Server scrubbed clean

...and that's never had any substance.

newspaper articles, etc.

The need to destroy the emails opens the door wide to suspician of far worse than actually probably existed. Dumb move, unless someone is somewhat self-destructive or conflicted over what they really want. Paranoia really will destroy ya.

that don't belong to the State Department? She shouldn't.

And they should trust her to make the distinction because they're trusting all government employees to do that every day -- each time they send an email and have to choose to send it either by .gov or through a personal account.

What makes you think that ANY amount of proof from HRC will suffice?

It's about what Hillary was trying to hide. People now will wonder what it was she was trying to hide. And there is no way to prove she wasn't trying to hide something.

....no amount of evidence will ever be enough to people who disliked and distrusted her from the time she was FLOTUS trying to carry Bill's health care act to the US Senate.

So the argument is pointless. Pick something real.

\

you're paying attention

We all knew there was nothing underhanded going on with Romney.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_christie_vs_clinton-3766.html

and YOU know it... Anything to damage the Democratic nomination process.

HRC isn't the best person for the Democratic nomination (so far) - and currently no Democrat is announcing as of yet, so there's always going to be speculation.

Let the primaries begin! May the best of the Democratic people step up for the job.

and he left office with an approval ratings in the high 60s!!!:





http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx


and he remains America's most popular living president:





http://www.gallup.com/poll/171794/clinton-elder-bush-positively-rated-living-presidents.aspx

As for Secretary Clinton she has solid leads over all her Republican opponents:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

It's more rapid information out there to disseminate, though....

Now? Even more scrutiny than usual...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html


If you show me one persuadable voter who won't vote for Hillary Clinton in November of 2016 because she used a personal e-mail address I will streak across Dodger Stadium during their biggest game of the year.

it's the people who don't give a rat's ass, but the M$M will be willing to blare that crap for the Republican Party all day long...

And folks who don't have strong feelings either way will vote for that candidate they feel will do the most for him or her and comes closest to representing their values.

I think I'll wait for my choice as Ms. Clinton isn't exactly what represents me as a person.

Since Ms. Clinton isn't an declared candidate, I'd hold your enuthasim until she does officially declare, and you can try to persuade me why a moneyed Third Way member should hold my interest as a voter that is definitely in the 99%?

I'll listen to what she has to say, but I'm perceiving her as someone who's not really for the people.

I don't know what else I can say...

Just waiting for the Democratic primary season to begin....

Good luck to yours!

Beautiful weather this weekend... nearly 80s in Denver,

And I have to head towards crappy weather for the next week (50s in Chicago) - and ironically enough, I'll be there for the runoff, but it's probably Rahm winning it as I am hearing that Chuy isn't putting much of a campaign steam...

Maybe I could be wrong too.

A big crowd cheered him as he went on his way.

When I analyze why I was happy for him, I know that it was because of the unfair treatment he and Monica received from Ken Starr and his hoods.

Maybe Clinton did wrong and the young woman was not coerced, that made it consensual among adults. The impeachment was ridiculous because Clinton lied, when he never should have had to answer the charges under oath. It was ridiculous.

That said, Clinton was a great communicator, but not a great man. NAFTA sucked then and still does. I used to go on Ebay to buy fabric and the women who lost their jobs working at fabric manufacturers in PA hated and despised him. The best cloth you could buy was sold for $1/yd on bids. The fabric was given them by the owners... He cut welfare and did not renew the Glass- Steagall Act that made the banks behave and is responsible for many of our current troubles and the wealth going to the 1% when they should have gone to jail.

But impeachment for lying about an consensual affair with a female, NO NO NO.

Who?

Exactly.

And I didn't look it up.

To conspiracy by members of Congress to continue to waste tax payer money on non scandals".

Answer isn't going to cut it this time. Very foolish.

No biggie, she still just so darn admirable!!

anything? Explain it.

If you want to abet Mr. Gowdy in his fishing expedition there is nothing a random internet poster (me) can do to stop you.

for support is meaningless? He claimed scrubbing the server proved something, but it clearly didn't.

Abet Gowdy? Weak sauce.

I stand with Mr. Cummings in his opposition to Mr. Gowdy's fishing expedition.

If you want to stand with his Republican opponent there is nothing I can do to prevent you...


What you really want to do is engage me in some pointless debate over e-mail protocol... I am content to let the voters sort it out.


If you think this is a matter for law enforcement you can petition the Attorney General to launch an investigation.

used. How does scrubbing the servers prove anything?

She satisfied the demands of the Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Select Committee on Benghazi.

That's good enough for me...

If you believe that disqualifies her a a presidential candidate I suggest you find someone to support in the primaries and back him or her to the hilt.

If you feel that laws were broken you can contact:

The Honorable Eric Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
202-353-1555

You shouldn't post quotes that are meaningless just because you like who said it. At least if you do, you should be prepared to explain why the quote isn't meaningless.

If you think she broke the law petition the Attorney General to launch an investigation.

If you think this incident while not unlawful disqualifies her as a candidate find a candidate you like and support him and her to the hilt...

If you think what she did is unlawful and/or disqualifies her as a candidate for the president there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion...

Speaking colloquially I don't give a rat's ass about her e-mail protocol and am willing to wager that this brouhaha will not prevent her from being our forty fifth president...

You keep talking about protocols ans laws ans some republicans and such. All I asked of you was to explain Rep. Cummings' quote, because it does not make sense. I don't get how her scrubbing the server proves anything.

That is it.

Have I ever said she broke the law? Have I said it disqualifies her? No.

