General Discussion

MADem

(135,425 posts)

151. The archivist of the United States has NO problem with SECSTATE Clinton.

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 03:23 AM

Mar 2015

He's not sweating the load. He has said she has broken NO laws and done NOTHING illegal and that there is NO rule against her--or anyone else--having and using multiple email accounts --and that includes non-dot gov ones--even if you don't happen to like that.

My only question is this: If he's not worried, and she did NOTHING illegal (and I'll believe him and his statements of yesterday, rather than the tortured justifications of people who plainly wish Clinton ill and engage in creative interpretation of government regulations to a point of absurdity) , why are ostensible Democrats on a Democratic message board pitching a massive, gassive hissy fit about this invented, contrived, NON-story?

Apparently, HRC did a better job of keeping HER emails safe than official message traffic to embassies and consulates--her stuff didn't end up at Wikileaks, only the cables from the Department did.

But hey, keep on about the whole judgment thing (sorry, your opinion is not controlling, here). I'd say the ones who are "stupid and arrogant" are the ones who don't see the great big load of stinking Bibi Poop Distraction they're being served up by the NYT and other sketchy actors. Instead of turning up their noses, and seeing the WHAT and WHY of this lousy non-story which has been debunked, they're volunteering to be GOP waiters, and are passing the shit around like it's hors d'ouvres at the GOP pre-coronation party.

Wassup with THAT...? Hmmm.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

156 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

MSNBC�s Lawrence O�Donnell: Clinton Using Private Email �Stunning Breach of Security� [View all] Cali_Democrat Mar 2015 OP

Did he say the same thing when Colin Powell did the same exact thing? hrmjustin Mar 2015 #1

Didn't your mama tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? n/t RufusTFirefly Mar 2015 #11

My mother taught me right from wrong thank you. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #12

Two wrongs don't make a right iandhr Mar 2015 #85

first of all, she put information at risk. She used roguevalley Mar 2015 #14

Well if they were not encrypted then this story will get bigger. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #15

I feel that even if they were encrypted it won't roguevalley Mar 2015 #16

In tennis, they call these "unforced errors." Yet another political gift to Rethuglians. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #26

At the very least, it is an immunization for Scott Walker. Hassin Bin Sober Mar 2015 #102

Excellent point. If nothin else, we lose using that issue to further weaken Walker. That wud be regrettable. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #104

Yikes BojackFan Mar 2015 #30

I don't think it has been confirmed by reputable reporting. Apparently, WashPo & NYT are still investigatin the story, so to be fair, we need to wait before passin final judgment. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #68

+1 They want us to have to swallow their scandals and support them anyway. Dems to Win Mar 2015 #33

Encryption requires specific set up on both ends of an email (for every recipient). KeepItReal Mar 2015 #118

It was stupid in the extreme & tees up the obvious argument that Hillary lacks judgment in security matters, showin she's not Presidential material. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #24

I'm guessing Hillary knows more about violations of privacy than you can even imagine. aquart Mar 2015 #56

That's an interesting "twist" (pun intended) to the security issue, though if Hillary offers that as a possible explanation, not sure that's going to fly with most people. Maybe; we'll see. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #66

Some people don't learn from their mistakes. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #82

That is not actually factual. You can use decryption technologies with public and private keys on still_one Mar 2015 #111

Sure, you can. Any proof that she did? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #113

That wasn't my point, you made a statement that using commercial email could not be secure. I was still_one Mar 2015 #114

And my point stands. It's not. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #116

Whatever still_one Mar 2015 #121

No, you can't. jeff47 Mar 2015 #126

I had a pretty close inside view with what happened with Sarah Palin's email hack... cascadiance Mar 2015 #71

Benghazi fadedrose Mar 2015 #100

Cyber security seems more problematic now than it did in the previous century. aquart Mar 2015 #22

Madeleine Albright did it too--and so did everyone in the Bush White House. MADem Mar 2015 #34

Where's the link for "everyone" you list? fadedrose Mar 2015 #98

I'd like to see that too. While the excuse "everyone does it" won't fly with a lot of people, it would lessen the damage that's already out there.... InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #109

You were seriously unaware of that controversy? It was all over the media. MADem Mar 2015 #136

He didn't have his show then but it doesn't really matter brush Mar 2015 #62

In defense of Powell fadedrose Mar 2015 #97

Norwegian Blues stun easily. n/t Orsino Mar 2015 #129

I love him. marym625 Mar 2015 #2

No one could have predicted that using unsecure email as SoS could lead to controversy Fumesucker Mar 2015 #3

I suspect this will be the first of many... ram2008 Mar 2015 #4

Ya think? Yes, way overdue. We have a deep bench; plenty of qualified potential candidates who set a good example and demonstrate sound judgment. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #6

