General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

48. Yet another reply? My, my. For the second time, Reply 19 spoke to the "importance" of the issue,

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:08 AM

Mar 2015

well as to the bs surrounding it from both sides, despite the its relatively trivial nature . You've sure proven what my Reply 19 said.

I replied to you twice. Both times, you ignored everything I said.

In your Reply 39, you repeated the same things you had said in your Reply 35, even though I had already responded to them. So, my responding to your Reply 35 was a complete waste of my time.

Now, in response to my Reply 40, you claim I am guessing, which is also bs, and that I think my guesses are better than everyone elses's which is still more bs. IOW, my Reply 40 was also a waste of my time.

Neither in your reply 35 nor in your reply 39 did you refute anything I said, nor did you add anything new to your Reply 35, with the exception of some personal insults.

You seem likely to be one of those "I must have the last word, no matter what" posters. I am not. So, have at it, but I am done wasting my time replying to you on this thread.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

140 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Secretary Kerry is the first Secretary of State to rely primarily on a state.gov email account." [View all] geek tragedy Mar 2015 OP

A DUer who works at State Department wrote this important piece: elleng Mar 2015 #1

That post is laughable. merrily Mar 2015 #31

That post is probably correct, not laughable. kwassa Mar 2015 #35

You're saying Hillary is so uneducable that she could not even be taught to use one email as opposed merrily Mar 2015 #37

I'm actually sorry I responded to your post. This entire issue is TRIVIAL beyond words. kwassa Mar 2015 #39

Yet, you responded again, so I doubt you're that sorry. As to trrivial, please see my Reply 19. merrily Mar 2015 #40

I still think this entire email thing is a non-issue, of little importance. kwassa Mar 2015 #43

Yet another reply? My, my. For the second time, Reply 19 spoke to the "importance" of the issue, merrily Mar 2015 #48

In the real world, 50 and 60 year olds rely on 20 year olds to set them up with technology. pnwmom Mar 2015 #55

Come on, pwnmom. That is patently untrue. And ageist. And laughable. merrily Mar 2015 #56

You've missed the key point. She didn't just switch email accounts. She had a private server set up in her home, which pnwmom Mar 2015 #58

No, YOU've missed the point. Having ample ability to comply with federal law Hillary chose instead merrily Mar 2015 #61

She didn't fail to archive. There was no time limit in any law or regulation in effect when she was pnwmom Mar 2015 #63

The lawyer at the National Archives who was Director of Litigation says she broke the law. merrily Mar 2015 #75

Where does he say she broke the law? All you did was post a bio. That isn't very useful. pnwmom Mar 2015 #78

No links per my request? Also, what allowed Hillary to retain control over her govt papers until 2 merrily Mar 2015 #79

This article cites both Attorney Baron and his successor at the Archives. merrily Mar 2015 #81

Yeah, it cites him for being an idiot. pnwmom Mar 2015 #83

That is a ludicrous claim Read his resume. merrily Mar 2015 #94

Please see post 84. pnwmom Mar 2015 #99

Also false. I didn't ignore his testimony. merrily Mar 2015 #101

Where did you respond to David Ferriero's sworn testimony as Archivist? n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #103

This is about the third time you've asked me to show you where I posted something directly TO YOU. merrily Mar 2015 #113

The Archivist is the head of the agency. Your guy was an underling. pnwmom Mar 2015 #114

How the heck am I supposed to know what law or regulation YOU THINK she broke? You're the one pnwmom Mar 2015 #80

I did not ask you to know the law. I cited the specific law. & You're lthe one who made the claim. merrily Mar 2015 #82

No one has shown that she violated any archiving requirement while she was in office. pnwmom Mar 2015 #84

You made the claim that the law was changed after she left office. I asked for links. merrily Mar 2015 #85

Here is the timeline: pnwmom Mar 2015 #86

Not so. See Reply 19. Besides, that still does not speak to archiving or retaining personal control merrily Mar 2015 #89

Your reply 19 does nothing to contradict the sworn testimony of the national Archivist in 2013. pnwmom Mar 2015 #91

Duh. It contradicts your post. merrily Mar 2015 #106

How does it disprove the head Archivist's sworn testimony? nt pnwmom Mar 2015 #107

Sorry, that does not speak to archiving at all. Please see Reply 19, which says the important merrily Mar 2015 #88

She preserved the emails and forwarded them upon request. n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #92

