Hillary's taste for covering everything untransparent should really get Dems ask themselves. ...

[mylye2222]

Werever or not to they want her as nominee and/or next President.
The last story re. server cleaning just say one thing. Sge HAD something to hide. Otherwise she would have deleted only personal mails. And she would have priceeded to tasnsmit diplomatic posts to Congress panel.
Now that there are emerging stories re. Both the favirs accorded to friends and doubts within Clintons fundation fundings...
Some will say it is just another "RW conspiracy".
But to other Dems it will only confirm the Clintons longtime taste for shadow manoevers and corporate politics.

[guillaumeb]

1. you have not yet mentioned the most important thing

Benghazi.

How long until you attempt to link it?

[mylye2222]

4. I wont because Benghazi is a GOP made non story.

Unlike..
Clinton fundation fundings opacity.
Her niw openly non willing to let State get access to her mails.
The favors accorded to friends.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Where is your evidence she is hiding anything.

You need to produce solid evidence, evidence which does not come from RW talking points. It isn't necessary she produce her personal emails. If this is true then we could point to anyone and demand their private email, I don't think you really want to do this. Are you RW?

[OKNancy]

3. get your facts straight

you are entitled to your opinion ( you don't want HRC) but not the facts.
She sent the work emails long ago. She ( her IT staff and lawyers) deleted only the personal emails.

I think you will just have to swallow the bitter pill that Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee.

[cali]

16. but some of the personal emails may have not been.... personal.

[OKNancy]

18. yawn

[dsc]

74. and I may have murdered 50 people while typing this sentence

but I didn't. The simple fact is, she apparently obeyed the law and engaged in what was common practice among SOS in the email era. Unlike all of her predecessors she has actually supplied her work emails. Frankly I think the common practice wasn't the greatest idea but I can see why it was used by both her and her predecessors. I think what Kerry is doing is a better practice but the fact is it wasn't the practice until a law passed after Clinton left office.

[notadmblnd]

5. Is English your second language? Because I find your post very difficult to read and follow

However, I will say this; if you do not like her, do not vote for her in the Democratic primary if she decides to run.

[Dems to Win]

22. +1 Proofreading before posting an OP is common courtesy to fellow DUers

[notadmblnd]

23. ya know, I'm aging and sometimes I don't know if it's the early onset of Alzheimers

or if I'm reading something a republican posted.

[99Forever]

36. English is this poster's second language.

Perhaps you might ask her what her native language and write a post or two in that and we'll see how you do?

[Dems to Win]

38. If I did so, I'd pay attention to the spelling aide in the language on that site.

Posting "tasnsmit" and "sge" indicates to me that it's being posted as fast as it's being typed.

I'd appreciate a little more care and a read-through and some investigating of those squiggly red lines under the words before hitting 'Post My Thread.'

[treestar]

57. there was this big dust up on DU once

apparently it is OK to post in a foreign language. It's xenophobia to complain. After all, you only have to put it in Google translate!

[treestar]

60. just looked at all the threads

it does seem to be bad typing more than second-language stuff.

[99Forever]

67. Of course you would.

'Cuz you're just so much better of an internetter. Nothing arrogant 'bout that!

[R B Garr]

80. Oo0H, I would definitely have a hard time posting lame right-wing

talking points in a foreign language. U betcha.

[KMOD]

6. I wonder if she keeps a journal, or a diary?

Maybe she has a doodle pad she keeps on her desk, next to her phone.

Let's get a subpoena and search her house. We need to know what she's hiding. She must be hiding something, she just must.

[Fred Sanders]

9. Yes. And on and on it goes - the Bengazhi Bridgade never find anything because they do not want to.

The Chase is the news....and the chasing can go on and on and on...some folks just do not see when the wool is being pulled down, and do not want to see when the wool is being pulled up.

OPINION:These click bait threads that seem to come direct from dubious sources and themes are getting boring.

[leftofcool]

17. Ben Gawzi mails under the sofa, top secret info in the bleach bottle................

[emulatorloo]

7. DUer's taste for aligning themselves with Gowdy and other professional liars

is very questionable.

