal Records Act (per the latest version shown at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3301:

As used in this chapter, “records” includes all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of data in them. Library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes, extra copies of documents preserved only for convenience of reference, and stocks of publications and of processed documents are not included.

As can be seen, the definition is based on the anything made or received by a federal agency in connection with the transaction of public business, regardless of physical form. The specific things mentioned, like books and maps, do not limit that broader concept.

If you click on the notes tab, you find that "machine readable materials" was added in the 1970s. Again, though, the specific form in which data is embodied is not important. Here's that amendment in the attached Note:

› Title 44 › Chapter 33 › § 3301
44 U.S. Code § 3301 - Definition of records

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)

Source

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1299; Pub. L. 94–575, § 4(c)(2),Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2727.)
Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., § 366 (July 7, 1943, ch. 192, § 1,57 Stat. 380).
Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–575 expanded “records” to include “machine readable materials”.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Those statutes refer to acts of commission not omission./NT

[leveymg]

22. No. The requirement is to preserve and transfer records, not simply a commandment not to destroy

them. If my lawyer proposed to make your argument before the bench as exculpatory, I'd get different legal representation. The plain-language of the statute should be your guide.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. She did preserve them on her private email account and turned them over to Congress upon request.

But if you want to pursue this line of inquiry there's nothing a random internet poster can do to discourage you.

[riversedge]

27. Good response.

[leveymg]

28. She didn't notify until a few weeks ago, and still has not fully complied with disclosure.

The obligation was to reveal their existence while she was still SOS. The continued withholding of certain emails is referenced in the NYT article. Also, there have been questions raised about whether all emails can be recovered.

She is in no way compliant.

[Maedhros]

68. There is also the issue of security.

In today's Internet environment, storing official State Department communications anywhere but behind stalwart Federal firewalls shows a serious lack of discretion. Various nefarious elements - such as Russian Organized Crime, or Chinese Intelligence - have already demonstrated the ability to hack into commercial email servers (e.g. Gmail).

[JDPriestly]

85. That is a problem.

[leveymg]

100. That's why this one isn't going away.

Calls into question her judgement as well as her secretiveness.

[JDPriestly]

107. That was my first thought. But then on second thought, I wondered whether she feared

that her e-mails would be read by someone she did not want reading them.

Apparently there is some question as to when the law requiring her to allow the saving of her e-mails went into effect.

[leveymg]

116. Your assumption is probably correct. The '50 Act has always required preservation of gov't records

"regardless of form." The '76 amendment specified the Act applies to "machine readable" records.

[riversedge]

29. I like this simple poster....

Remain objective: @DavidCornDC … #p2 #UniteBlue

[leveymg]

37. That is simply inaccurate and misleading. The law says that any private communication

becomes a public record if used for official purposes. The prohibition is not against using personal email, but failure to preserve, report and turn "machine readable records" over within a reasonable time. HRC violated the 1950 Law as modified by the 1976 Amendment. The law was binding and was violated even without the 2012 regulation.

[Android3.14]

74. Oh look, another person believing internet BS

How Republican.

[prayin4rain]

55. Please, personal computers were not even contemplated in the 70s.

You're gonna hurt your back with these stretches. In the 70s, and still today, machine readable contemplates the following:

In telecommunications and computing amachine-readable medium (automated data medium) is a medium capable of storing data in a format readable by a mechanical device (rather than human readable).

Examples of machine-readable media include magnetic media such asmagnetic disks, cards, tapes, and drums,punched cards and paper tapes, optical disks, barcodes and magnetic ink characters.

Common machine-readable technologies include magnetic recording, processing waveforms, andbarcodes. Optical character recognition(OCR) can be used to enable machines to read information available to humans.

On edit: A primer for you if you're still confused. .
https://www.data.gov/developers/blog/primer-machine-readability-online-documents-and-data

[mrdmk]

77. The personal computer was contemplated back in the 1950's and produced in the 1960's

The Programma 101 was the first commercial "desktop personal computer", produced by the Italian company Olivetti and invented by the Italian engineer Pier Giorgio Perotto, inventor of the magnetic card system. The project started in 1962. It was launched at the 1964 New York World's Fair, and volume production began in 1965, the computer retailing for $3,200.[3][unreliable source?]