He says there was no law against using personal emails. pnwmom Mar 2015 #115

Where did you cite the specific law? pnwmom Mar 2015 #87

I ask you specifically for a link to the Federal Records Act of 1950, as amended through the merrily Mar 2015 #90

You're the one claiming she broke it the records act. You provide the statute. Logically, one can't pnwmom Mar 2015 #93

BS. I didn't ask you to prove a negative. And you are so wrong about inability to prove a negative. merrily Mar 2015 #96

I'm so wrong about "inability to prove a negative"? Guess you never took a basic logic class. pnwmom Mar 2015 #98

More bs and more moving goalposts. Post 96 refuted your post 98 before you wrote it. merrily Mar 2015 #100

You are asking me to read your mind and figure out what law Hillary might have broken pnwmom Mar 2015 #102

you've repeated that falsehood over and over and I've refuted it over and over. merrily Mar 2015 #104

The law as it currently exists is completely irrelevant pnwmom Mar 2015 #105

No kidding. that is exactly why I asked you to support YOUR claim that the law as it existed when merrily Mar 2015 #108

That lawyer is a GOP operative... Sancho Mar 2015 #120

Maybe. But he still knows the Federal Records Act. What evidence do you have? merrily Mar 2015 #121

NPR had a report on this morning... Sancho Mar 2015 #126

NPR said, IF her emails were archived? That's what you're offering as proof her emails were merrily Mar 2015 #128

He was interviewed on CSPAN a few days ago... Sancho Mar 2015 #133

Every Republican is not a Republican operative. That's exactly why I bolded "operative" in my post. merrily Mar 2015 #135

Here's Baron's CV...I looked at it... Sancho Mar 2015 #138

Please see Reply 19. merrily Mar 2015 #139

Anyone who has a modem or WAP has a private server in there home, this i disenginuous uponit7771 Mar 2015 #130

Conflicting reports -AP reports the server registered by Admin named, "Eric Hoteman." However, leveymg Mar 2015 #140

Oh Boy! leftofcool Mar 2015 #76

Did you have any specific and relevant point to make? merrily Mar 2015 #77

What evidence do you have to say this? Sancho Mar 2015 #117

If you read the thread, you will see exactly what I am saying and why. merrily Mar 2015 #118

Unfortunately..legal experts don't seem to agree with you entirely. Sancho Mar 2015 #119

Yes, this email thing is a bogus flap, just like Benghazi. Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #2

DHS funding, war with Iran, SCOTUS gutting the ACA. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #3

The rw smear job worked.. again. Cha Mar 2015 #5

No shit. Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #7

don't forget that HSBC donated to the Clinton foundation, and that was pretty big scandal to some still_one Mar 2015 #109

Not just like Benghazi at all. No one died. She seems to have all the records. She can fix this merrily Mar 2015 #38

So, now that she has, are you happy? stevenleser Mar 2015 #59

crickets still_one Mar 2015 #110

Ding ding ding!!! 2naSalit Mar 2015 #69

Benghazi! Damn, I thought we laid you to rest.. State Secrets! It's okay for Snowden et al but Cha Mar 2015 #4

But Kerry was not not the first Secretary to have responsibilities with respect to federal records. merrily Mar 2015 #6

All of her emails with other state dept employees geek tragedy Mar 2015 #10

Not really the point. merrily Mar 2015 #19

Great summation. Thank you. leveymg Mar 2015 #27

Thank you. As a general rule, I am very bad at remembering who posted what and I did not merrily Mar 2015 #32

That's ok. I borrowed from you, too. leveymg Mar 2015 #33

Borrow away! I am delighted. The more truth that gets spread, the better. merrily Mar 2015 #36

Perfect post, clear and concise. Thank you Autumn Mar 2015 #41

Thank you. merrily Mar 2015 #49

The fact is, unless there's a way to know what is in the private email account (like checking TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #8

Emails sent to anyone else in the state dept geek tragedy Mar 2015 #9

What happens when they all communicate via private email accounts? TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #11

For example, what email account did her spokesman use for this exchange with TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #12

There are only about 100 reporters etc who were emailing Reines geek tragedy Mar 2015 #15

Since he was operating in his official capacity as personal spokesman, TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #17

Given the attention this story is receiving, we'll find out soon enough. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #18

If they want to keep something off-record they do it by phone. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #13

That's why it seems so unnecessary to have to set up an entire separate email account TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #14