I wouldn't beleive Gowdy and the Bengazi Committee if their tongues came notarized.

I have no interest in Clinton becoming our nominee. But I have nothing but distaste for the right-wing lie machine. Promoting their lies and work on DU seems morally bereft.

[jehop61]

8. We'll all decide

just about the time we decide how much to be p.o.d. about Romney deleting all Executive Department computers when he left the office of Gov. or Huckabee who did the same, or Bush who deleted hundreds of emails regarding the run up to Iraq war. Get a life and realize she is the only politician who can get some folks incensed about email files.

[mylye2222]

11. I also am really aware...

That she acted dirty.....
EXACTLY like Bush, Huckabee, Romney thugs.

[Agschmid]

13. One time I acted dirty...

It was interesting to say the least.

[notadmblnd]

25. We can't even talk about the time I acted dirty. There are just no clean words for it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. I once acted "dirty" but my mom knocked on the door.

[Gman]

10. We've asked

And overwhelmingly, yes we do.

[RiverLover]

12. Really? When did that happen?

No one "asked" me.

[Gman]

24. Sorry ya missed it

[tritsofme]

14. The only thing that worries me about this post is your spelling and grammar.

[pinboy3niner]

21. English is not the first language of some DUers (like this OP author). nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Would you complain if she posted in French, her native language?

I don't think it takes a linguist to get her point.

[tritsofme]

29. No, it just takes someone with the intellect of Trey Gowdy, to get to that particular point.

[Agschmid]

33. One time someone posted in Spanish and it was hidden...

For being in Spanish!!!

[HereSince1628]

35. I posted in Russian...same happened...back on DU 2.0 beta I think

[R B Garr]

79. Okay. These sound like lame right-wing talking points, but

now I see the reason for the right-wing talking points is really ESL.

[leftofcool]

15. Are of a staffer of Trey Gowdy?

[zappaman]

19. Keep trying. n/t

[Zorra]

20. Speaking of transparency, where is her birth certificate?!11?

I don't need the drippy red smiley thingee, do I?

[leftofcool]

31. Oh man! You found us out! Don't tell anyone that Hillary was born in Timbuk3

You'll blow the whole darn thing! And you know it will cause a Constitutional crisis!

[spanone]

27. let me guess, you're not voting for hillary?

and you're trying to convince everyone on du to do the same.

[napkinz]

30. three threads on Hillary's emails

edit: I think that says it all

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026428139
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026427951
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026427981

[HereSince1628]

37. HRC supporters...paying attention and taking post identifiers

Sorry, but sharing these things, as well as posts that identify non-HRC DUers is VERY VERY CREEPY

The concept that you think we should notice you noticing does NOT say good things about promoting an open exchange of opinion.

2 weeks ago I encountered a thread being shared to identify Warren supporters (because they need harassing or being placed on ignore lists??? I dunno). It's just takes me back to East Germany and people watching on the lives of others.

Creepy. In the extreme

[hrmjustin]

39. What are you talking about?

Nobody is taking any names. The op posted posts and is being challenged.

What lists are you talking about?

[HereSince1628]

40. I'm talking about HRC supporters sharing posts on poll responses not supporting HRC

It's creepy as hell.

If I actually participated in such things I could give you a link, but I find the whole thing very very Stasi flavored

[hrmjustin]

41. Sharing posts on polls? DU polls or real polls?

[HereSince1628]

42. Just read. Then make up the most flaming attack that you can.

[hrmjustin]

43. Ok so this is nonsense.

[mylye2222]

78. You nailed it!!!

Black listing revisited. And I am not the only one. Others DUers critics to HRC got thzir threads spammed and mocked regulary. No matter what those OPs were talking about....

[hrmjustin]

81. Challenged! You are being challenged.

You don't seem to like that.

[William769]

44. Link please.

[HereSince1628]

45. As I said I didn't take down the link...you're a moderator HRC friendly maybe YOU can find it

It's creepy as hell.