NASA bought at least ten Programma 101s and used them for the calculations for the 1969 Apollo 11 Moon landing. Then ABC used the Programma 101 to predict the presidential election of 1969, and the U.S. military used the machine to plan their operations in the Vietnam War. The Programma 101 was also used in schools, hospitals, government offices. This marked the beginning of the era of the personal computer.

In 1968, Hewlett-Packard was ordered to pay about $900,000 in royalties to Olivetti after their Hewlett-Packard 9100A was ruled to have copied some of the solutions adopted in the Programma 101, including the magnetic card, the architecture and other similar components.[3]

The Soviet MIR series of computers was developed from 1965 to 1969 in a group headed by Victor Glushkov. It was designed as a relatively small-scale computer for use in engineering and scientific applications and contained a hardware implementation of a high-level programming language. Another innovative feature for that time was the user interface combining a keyboard with a monitor and light pen for correcting texts and drawing on screen.[4]

In what was later to be called the Mother of All Demos, SRI researcher Douglas Engelbart in 1968 gave a preview of what would become the staples of daily working life in the 21st century: e-mail, hypertext, word processing, video conferencing and the mouse. The demonstration required technical support staff and a mainframe time-sharing computer that were far too costly for individual business use at the time.


more at link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer#History

As far as your link goes, it is a distraction. Storing and retrieving E-mails is a complex process.

[prayin4rain]

83. Lol, pardon me, personal computers that even

approach modern day capabilities. You couldn't even play Pacman on the personal computers that you're referring to. Talk about a distraction. Ugh.

[leveymg]

101. The machine readable definition of record was added in '76

Computer records are exactly what the amended law references.

[prayin4rain]

105. Yeah, I don't agree that machine readable includes

all electronic information. But, I do agree that all documentary material regardless of form, probably covers electronic information.

[mrdmk]

109. Maybe not Pacman, but Pong was a winner and the developer did not know it

Pong was the first game developed by Atari Inc. (incorporated in June 1972 by Nolan Bushnell and Ted Dabney).[5][6] After producing Computer Space, Bushnell decided to form a company to produce more games by licensing ideas to other companies. The first contract was with Bally Manufacturing Corporation for a driving game.[4][7] Soon after the founding, Bushnell hired Allan Alcorn because of his experience with electrical engineering and computer science; Bushnell and Dabney also had previously worked with him at Ampex. Prior to working at Atari, Alcorn had no experience with video games.[8] To acclimate Alcorn to creating games, Bushnell gave him a project secretly meant to be a warm-up exercise.[8][9] Bushnell told Alcorn that he had a contract with General Electric for a product, and asked Alcorn to create a simple game with one moving spot, two paddles, and digits for score keeping.[8] In 2011, Bushnell stated that the game was inspired by previous versions of electronic tennis he had played before; Bushnell played a version on a PDP-1 computer in 1964 while attending college.[10] However, Alcorn has claimed it was in direct response to Nolan's viewing of the Magnavox Odyssey's Tennis game.[8] In May 1972, Bushnell had visited the Magnavox Profit Caravan in Burlingame, California where he played the Magnavox Odyssey demonstration, specifically the table tennis game.[11][12] Though he thought the game lacked quality, seeing it prompted Bushnell to assign the project to Alcorn.[10]

Alcorn first examined Bushnell's schematics for Computer Space, but found them to be illegible. He went on to create his own designs based on his knowledge of transistor–transistor logic and Bushnell's game. Feeling the basic game was too boring, Alcorn added features to give the game more appeal. He divided the paddle into eight segments to change the ball's angle of return. For example, the center segments return the ball a 90° angle in relation to the paddle, while the outer segments return the ball at smaller angles. He also made the ball accelerate the longer it remained in play; missing the ball reset the speed.[4] Another feature was that the in-game paddles were unable to reach the top of screen. This was caused by a simple circuit that had an inherent defect. Instead of dedicating time to fixing the defect, Alcorn decided it gave the game more difficulty and helped limit the time the game could be played; he imagined two skilled players being able to play forever otherwise.[8]