You can bet a huge part of the party was waiting for something like this ram2008 Mar 2015 #9

Good analogy ram. For too long, the Clintons have held members of the Democratic Party hostage. Some of 'em are still sufferin from Stockholm Syndrome. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #21

Bullfuckingshit. aquart Mar 2015 #27

I know--she belted him with a lamp (allegedly) but did no permanent harm. MADem Mar 2015 #35

A lamp? I think I would have liked a scar. On his forehead, perhaps. aquart Mar 2015 #38

I think there was a bit of swelling around the eye--a bit of pan stick covered it. MADem Mar 2015 #39

When is it ever justifiable to begin throwin objects at your spouse in response to some argument you're engaged in? InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #73

Spousal abuse is almost always justified I guess. AngryAmish Mar 2015 #76

Because physical abuse of your spouse is totally okay! nt Bonobo Mar 2015 #54

No, it's not "OK" but in this instance I can see her POV and appreciate her frustration. MADem Mar 2015 #57

My spouse cheats on me I get to slap them around. AngryAmish Mar 2015 #77

Wow! So if the roles were reversed, you would appreciate & excuse Bill's visceral reaction of throwin a lamp at Hillary? InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #79

If you mistake challenge and objection for "hectoring," you need to go do your homework. MADem Mar 2015 #134

Just prefer Dems not TELEGRAPH ultimate support 4 even the worst candidate as u say (agree w/ ur premise) so Hillary won't take our vote 4 granted & will move left on issues InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #144

This message was self-deleted by its author InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #80

Apparently, like the rule against government officials' use of personal email to conduct non-emergency govt business, there's an exception for Hillary. Didn't you get the memo? InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #75

Holding someone to a rule NOT IN EXISTENCE till 2 years after she left her job? aquart Mar 2015 #107

She threw it at him, it missed. I fell in love with Hillary when I heard that. Autumn Mar 2015 #146

Hillary, once again, shows incredible lack of judgment - seems to be a pattern with her. Time for Elizabeth to step up. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #5

There are other candidates who are actually interested in running you know... Agschmid Mar 2015 #7

Yeah, because being a registered Republican as late as 1996 shows better judgment? MADem Mar 2015 #41

Hogwash. What a lynchmob DU has become. aquart Mar 2015 #42

Yep. RiverLover Mar 2015 #69

Disagree.... Adrahil Mar 2015 #143

... TDale313 Mar 2015 #8

Also... Cali_Democrat Mar 2015 #13

I will say, I doubt she or her staff would put sensitive or classified TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #18

Do you really think Clinton is THAT stupid? PedXing Mar 2015 #28

+1. Just what the presumptive Democratic nominee needs -- more baggage. Dems to Win Mar 2015 #32

Try this: aquart Mar 2015 #40

Here you go--I hope everyone reads it. MADem Mar 2015 #43

THANK YOU! aquart Mar 2015 #45

Hey--that was a beaut of a find, and ALL CREDIT TO YOU! Talk about much ado about NADA!!! MADem Mar 2015 #50

I tired of O'Donnell ages ago. Bohunk68 Mar 2015 #67

The law was put into place to correct a problem, no? TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #110

Actually, the personal email was considered government property, you'll notice. aquart Mar 2015 #119

Huh? "Lying little kid lies?" No one did any lying. You've not got the bubble. MADem Mar 2015 #132

That was about her stupid sniper lie or are you claiming she took fire after all? TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #145

When ya got nada, change the subject! MADem Mar 2015 #150

Two years after she left office or not brush Mar 2015 #64

They can hammer all they want--it's not going to stick. MADem Mar 2015 #147

They're already starting brush Mar 2015 #155

MADem, do us all a solid and post this as an OP for all the henny-pennies. KittyWampus Mar 2015 #74

Sorry--I was out of pocket today with a bit of work to do. MADem Mar 2015 #133

Except... it was still a known problem long before the law. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #89

The archivist of the United States has NO problem with SECSTATE Clinton. MADem Mar 2015 #151

She was the BOSS. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #154

I LOVE Bob Cesca. He cuts through the RW-propaganda each and every time. BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #91

this ought to be it's own OP. nt hopemountain Mar 2015 #130

There's more than one Fed reg in play here, and the other pertinent one was enacted in 2009 ARMYofONE Mar 2015 #148

The archivist of the United States disagrees with you, and he's the final arbiter, not you, not an MADem Mar 2015 #149

thank you, both hopemountain Mar 2015 #61

What I see is unmarked cash disappearing into pockets. aquart Mar 2015 #103

Arrogance, pride, hubris. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #86

Entitled and Faux pas Mar 2015 #10

Really? Above the law? You might want to check the link at post 43. MADem Mar 2015 #44

Sort of like jumping on the case of somebody Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #92