[William769]

46. I can't find it.

So guess what is actually creepy as hell.

[HereSince1628]

48. Why do I think you could have it listed under bookmarks?

Maybe those don't show up under special google search

[William769]

49. I have looked at every single OP.

You could do that also, but we know that's not going to happen. That says a lot about you.

[HereSince1628]

50. It was actually in a reply,

why not go for it?

[William769]

51. So the story changes again.

Typical.

If you can't substantiate what you claim...

[HereSince1628]

53. No, a reply -IS- a post...the sequence began with a question about ID'ing anti HRC DUers

the reply was a link to a post with replies that served as identification of anti-HRC DUers.

Nice. Really nice. Just like Stasi, taking notes and making lists. I think this indicates some sad things going on among HRC supporters. Not that every HRC supporter thinks such taking names and building lists is the way to go, but that it actually happened out in the open rather than in a private email

[William769]

54. You made the accusation.

The burden of proof is on you.

[HereSince1628]

55. As I said I regret I don't stoop so low as to take IDs and make lists.

That's is apparently for HRC supporters, paid sock puppets, etc etc.

[William769]

59. You can't prove the first accusation so you make another?

[HereSince1628]

62. And YOU are into non-denial denials.

I was honest.

Of course THAT can't be assumed true, especially if it reflects poorly on the note-taking list-makers

Enjoy

[William769]

64. I will now end this conversation.

I refuse to speak with people who are not honest & disingenuous.

You can't prove what you state.

Have a good day.

[hrmjustin]

61. Who are the paid socks? You make an accusations back it up.

[hrmjustin]

70. I never got my check.

[hrmjustin]

56. Are you kidding me? Stasi? Are you freaking kidding me?

[hrmjustin]

52. Ok lets try this again.

What is your accusation?

[hrmjustin]

47. What is creepy is you making accusations that you can't back up or even explain.

[napkinz]

65. the point is one member posting THREE threads about the same topic at the same time

she need have posted only one thread on the subject

furthermore, I am neither a supporter nor opponent of Hillary. I have made no decision yet on 2016. You can't find a single post showing my support for or opposition to her candidacy.

[hrmjustin]

66. read this post.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6429964

[napkinz]

69. I was not "ID'ing an anti-HRC DUer," as that individual claimed

My point was that there was no need to create 3 different threads on the exact same subject; I would have made the same point if it had been three threads on Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

I was actually raising a concern about a possible troll. Three threads on the same subject, with lots of spelling mistakes, and using terms like "Queen Hillary" make me suspicious.

[hrmjustin]

71. I agree. the poster compared it to the secret police.

[napkinz]

72. Yes, I read that.

Again, I have made not a single post in support of or opposition to any Democratic candidate for 2016.

I know others have started that debate. Some support Hillary Clinton. Some Elizabeth Warren.

If anyone posted multiple threads on the same topic and used disparaging sexist language I would raise concerns.

So the person who said my post was creepy totally missed my point.

And the member who posted about Hillary's emails should not be condemned for bringing up what very well may be a legitimate issue. It's the multiple threads and the inappropriate language that should ring alarm bells.

[Cha]

82. ..

Same boat.. I have made no decision at all, napkinz. I didn't chose then Senator Obama until December of 2007.

We'll see what happens!

[thelordofhell]

32. "Otherwise she would have deleted only personal mails"

Sorry TinFoilHat......They have copies of all official SOS e-mails........she ONLY deleted personal e-mails.......Crawl back into your conspiracy theory hole.........

[Gothmog]

34. What law was broken?

The e-mail server and the deletion of personal e-mails were both legal under the law and State department regulations. I have looked at the regulations and the law and I can not find a violation.

Disappointing Trey Gowdy is not a crime

[HereSince1628]

68. In many ways that's a TERRIBLE question. It suggest immorality/unethical but LEGAL is OK

What a truly truly awful standard for persons who stand at the pinnacle of American society.