Three months into development, Bushnell told Alcorn he wanted the game to feature realistic sound effects and a roaring crowd.[8][13] Dabney wanted the game to "boo" and "hiss" when a player lost a round. Alcorn had limited space available for the necessary electronics and was unaware of how to create such sounds with digital circuits. After inspecting the sync generator, he discovered that it could generate different tones and used those for the game's sound effects.[4][8] To construct the prototype, Alcorn purchased a $75 Hitachi black-and-white television set from a local store, placed it into a 4-foot (1.2 m) wooden cabinet, and soldered the wires into boards to create the necessary circuitry. The prototype impressed Bushnell and Dabney so much that they felt it could be a profitable product and decided to test its marketability.[4]

more at the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pong#Development_and_history

[prayin4rain]

117. Haha, thanks for the info. :) n/t

[uppityperson]

2. is this an acknowledgement you might've jumped to fast on this story?

Or saying that even though you might've jumped too fast, you want to make it clear you consider her a pos anyway?

[wyldwolf]

3. yeah, sounds like it.

It's like one of those "I'm sorry if I offended you but..." apologies.

[uppityperson]

7. close, but not quite right

It is "I am sorry if you were offended", not sorry for offending you. " I am sorry if you were offended" puts the blame on the person who was offended, "I am sorry for offending you," puts the blame on the person who was offensive.

[WilliamPitt]

4. I went with the New York Times. So sue me.

Is anyone going to address the core issues presented?

Anyone?

The war vote?

The Patriot Act vote?

Keystone?

Wall Street?

Anyone?

[wyldwolf]

6. the paper that helped sell the Iraq War?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. The paper that helped sell the Iraq war? Does that go for Hillary's efforts to sell it, too?

[wyldwolf]

15. Hillary didn't work for the Times. I realize you were looking for a 'snappy comeback.'

But you failed.

Pitt's reference to Hillary and the war make it ironic he went with the media's #1 (or 2) cheerleader for it. Irony was lost on you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. So, you condemn the Times support but condone Hillary's?

I would call that irony.

[wyldwolf]

30. That reply didn't even make any sense

[Marr]

53. It made perfect sense.

You say the Times isn't trustworthy because they helped sell the obviously-fraudulent Iraq War. Hillary Clinton did exactly the same thing and you think she should be president.

[wyldwolf]

54. You're tired get some rest.

[Marr]

58. Just fyi, that was where an adult would have acknowledged their mistake, apologized, and exited. /nt

[Phlem]

60. yep.

[wyldwolf]

61. Just FYI there wasn't a mistake

Pitt used the NY Times as a source - the only source - to discredited Clinton. It's ironic because the Times sold the war. He used a liar to try and prove Clinton did something wrong. Anyone who tries to parse Pitt's words any other way is being dishonest because Pitt has acknowledged it in another thead.

[Orsino]

63. Yep. n/t

[aquart]

81. Fill me in, other than that one sucker vote,

What proof is there that Hillary "supported" W's Iraq War? Because I clearly missed all that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. So you support a "sucker" who (allegedly) fell for Bush's lies?

Or, is she just a politician who will vote to have people killed to advance her ambitions?

[sabrina 1]

66. Yes, and we are treated to its current war stories on a regular basis, PROVING that we were not

behind any coup in Ukraine, eg. I agree with you. I have been saying in response to those posts to try to discredit the facts that are known, 'why reads the NYT on these issues, weren't they ones who sold the Iraq War lies also'?

[uppityperson]

11. so no, this is not acknowledging you might've jumped too fast but just to make clear

you think she's a pos. In a second OP. Since you didn't do so clearly enough in your other OP.

Thanks for clarifying Will.

[WilliamPitt]

12. I'm not a fan

That's allowed, right? There are other Democrats I can like, right? You're not going to take away my decoder ring or anything, right?

God, this is like trying to eat a brick.

[uppityperson]

17. is that an of a straw man, red herring or moving of the goal posts?

I have trouble remembering which is which sometimes.

[wyldwolf]

18. It can be all three.

[Maedhros]

69. You're up against some serious cognitive dissonance, WilliamPitt.

Regardless of the question, the answer will be "Hillary is great."

[uppityperson]

95. not from me. nt

[one_voice]

79. The war vote was in

2002--It was a mistake. I'd like to hear her speak about it now. I'd like to know how she feels about it now. People evolve and change.

I'd like to know what her position as President would be on Keystone.

As for Wall Street...I got nothing there.