My guess is that she has one and only one email geek tragedy Mar 2015 #16

Again, any private account used to conduct business that is meant to be archived TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #20

This is what I mean about using oxygen on bs. merrily Mar 2015 #21

I'm sure she emailed her minions at State. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #23

And what basis do you have to "highly doubt" that she never dashed off an email to Obama? merrily Mar 2015 #24

Have you ever heard of an email from a cabinet member geek tragedy Mar 2015 #25

Not the issue: Have you ever heard from a reliable source that Hillary never sent one? merrily Mar 2015 #26

Why would any DUer be in the position former9thward Mar 2015 #29

Thank you. That was one of the more bizarre questions I've been asked in my entire life. merrily Mar 2015 #30

It is email to nonofficial recipients which remains the leveymg Mar 2015 #28

That and that this is another instance in which Clintons seem to feel obeying the law is optional-- merrily Mar 2015 #52

Email to non-official recipients is private. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #122

What I meant to say was non-US officials or official business with private parties. leveymg Mar 2015 #129

of course. There is always someone who receives the emails. Wait, what if she wrote the email only still_one Mar 2015 #112

Kerry is a good guy. Renew Deal Mar 2015 #22

Good for him for releasing a half truth intended to make it seem Hillary did not violate the law? merrily Mar 2015 #34

Kerry is overseas and has been since this broke - he has put out no statement at all karynnj Mar 2015 #45

I would think this statement was cleared with him, esp. given Hillary's impending coronation and merrily Mar 2015 #50

This issue is manufactured by the Jeb Bush machine Generic Brad Mar 2015 #42

Yes, she absolutely did break a law, but see Reply 19. I agree that this was likely merrily Mar 2015 #51

Even conservative media is acknowledging today that no law was broken. You're now harder on a stevenleser Mar 2015 #60

The law requires archiving. Her documents were not archived. What the law says merrily Mar 2015 #62

The lawyers at all conservative print and television media have told them no law was broken. stevenleser Mar 2015 #64

Anyonne can misinterpret the law. And, with all due respect, anyone can misinterpret what a lawyer merrily Mar 2015 #65

That's what you're going with? Conservative media has stopped accusing a Democrat of something. stevenleser Mar 2015 #66

Obviouslsy, you didn't read anything I asked you to read. Please stop wasting my time. merrily Mar 2015 #67

None of what you wrote had any bearing on this. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #68

Totally false. Besides if you didn't read it, how would you know what it bore on? merrily Mar 2015 #70

You're still making excuses. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #71

No, I'm making sense and citing law and the guy who administered that law. You're citing Fox. merrily Mar 2015 #72

You're more vituperative against Hillary than conservative media at this point. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #73

Still not reading. No surprise. Also, ,please consult a dictionary and/or thesaurus. merrily Mar 2015 #74

You realize that bios of lawyers posted by their law firms are totally self-serving onenote Mar 2015 #123

Sure I do. Every resume but a fool's is self serving, but law firm bios usually are not falsified merrily Mar 2015 #124

I don't know what law firms you've worked for onenote Mar 2015 #125

What law firms any DUer has worked for is pretty irrelevant. And, to quote Shania Twain, it don't merrily Mar 2015 #127

PS from your source: merrily Mar 2015 #131

And he says "use" not "failure to archive" onenote Mar 2015 #132

No, we've established only that you misread your own source. merrily Mar 2015 #134

so what did he mean when he said she didn't violate the law onenote Mar 2015 #136

I said no more questions to me, dude, until you answer the ones I've asked you repeatedly. merrily Mar 2015 #137

So, Philippe Reines Sent Us an Email octoberlib Mar 2015 #44

That's an interesting exchange Autumn Mar 2015 #46

Reines is a trip. octoberlib Mar 2015 #47

I liked how he tried to make something of the fact that reporters use private email addresses to merrily Mar 2015 #53

I agree. It's not the reporters fault. octoberlib Mar 2015 #116

Which means COLIN POWELL used a personal email as SoS too. alp227 Mar 2015 #54

And? Did Powell archive? Is he about to run for President? merrily Mar 2015 #57

The point is your Jason Baron of the illustrious credentials is CLUELESS. pnwmom Mar 2015 #95

No. That was not alp's point and I responded to your non-point about Jason Baron upthread. merrily Mar 2015 #97

Not totally clueless about electronic archiving but leftofcool Mar 2015 #111