Video & Multimedia

7962

(11,841 posts)

108. Thanks!

Reply to Babel_17 (Reply #99)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:00 PM

Mar 2015

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

122 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pic Of The Moment: Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email When Serving As Secretary Of State [View all] EarlG Mar 2015 OP

Uh oh.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Mar 2015 #1

like the Select Comm on Benghi--which cnn said would bring it up. riversedge Mar 2015 #30

My understanding is the rule came in after she left. My problem is that it Autumn Mar 2015 #2

Actually the rule was in effect while she was there, according to the NYT 7962 Mar 2015 #8

Quote the passage from the NY Times wyldwolf Mar 2015 #11

I think the poster is referring to this: arcane1 Mar 2015 #19

This has been clarified to mean this: wyldwolf Mar 2015 #22

Thanks! Seems that there is a lot of ambiguity still. arcane1 Mar 2015 #28

Irrelevant. The Act covers public business, regardless of the form in which it is merrily Mar 2015 #57

the dailybeast just knocked the wind out of your sails. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #60

Not really. The statute is the issue. And Hillary knows how to read a statute. merrily Mar 2015 #63

Apparently you're the only one interpreting it that way. Good luck! wyldwolf Mar 2015 #65

Not really. A lot of writers and commentators are, including Lawrence O'Donnell, who worked in merrily Mar 2015 #70

Not exactly ballabosh Mar 2015 #109

Regulations were in place, just not the particular one people are going on about. merrily Mar 2015 #111

What's hilarious (or should I say HILLARIOUS) is that some people are desperately trying MADem Mar 2015 #116

If true her aides not taking action to have her emails preserved should be looked at Autumn Mar 2015 #13

I know that this must stick in your craw.. William769 Mar 2015 #49

If a personal attack is all you have william. It shows a lot about you. Autumn Mar 2015 #50

Let's just say you get what you give. William769 Mar 2015 #55

Yes one does. Autumn Mar 2015 #56

It sucked up the WH press conf today for the most part. LOTS of questions riversedge Mar 2015 #32

You noticed that as soon as Obama responded the media dropped the Huge Speech coverage? Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #37

actually have been away from tube for a while -had to shovel some snow. thanks riversedge Mar 2015 #53

Trying like hell to distract from Bonehead's buddy Bibi--imagine if all the energy had gone into MADem Mar 2015 #118

The oxygen gets sucked out of the room and no air time left to take a look at the GOP Congress.. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #33

So just like Jebs this will all be over tomorrow? Autumn Mar 2015 #36

No air time left to discuss Obama squishing Bibi like a bug.....with impeccable Spock -like logic. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #38

It will be something new next week for HC - "I don't like her because" crowd Iliyah Mar 2015 #43

WHAT??@?@? You're siding with the Clintonistas and DLC third way corporo-fascists?!?! wyldwolf Mar 2015 #3

Nope. Sorry. I will not 'deal with it'. Hillary disrespects federal laws, and closeupready Mar 2015 #4

What federal law? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #6

Oh, I see. Now we're going to play semantic games. closeupready Mar 2015 #10

Laws are laws. This isn't semantics. The only game here is the one you're playing wyldwolf Mar 2015 #12

In this case, it's been illegal to eat those chips since at least 1950. merrily Mar 2015 #59

but that isn't the case. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #62

Yes, it is the case. Please see Reply 63. merrily Mar 2015 #66

No it isn't. Please see reply 65 wyldwolf Mar 2015 #67

Your position is that a statute enacted in 1950 had no effect until after Hillary left office? LOL! merrily Mar 2015 #72

Your position is some statute enacted in 1950 has something to do with Hillary? LOL wyldwolf Mar 2015 #73

Yes. It has something to do with everyone in federal government, including Dimson and Hillary. merrily Mar 2015 #74

Link with relevance? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #75

I gave it to you on another thread. Once should be enough. merrily Mar 2015 #77

No link with relevance. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #78

according to you. I linked you to a post of mine that contained a link merrily Mar 2015 #80

Still no link. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #81

Whatever. I am not playing your endless repitition game again. Google is your friend. merrily Mar 2015 #82

No link. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #83

Which law? hrmjustin Mar 2015 #27

The Federal Records Act. merrily Mar 2015 #61

I saw that the regulations governing this didn't go into effect until 18 months after she left the hrmjustin Mar 2015 #64

merrily thinks they went into effect in 1950. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #68

The nyt piece should have made it clear. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #71

I think the NYT... smiley Mar 2015 #101

Agreed! They want to create an issue. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #102

The NYT was trying to take a little of the shade away from BIBI IN CONGRESS, I think. nt MADem Mar 2015 #117

Agreed! hrmjustin Mar 2015 #122

Regulations are promulgated pursuant to statutes. For instance, the Internal Revenue Code is the merrily Mar 2015 #79