The Patriot Act...If I remember correctly Hillary is in a lot of company on that vote--I'd have to double check that--and no that doesn't make it right. I'd like to ask her if she'd consider repealing it...is that possible?



I'm not a Hillary fan. I'm waiting to see who's going to run on our side. That being said, if she's our nominee...I will vote for her. As I said in another thread, a republican will always, always, always, do much more damage than even a center right Democrat. It wouldn't be an ideal situation, but my blood runs cold when I think of ANY of the current Republicans sitting in the White House.

[leveymg]

5. No. It sounds like Daily Beast was successful at clouding the matter at DU for part of today.

[uponit7771]

36. or ... that the people who jumped on the story based off what the NYT proffered..

...did the same thing Hillary did when she voted for the IWR?!

tia

[RufusTFirefly]

67. Mission accomplished

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I forgot...

What was the vote in the Senate for the IWR and the Patriot Act by party?


Thank you in advance.

[WilliamPitt]

13. I'm working

You have Google. Go find out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. The Patriot Act passed the Senate 98-1 with only Russ Feingold voting against it.

Twenty two Democratic senators voted for the IWR including Joe Biden and John Kerry who President Obama has made one and four heartbeats away from the presidency.

[hrmjustin]

26. But Its Hillary damn it!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. In hindsight those votes look ill considered.

However those votes are well within the main stream of the Democratic party especially The Patriot Act which passed the Senate 98-1.

[hrmjustin]

35. Yeah but she's a special case because she's the third way boogeyman.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Senate Vote for The Patriot Act (2001)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

[hrmjustin]

49. I understand this but the Hillary haters won't give her a break.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. The OP suggested ninety nine percent or so and sixty percent or so ...

The OP suggested ninety nine percent or so and sixty percent or so of the Democrats voting on the Patriot Act and the IWR are/were Republicans.


Please explain to me like I had a traumatic brain injury how that makes sense.

[hrmjustin]

50. Don't look at me I don't get it either.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Mea culpa, mea culpa. Actually twenty nine Senate Democrats voted for the IWR

Twenty nine Senate Democrats, approximately two thirds of the Democrats in the Senate at that time voted for the IWR, ergo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm

[Maedhros]

70. Hence my reasoning for revoking my Party membership.

I don't see how this absolves Hillary, it only implicates more Democrats in the crime.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. That's fair

As long as you admit your beef was with 99% of the party on the Patriot Act and 60% of the party on the IWR.

If there's a hill I'll die on it's judging everybody by the same standards.

[snooper2]

21. this is work?

[HappyMe]

9. Emails or not, I still don't like her.

[840high]

73. Me2

[hrmjustin]

16. .

[DanTex]

20. False alarm. You may now return to your normal Hillary-hating activities.

[herding cats]

25. All I'm going to say in regards to the emails is, Benghazi™.

That should have been a pretty strong clue for any Democrat to give the story at least a critical eye.

As to the other points you make, they're well an truly worthy of discussion by anyone considering supporting Clinton for president. Just as they would be for any other person who is seeking the office as a Democrat. These are the types of discussions which help us to make our decisions.

There are things which are worthy of our time, and there are Republican generated smears which won't hold water longer than a rusted out bucket. Let us, as Democrats, strive to be wise enough to tell one from the other.

[uponit7771]

31. So YOU basically did THE EXACT SAME THING that Hillary did with Iraq war but we're supposed

... to not vote for her because of what she did?

I mean, NYT?!

You know they need to be doubled checked...

or

you SHOULD know

right?

tia

[WilliamPitt]

40. Wha?

She voted for a war that killed, maimed and displaced millions and basically shattered the national economy. She voted for a surveillance law that allows the feds to enter your home and tap all your stuff without a warrant.

I read a New York Times story and repeated it on a message board.

I believe the weight of our transgressions are not quite in balance.

[Thinkingabout]

80. Did Bush abide by the IWR or did he invade before the avenues was covered?

[wyldwolf]

92. you're not supposed to talk about that. Facts are offensive on DU these days.

[Thinkingabout]

93. It sounds like she lead the invasion and fired all the bullets.

I also wonder if they can take the action needed with ISIS.

[F4lconF16]

106. No, that just means that neither of them are good for president.

Though I must say I'd prefer one a far sight more than the other.