I've owned sheep and horses. I've watched ponies and ewes get stuck in fences trying to get to 'reach the other side' from my side of the fence. There was NOTHING wrong with their pasture...they just had a powerful desire to run along the edge.

What is it in a mammal that must challenge the edge of lawful and call that challenge a good thing??????

[Gothmog]

73. I disagree strongly

Again, Sec. Clinton did nothing wrong here. Collin Powell, Jeb Bush, Trey Gowdy, and a host of other people use their private e-mail accounts and such use was not in violation of the law. The law requires that Sec. Clinton turn over her official e-mails and records and she has done that. In fact the State Department regulations require that such e-mails be delivered in printed format. Neither Sec. Clinton nor anyone else is required to maintain copies or backup for an indefinite time.

Are you concerned that collin Powell did not save any of his e-mails including his official e-mails? http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department-115870.html

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says he doesn’t have any emails to turn over to the State Department.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday, Powell responded to revelations that he used a personal email account, rather than a government one, when he was in charge of the State Department. Questions about his email use arose last week when it was disclosed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email account during her tenure.

“I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files,” Powell said. “A lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and state.gov domain, but I don’t know if the servers in the State Department captured those or not.-

I do not see anything wrong in the conduct here. Both Sec. Powell and Sec.Clinton were operating under the same regulations and it appears that Sec. Clinton actually complied with these regulations by delivering copies of all official e-mails. Sec. Powell's e-mails are gone but I guess that this is okay since he is a republican

[HereSince1628]

75. My point is really simply 'wasn't illegal' is not a great defense for a political heroine

And in that sense my comment is about how the flap was handled, rather than HRC. 'Wasn't illegal' brings to mind the notion of time spent rubbing on the boundaries of legality. In good image handling I wouldn't think the words legal and illegal should appear.

I have said all along what she did wasn't illegal...at ~5 in the morning after ODonnell broke this story I went on line, found, and read the records act...and then posted in GD, before various pundits began doing the same, that it's pretty clear what she did wasn't illegal under that act--if--arrangements exited between HRC and State over the Department's authority to have control over the emails and that those arrangements were met. Primae facie evidence suggests they were as in the timely response made to Congressional fishing expeditions for copies of communications.

Yet, this scratch seems to remain unhealed. No one can speak to other potential loose ends that could keep this stupidity on life support down the line. It's not difficult to see the potential for republican scab picking and more questions raised about who paid who for the service and whether it was arranged according to federal rules for contracting, or whether the service was "a gift" and whether reporting the value of the gift worth more than some piddling amount was done correctly etc.

I'm a bit surprised that 'wasn't illegal' seems so good to HRC supporters. It's an appeal to legalism that seems too similar to the sort that Enron executives, banksters, financiers and mega-corporations use, which has the public so disgusted. WITS it falls short of character enhancement for the candidate. Consequently, the 'not illegal' argument is not even all that special as a calculated-limited-hangout.

A half-clever staff person can usually figure out something positive to say...which might have sounded like 'at personal expense HRC overcame limitations of outdated and poor IT equipment that impeded the functioning of her office'.

[Chemisse]

58. Colin Powell also purges all of his emails from when he was Secretary of State.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department-115870.html

If this is such a big deal, why is she the only one being criticized?

[FSogol]

63. The Right wing (and their allies) taste for covering (and making up) every faux-scandal

should really get the Dems ask themselves...


BENGHAZI

[stone space]

77. Jury Results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message



On Sun Mar 29, 2015, 11:27 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary; Is there a problem?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6431999

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Most of this post is ok, but the third paragraph gives my pause as a standard rightwing talking point about Bill's past and telling us how feminists "should" react. Hide for rw crap, even if you agree with most of the post or not.

"Can feminists explain why they would want a woman in the White House who stands by her man while he continually disrespects her by screwing any woman who will stand still long enough for him to get the job done?"

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 29, 2015, 11:34 AM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's entirely a fair question.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Obvious Troll is obvious. I agree that it's right-wing crap.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

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