I find it rather sad that so many here at DU are not just willing, but EAGER, to MADem Mar 2015 #139

Several points. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #142

Cheney defied subpoenas. AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #17

Let's be clear: You are quoting a parody NOT Hillary who NEVER said those stupid words. aquart Mar 2015 #46

I made it clear by calling it an SNL spoof. AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #52

Cheney and his Bush buds planted misinformation in the NYT? aquart Mar 2015 #49

They thought they were above the law too. AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #55

This is devastating. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #19

No it isn't. The wingnuts WANT it to be, but since they've done the very same thing, they have no MADem Mar 2015 #36

hyperbole much? still_one Mar 2015 #112

Nyet! Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #131

Yawn. Every email is hackable. There is no "secure" system. McCamy Taylor Mar 2015 #20

If you are the NSA perhaps Fumesucker Mar 2015 #23

The State Dept. is no paragon of security. Chelsea Manning leaked 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables. SunSeeker Mar 2015 #31

Not by hacking. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #93

Exactly. KeepItReal Mar 2015 #120

Your email is hackable no matter what server you use. SunSeeker Mar 2015 #124

'She set up her own domain' Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #125

What info do you have that she had some "random guy" set up her domain? SunSeeker Mar 2015 #128

But no Clinton emails. MADem Mar 2015 #152

And I have video of O'Donnell proudly saying to Greenwald he's not a progressive, either. freshwest Mar 2015 #29

The House Ethic Committtee will start their investigation on it immediately Iliyah Mar 2015 #25

I'll bet you a donut they live in a glass house on this particular issue. nt MADem Mar 2015 #37

Trying to blame this on lack of notice to Hillary and/or on her lawyers or staff is laughable and merrily Mar 2015 #47

Here's a comment on the NYT article on this: MBS Mar 2015 #48

See link at post 43. There was no "federal regulation" until two years after Clinton left State. nt MADem Mar 2015 #51

Even ordinary federal workers have very, very strict rules regarding use of email MBS Mar 2015 #59

The Secretary of State is not an "ordinary federal worker." Surely you realize this. MADem Mar 2015 #60

On the face of it, her decision to use a private email account simply makes no sense. MBS Mar 2015 #63

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #81

That certainly wasn't my thought. MBS Mar 2015 #96

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #99

I hope, in the last 24 hours, you've had a chance to see that this was bullshit, it was a NYT MADem Mar 2015 #138

And there ya go. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #94

But they don't. It's not privilege, it's fact. MADem Mar 2015 #137

Is that the paper that regularly printed Republican lies to talk us into war? aquart Mar 2015 #53

Yes, Judy Miller's NYT, and COMCAST's MSNBC....and they eat it up like the cat's cream. nt MADem Mar 2015 #58

I agree the NYT is guilty as charged, tho it was fed those lies by the Bush admin that stooped to a new level of corruption that caught people off-guard. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #70

This has more to do with Euphoria Mar 2015 #65

Rachel too! Capt. Obvious Mar 2015 #72

They are all Comcast's paid liars. AngryAmish Mar 2015 #78

This message was self-deleted by its author InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #83

Yes ur right-can't take a news person seriously 4 reportin news esply if it shows the chosen candidate ina negative light based on their exercise of extremely poor judgment. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #87

Had to stop watching Rachel. peace13 Mar 2015 #101

He's suspended from his sports show, you know. aquart Mar 2015 #105

He's back this week! Saw him last night! peace13 Mar 2015 #123

It appears that my theory is becoming a reality regarding MSNBC's reason for the lineup shakeup. BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #84

Has anyone verified that she sent important state secrets using this email? DebJ Mar 2015 #88

She sent *ALL* her emails using the private account as Sec. of State KeepItReal Mar 2015 #95

That doesn't answer my question. DebJ Mar 2015 #115

Here's some insight KeepItReal Mar 2015 #117

A one day old story...gimme a break we won't know the truth for a couple of days sailfla Mar 2015 #90

If tru, it wud be shockingly stupid on Hillary's part. We shud know ina few days, but if we don't hear somethin soon, it's likely the news is NOT good... InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #106

Her actions were careless at best. nt ladjf Mar 2015 #108

O�Donnell lost all credibility when he freaked out over Obama's prayer breakfast speech. greatlaurel Mar 2015 #122

Remain objective:..see poster... riversedge Mar 2015 #127

Maybe she was paranoid the CIA was spying on her. Rex Mar 2015 #135

Naw, she was just proving that she doesn't have to answer a phone call at 3 AM. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #140

Dear Mr. O'Donnell, How Does It Feel Being a Tool? McCamy Taylor Mar 2015 #141

I am sick.. chillfactor Mar 2015 #153

Actually the stunning breach of security happened in 2010... Spazito Mar 2015 #156