[LanternWaste]

32. Would it not then be prudent to hold her accountable to those policies during discussions...

Would it not then be prudent to hold her accountable to those policies during discussions of those policies rather than holding her accountable to those policies when discussing the non-story of the emails?

I'm looking for any post where any poster said anything resembling "the email story denies all other concerns you have with her" and I simply do not see one.

[brooklynite]

34. To: WilliamPitt. As someone who's been here since 2001.....

...would you care to point out your equally angry posts about John Kerry (1%er? check; supported IWR? check; supported PATRIOT Act? check) in the 2004 election? I must have missed them.

[WilliamPitt]

42. Reply:

Desperate times...or don't you remember?

Who was your candidate in 2004?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. Why does John Kerry get a pass and not Hillary Clinton?

And you supported John Kerry in the primaries when there were candidates who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning like Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Howard Dean?

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. Because John Kerry is not the likely ...

DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE. Silly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. I thought about it

There were more anti-war candidates in the 04 primary including Bob Graham and Wes Clark.

The OP chose John Kerry because he made the same bet that a lot of Hillary supporter are making; that despite her flaws she's the strongest candidate we can field.

It seems what's good for he isn't good for thee.

[wyldwolf]

90. Excellent point

[dsc]

94. because he is a man

and from Massachusetts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. What's even crazier is that both Kerry and Biden voted against the first Iraq War...

What's even crazier is that both Kerry and Biden voted against the first Iraq War when the United States was fighting under a U N flag and had Security Council approval.


Yet they vote for the IWR or the second Gulf War which failed to get UN approval.


It was a craven political vote but I don't expect my politicians to be saints. It seems some people only expect certain politicians to be saints.

[sadoldgirl]

38. Yes, I believed in the illegal part,

because I thought that the archives were mandatory. What
the whole story told me though is that from now until
October 2016 we will have a steady House investigation.

Since the Repugs have the Senate now as well, they
may start another committee there too.

This, whether you pooh pooh it or not, does not look
good to me, but that is just me.

[dissentient]

44. I totally agree with you. It doesn't look good at all. Just more ammo for the Republicans

if Hillary is nominated. It makes me wonder, what other new scandals are going to be revealed?

[pnwmom]

41. Except her overall Senate record is nothing like any Republican's.

ontheissues.org

[WilliamPitt]

45. ...except in foreign policy, personal freedom, Wall Street etc.

No biggie.

[pnwmom]

46. Even in foreign policy, personal freedom, and Wall Street.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Her record wasn't close to any Republican's.

[leveymg]

56. Actually, most of this sounds a lot like GOP talking points.

Drilling down into your links:

ISIL is more advanced and well-funded than al Qaeda. (Oct 2014)
Political restraint against Iran's Ahmadinejad was a mistake. (Jun 2014)
2011: we abandoned Egypt's Mubarak too readily. (Jun 2014)
Arab Spring: Egyptian uprising had destabilizing impact. (Jun 2014)
Work toward Arab Spring not being hijacked by extremists. (Jan 2013)
Afghan women are better off, but we must prevent reversal. (Jan 2013)
2007: Traveled to Iraq & Afghanistan before announcement. (Jan 2010)
2001 speech to AIPAC pledges money for Israeli military. (Nov 2007)
Arabic and Muslim countries take women leaders seriously. (Jul 2007)
Allegedly pro-PLO in 1960; but pro-Israel by 1981. (Jul 2007)
Supported Palestine in 1998, before Bill officially did. (May 2007)
Obligation to support Israel with more than foreign aid. (Oct 2005)
Alienated Jewish voters by kissing Mrs. Arafat. (Oct 2001)
Political Hotspots
2012: Take a harder line with Russia's Putin. (Jun 2014)

[wyldwolf]

91. Sounds like Democratic foreign policy over the last 50 years

Roosevelt. Truman. Kennedy. Johnson. Carter. Clinton.

[Rex]

47. Center right wing heads explode on DU! How dare you question their goddess!

Yeah she did do all those things now didn't she? Then again her biggest fans seem to hate democracy and the left with the same passion that the GOP shows for liberals and the left. I wonder why they are so similar to the GOP? Must be that center-right wing thing, all they seem to do is post divisive thread after divisive thread.