Well i am not getting worked up about it. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #86

I didn't think you would. But, if its not important to you, why even bother to ask questions? merrily Mar 2015 #87

I didn't say it was unimportant and I did not ask you anything. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #88

You posted a question on a thread. You didn't ask another poster in a pm. merrily Mar 2015 #91

I am very predictable. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #93

She didn't, and peopole here do not "dismiss it". The story was incomplete.... George II Mar 2015 #23

yes, here is when the LAW came into effect.... riversedge Mar 2015 #40

Thanks. JDPriestly Mar 2015 #98

poster here.. riversedge Mar 2015 #35

So ''technically'' she's NOT GUILTY!!! DeSwiss Mar 2015 #89

That link only flashes on for a second, then its blank. 7962 Mar 2015 #96

"Print" version should be visible Babel_17 Mar 2015 #99

Thanks! 7962 Mar 2015 #108

I'd be outraged if a Republican was using g-mail for official government business davepc Mar 2015 #5

Why would you be outraged if a Republican was doing it? BainsBane Mar 2015 #9

Why would you be outraged if a republican... Act_of_Reparation Mar 2015 #14

Several assumptions there BainsBane Mar 2015 #15

Burden will ALWAYS be on authorities to disprove that communications were NOT high level. closeupready Mar 2015 #17

Did you read this? BainsBane Mar 2015 #18

Yes, I did. What someone on DU claims about themselves and HRC is really not news. closeupready Mar 2015 #20

Obviously you're thrilled about the news because you despise Clinton BainsBane Mar 2015 #44

She was using g mail? nt. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #26

Seems to me thatv there's a lot of 2naSalit Mar 2015 #76

this is dismissive and out-of-touch of you, DU Adenoid_Hynkel Mar 2015 #7

So who is that candidate? QuestionAlways Mar 2015 #34

Shhh..... DeSwiss Mar 2015 #95

+1 I do not believe her arrogance is a virtue whereisjustice Mar 2015 #115

She's the one going to have to deal with it. Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #16

The nut jobs at FR and other trolls are going to have to deal with it. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #25

Sorry but Clinton deliberately bypassed the State Dept. email system. She deserves to be called out Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #97

What's the stink about it? I am sure the NSA was monitoring it all along liberal N proud Mar 2015 #21

Very true. I think that she may have had good reasons for doing this. JDPriestly Mar 2015 #42

Republicans can't deal with it. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #24

This is disturbing. I don't care what level of bureaucrat WestSeattle2 Mar 2015 #29

Let's double down on entitlement! BeyondGeography Mar 2015 #31

umm.. did her team riversedge Mar 2015 #39

Although I do not want her to run for president, I have to defend her on this one. JDPriestly Mar 2015 #41

I don't believe the response to that issue, if in fact it is an issue, is to WestSeattle2 Mar 2015 #46

So did Colin Powell. Another fake scandal for fake outrage. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2015 #45

I think outrage would be fake; but concern is not. Anyone who WestSeattle2 Mar 2015 #51

Hell yes! Thanks EARLG! William769 Mar 2015 #47

Of course this is much ado about nothing. While I do not favor Clinton for totodeinhere Mar 2015 #48

Daily Beast proves she did not break the law or regulations. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #52

Hmmm, verryyyy interesting........... Beacool Mar 2015 #54

Alot of things can be said about Hillary Clinton but ALBliberal Mar 2015 #58

WhoopTFuckindo tomsaiditagain Mar 2015 #69

K & R SunSeeker Mar 2015 #84

Bottom line: using personal email, intentionally or unintentionally, Maedhros Mar 2015 #85

How does it bypass a litigation hold? SunSeeker Mar 2015 #106

. stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #90

how important this is depends on WHAT'S IN THOSE EMAILS yurbud Mar 2015 #92

Wait. Am I to understand that she didn't conduct *any* public business on a government email? w4rma Mar 2015 #94

It's OVAH!!!!!! DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #100

Somebody fetch my clutching pearls and fainting couch! [nt] Jester Messiah Mar 2015 #103

Hillary Clinton stiill has my vote! c588415 Mar 2015 #104

Hillary Clinton still has my vote! c588415 Mar 2015 #105

Government policy on Email Java Mar 2015 #107

Hillary was texting her pal Rev. Doug Coe of "THE FAMILY." blkmusclmachine Mar 2015 #110

I hope she wasn't trading secrets on gmail like famous Gen. Petraeus whereisjustice Mar 2015 #112

Petraeus should be charged with treason polynomial Mar 2015 #120

the repugs would love to get their eyes on her personal emails wordpix Mar 2015 #113

Oh, Republicans do it too? I guess the two parties are closer than it seems. My bad. whereisjustice Mar 2015 #114

2009 dolphinsandtuna Mar 2015 #119

No it doesn't wyldwolf Mar 2015 #121