"Have I ever said she broke the law? Have I said it disqualifies her? No."

-Morningfog

So now you focus on me. Have at it.

It does smell. I was stupid. The story is not over. She is a liability. Nowhere did I say she broke the law or is disqualified. I better understand now your inability to answer simple questions or stay on point. I think I get it now. I won't wait for any further explanations from you, clearly you lack the ability.

Have a nice evening though.

#lol@me

On Sat Mar 28, 2015, 09:02 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Says Draco Malfoy (R- Slytherin)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6427584

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Though we decided that some words aren't used at DU whether they are used in a sexist way or not. There are plenty of other names to call people other than c***s.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 28, 2015, 09:07 AM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter, poor word choice obscures and otherwise correct sentiments.
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: Come on, Dar; grow up! You're an adult, not some middle school teeny-bopper. If you have to use foul and demeaning language, use it in front of the women in your life, not the the women of DU.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: They use that 'word' in England with impunity all the time. It's my least favorite next to the n-word. But I'm going with the sentiments of the sentence which are spot on not the icky word.
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.

... they are Republicans who weren't going to vote for Hillary anyway.

There are plenty of real problems with Hillary's candidacy; this isn't one of them.

And, a real enough scandal is enough to swing the election. You want to bet the whole thing on guessing just what percentage that impacts? Not me. No how. Particularly since she has plenty of other liabilities and historically high negatives.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/hillary-clinton-henry-kissinger-world-order

or remember what Presidents he served, much less his roles in the Chilean Coup and the Vietnam War. That he's a name partner and architect emeritus of the NWO, and that Hillary wants to inherit his seat on the Board, goes completely over their heads.

The real scandals always go unpunished, if they are even at all noticed by the public.

Is she hiding it from the Dems, the Repubs or both?

Given how crazy the GOP has been about Benghazi, she may have wiped stuff just to keep them from inflating something innocent into another "scandal". We'll never know. Either way, poor judgement on her part.

Surely there are big examples to point to.

...I guess for people who vote in Democratic primaries... is this how we think government should be? Should cabinet officers keep their own private records of official business and then destroy them when leaving office?

To me that's a horrible way to run a government and it makes me think she was trying to cover her tracks. She had to know that whatever was in those emails was so bad that it would be worth the controversy to destroy all the emails.

communications and protect her image.

HRC has been and will continue to be harassed by the right.

It is one undoubted certainty of an HRC presidential campaign.

Her staff's competency to handle the wet crap filled muck and turn it into moldered compost is essential if she's going to be kept effective.

has been beyond stupid. Private server in her own home and now scrubbed. I am sick to death of this kind of bullshit from politicians, R or D. She deserves every bit of shit she is going to get over this.

before the convention. This will only get worse. One self-serving, self-protecting stupid decision after another.

Jeb Bush's was similarly cleaned, and so was Mitt Romney's.

She's already watched her husband targeted by an investigator on a fishing expedition. She's kept that from happening.

It's ridiculous to think she had any deep dark secrets on her State Department emails. But she shouldn't have to give free reign to her personal account to the nutcases in the House.

he used as governor. He released those emails either late last year or early this year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/25/jeb-bush-email-account_n_6938828.html
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jeb-bush-owns-his-own-email-server
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/politics/jeb-bush-emails-2016-president/

Or maybe how he posted Floridian SSNs and names and other personal info online.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/10/8013531/jeb-bush-florida-email-dump-privacy

I'm probably out of the loop news wise and all, but posts without reference are kinda annoying.

The reference is from what's gathered from HowdyGowdy and from the news.

The news is all we know about the server. I don't give a damn about what Republicans did with their servers and emails, I'm a Democrat and am concerned with keeping the White House.

Either the emails were useless to anyone except the caterers, or they had some embarrassing (not illegal) emails among them. The point is we'll never know nor will anyone else except the recipients, and they may be the reason she wanted to protect them because people write the darndest things...

It would be a long long story if we knew who they went to, and if they had gone to caterers, why delete them. It would have been wonderful to punish that committee with a server full of boring emails. Too bad.

No matter how you look at it, it was a mistake..

come to light before the convention or never at all. She had out herself in very tight spot. She is a liability and risk in retaining the WH.

If the information was ever transported on the internet, the information is there. You can scrub a server until you are blue in the face... the data remains. Of that I know.

I work in IT... when we decommission servers the get scrubbed (triple deleting the data with random garbage) then the hard drives get sent out to be shredded... just deleting the data does not scrub the drives... the data on them could be recovered...

manufactured "scandal" for what it's really worth. All polls show that if HRC was the candidate, she would win the presidency against ANY Republican candidate. So, the plan seems to be to keep her from being nominated as the candidate which would serve to increase the odds for a Republican president.

The bottom line, like it or not, is that she did nothing illegal or even immoral. This is all about campaigning AGAINST her before she even becomes the nominee.

scandal, just like the Benghazi scandal. Now the shit throwers are trying to connect the two scandals. Do they really think Hillary using a private e-mail server fired off an e-mail to the Benghazr terrorists to attack the embassy? Hell no, but that don't stop republicans from doing what they do best.

Her team does not seem able to deal with even the slightest issue in a reasonable manner, and the vast right wing conspericy has not even begun to sling shit yet. She will never be on message due to the endless distractions.

The real problem is that you should never wrestle a pig, but she will be forced to endlessly wrestle an endless stream of pigs for the entire campaign. Swing voters w be so sick of that shit that they will vote for it to end, and that means no Clinton 2.