[Marr]

51. Her fans are already reduced to hair splitting and 'technically she didn't...' arguments

to defend this woman, and we're a year from the primaries.

Hillary Clinton has even less of a chance of winning a general election now than she did eight years ago.

[hrmjustin]

57. I hated that she voted for the Iraq war but I decided not hold it against her.

I didn't hold it against Kerry.

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. Some people accept that they got something wrong with grace

Others throw Double-Down tantrums.

It's a character trait, I've found: the same people have the same response over and over again.

[lamp_shade]

64. Tsk.

[greatlaurel]

65. You got fooled by the right wing propaganda rat you know what machine.

HRC did state that her IWR vote was wrong. She is big enough to admit she got scammed by right wingers. You should, too.

[Fumesucker]

71. Pitt has about ten years for that if he follows Hillary's example

And I'm not that big a fan of Pitt or Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

113. Actually, he was fooled indirectly by the Times around 2004

When he made his spirited defense of John Kerry's vote for the IWR - using the same reasoning every other Democrat (including Hillary) used. As we both know, the Times went to great lengths to sell us on the Iraq War (and Whitewater, for that matter.)

[malokvale77]

72. "This is what passes for a Democrat these days."

Disgusting isn't it?

I'm just about to jump ship and let the younger generation sort it all out. It's their future.

The Democratic party has failed them miserably. We have failed them miserably.

We have allowed these corporate whores to steal their lives.

[Android3.14]

75. Maybe she did it on purpose to throw the election

The writing has been on the wall for months that the Democrats are deeply split regarding her candidacy. She's a clever (if damaged) politician, and she might even be clever enough to bow out because of an "unfounded" scandal.

[aquart]

76. Nothing like a gracious retraction.

[hrmjustin]

87. .

[stupidicus]

78. does the poor judgement charge still hold water?

that seems to be the biggest thing her and her supporters have in common

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/3/govt-cybersecurity-source-clintons-office-warned-private-email-use.html

[msanthrope]

82. You should have waited 24 business hours. nt

[I hate liars]

86. + 1000

[wyldwolf]

96. Will Pitt's spirited defense of John Kerry's vote for the IWR

Apparently, back in the day (around August 2004) Mr. Pitt interviewed John Kerry. One the main points of the interview was the Senator's vote for the IWR. Here is an exchange between Will and several other DUers:

Please bookmark this post, because I am puking sick of typing it over and over again.

Kerry did not say he would still have gone to war in Iraq. This is what he said:

"Yes, I would have voted for that authority but I would have used that authority to do things very differently," Kerry said after a short hike from Hopi Point to Powell Point on the Grand Canyon's South Rim.

The 'Yes' vote on the IWR essential to the establishment of effective weapons inspections. Only the threat of force made the previous inspections effective. I asked Scott Ritter personally if his seven years in Iraq as an inspector would have been effective without the threat of force. He said the inspections would have been useless without the threat.

The US wrote Res. 1441. The US wrote "weapons inspections" into it. It was unanimously approved by the Security Council. The threat of force had to be there; Hussein had jerked around UNSCOM until we bombed him into compliance.

The threat of force got rid of the weapons from 1991-1998. The threat of force was needed to get rid of whatever he might have developed since. As Ritter said in my book, no one was absolutely sure they hadn't retained any of their weapons capabilities.

Are you in favor of weapons inspectors, backed by a unanimous UN Security Council, going in to make sure VX and other weapons were not being developed?

If you were in favor of weapons inspectors, YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF THE THREAT OF FORCE TO BACK THE INSPECTORS. There is no separating the two. Period. (bolding is Will's)

still_one: The authority that Congress gave to bush allowed him to go to war...

WilliamPitt: allowed ***HIM*** to go to war" Any President - even Mr. Gore - would likely have looked hard at Iraq post-9/11 because of that nation's history of WMD development. Gore would have gotten inspectors into the game, and would have asked for a threat of force to back the inspectors up. The difference is the handling of that power, not the delivery of it.

Kerry's reasoning is the same defense offered up by EVERY Democrat who voted for the IWR. "I did not vote for war, I voted for the threat of force to get weapon inspectors in." Will defends Kerry. Angrily defends Kerry, the long-time Senator as in "how dare you question it and I'm sick of repeating it.."

Hillary, the JUNIOR senator from New York. Burn the witch.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x605385

Mr. Pitt also wrote a great article, defending (excusing) John Kerry's vote for the IWR.

http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/46460-william-rivers-pitt--the-trial-of-john-kerry

[hrmjustin]

97. Wow! This says a lot.

Thanks for posting and bookmarking.

[dsc]

102. but he is a man

and that is different.

[wyldwolf]

112. I'm starting to believe that's a real underlying prejudice with some liberals

[SidDithers]

119. Bookmarking...

Well done.



Sid

[Spazito]

120. Wow, great find!

Hypocrisy in full bloom it seems.

[First Speaker]

99. I agree with you...but...

...heard that "but" coming, eh? OK--nothing you say is wrong. I would greatly prefer Senator Warren, or better yet, Senator Sanders. The latter says what needs saying, in straightforward English. In a world of Orwellian horseshit, that's a remarkable feat. If he runs, I shall support him and campaign for him. But if Hillary wins the nomination, which I'm fairly sure she will do easily, I'll break my back getting her elected. Because a relatively sane member of the Corporate Elite, however wrong she's been on certain issues, is infinitely preferable to a member of a party that is quite simply batshit insane. The once-proud GOP is moving towards totalitarianism, and I don't say that lightly. So yes, that means that Mrs Clinton--who, had we a sane polity, would be a moderate Republican--has to be elected, because the alternative is unthinkable.

[merrily]

103. The guy who just may be the world's foremost expert on the Federal Records Act, Baron,

is the one who said Hillary screwed up compliance with the Federal Records Act.


As between Baron and the media and blogosphere, I am inclined to stick with the guy who saw the statute for the first time at least 25 years ago. Not the reporter who ran to familiarize himself or herself with the law for the first time when this story hit the fan.

I tried to explain to Wyldwolf why the date of the reg is not dispositive, but, surprise, surprise, he was not inclined to entertain anything that might reflect badly on Hills. However, you can even skip my explanation of how statutes and regulations interface and go directly to Baron's credentials, which I linked near the end of my post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026304203#post151

So...who ya gonna believe, the guy at media matters who pitched around quickly for a way to exonerate Hillary or Baron, who was director of litigation for the National Archives? Look at Baron's credentials and decide for yourself. I'm sticking with Baron's legal opinion.

[blue neen]

104. This is what passes as editing these days?

IMHO, you can do a whole lot better.

For the record, I am undecided about who our Democratic nominee should be for 2016. Heck, very few have declared their intentions.

[eridani]

108. You just listed all the important stuff

Which makes the email thing trivial nonsense, roughly equivalent to Benghazi.

[McCamy Taylor]

110. You still got fooled by the NYT.

If our progressive journalists can not be bothered to check sources, then we can not rely upon our progressive journalists to keep us informed.

[Ichingcarpenter]

111. you might add her Monsanto and fracking promotions

as Sec of State which I find offending also.

[maxrandb]

114. So let me get this entirely straight (re: carrying water for the Koch Brothers)

This email "scandal/non-scandal" blows up completely in the faces of DUer's who seem to be watching a bit too much Faux News, so since that doesn't pan-out, we cherry-pick a few things that Mrs. Clinton (may or may not) have done or supported, and "voila", like a broken synapse in Sean Hannity's brain, the "non-scandal-scandal" morphs into an attack on Hillary's Democratic "purity", and a sure fire way to further suppress Democratic voters. It's a "win-win" for everybody, except the country

Thanks for posting this. The T-baggers and Koch Brothers appreciate your support.

If Democrats who voted for the "authorization" for the President to use force...(BTW - that's somehow morphed into a vote "for" the Iraqi War) don't "pass" for what you consider a "Democrat" these days, then there are about 50-60 current or "former" Democratic Senators that, I guess in your mind, don't "pass" for Democrats.

BTW - why are you even here on a "Democratic supporting" website? There appear to be tons of sites on the internet where your "anti-Democratic" rants would fit better. Perhaps there's an opening at Scott Walker.com

Appears that you could be a big help to him as he prepares to take on Secretary Clinton.

[msanthrope]

115. This. nt

[SidDithers]

118. This is what passes for a journalist these days?...nt

Sid

[Sheldon Cooper]

121. I bet she's the one who actually hacked Turbo Tax.

Remember that big scoop?