patrick.net

She probably spent so much time e-chortling about how she shlonged Bubba with Steely Dan she needed a tad of privacy.

Ceffer says

shlonged with Steely Dan

Thank you for the 'Naked Lunch' allusion.

Ceffer says

she shlonged Bubba with Steely Dan

Electrical banana, it's gonna be the very next phase.

Philistine says

Thank you for the 'Naked Lunch' allusion.

Tasty kid, real Tasty....

Call it Crazy says

Edit: Patrick's html editor doesn't like the "!" sign in the repost of the thread... Try this...

http://patrick.net/?p=1278532

Got it. But that wasn't really a discussion of the issue at hand. It quickly went off on a tangent.

The question is... Was she within the law to send these emails through her own private channels? Where are the excuses from the left? Humanity is the only one with the balls to try and offer the excuse that she was attempting to provide greater email security. (Don't let it be said, Ms. Hillary, that we aren't grateful that you have our country's security interests at the forefront... guiding your every email...)

Wait, my fingers are laughing....

well billy sent his emails through monikas private channels...
waats good fore de goose eez good fore de gander...

turtledove says

The question is... Was she within the law to send these emails through her own private channels?

turtledove says

The question is... Was she within the law to send these emails through her own private channels? Where are the excuses from the left? Humanity is the only one with the balls to try and offer the excuse that she was attempting to provide greater email security. (Don't let it be said, Ms. Hillary, that we aren't grateful that you have our country's security interests at the forefront... guiding your every email...)

Wait, my fingers are laughing....

The excuse will be.....
1. She thought that e-mail address was already approved by the govt.
2. She just got mixed up.
3. Republicans are making a fuss over nothing.
4. It wasn't her fault. Her staff screwed up.

5. she thought the i-phone servers were government run.

Strategist says

The excuse will be.....

1. She thought that e-mail address was already approved by the govt.

2. She just got mixed up.

3. Republicans are making a fuss over nothing.

4. It wasn't her fault. Her staff screwed up.

SoftShell says

5. she thought the i-phone servers were government run.

Strategist says

The excuse will be.....


1. She thought that e-mail address was already approved by the govt.


2. She just got mixed up.


3. Republicans are making a fuss over nothing.


4. It wasn't her fault. Her staff screwed up.

Hey, I just remembered. The NSA spies on all e-mails, which is why we call them every time we forget the password. They already know everything she did.

What's the big deal? Most politicians use private email addy for some of their business.

I worked in Georgia State Capitol offices once. It was well known that there were rogue Wifi routers setup, specifically to service each office's various unofficial email access.

Remember when Gov. Palin did it? Or Mittens? Right.

I'd be surprised if there are any politicans who DON'T do this.

I have 6 email accounts myself.

"The Clintons’ unfortunate tendency to be their own worst enemy is on display again, with reports that, as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton conducted official business solely from a personal e-mail account.
***
To back up: The Federal Records Act requires agencies to maintain records of official business, including e-mails. The National Archives, which oversees such collection, had this to say in 2013 about the use of personal e-mail accounts:

“While agency employees should not generally use personal email accounts to conduct official agency business , there may be times when agencies authorize the use of personal email accounts, such as in emergency situations when federal accounts are not accessible or when an employee is initially contacted through a personal account. In these situations, agency employees must ensure that all federal records sent or received on personal email systems are captured and managed in accordance with agency recordkeeping practices .”"

If the reports are true, then I wonder how did the culture of the Department and the administration enable this result? I mean, in 4 years, did nobody mention this issue?

Perhaps thanks to Pfc Manning and Edward Snowden, HC can argue that all her e-mails have already been published by Wikileaks and/or safely archived by the NSA.

turtledove says

Humanity, she doesn't get to make such decisions. If everyone thought like this we'd plunge into chaos.

Yes she does. Until someone tells her that she has to do otherwise.

But I do understand that you're a republican, and you folks get really excited about any chance to nail democrats for anything.

I'd probably feel the same way if half the people in my party were retarded, and the other half were either evil scumbags carrying water for the 1% or perverts that spend all their time preaching about morality.

turtledove says

offer the excuse that she was attempting to provide greater email security.

I don't know whether it was greater security from outsiders. But it would have to be greater security from insiders.

I don't think any of us know much about the types of security precautions that today's government officials take these days with truly private communications. But I think it's safe to say that truly top secret sensitive information would not be sent by email whether it was from a state department email account or a private ISP account.

This is another one of those stupid republican witch hunts. And you're falling for it.

IT will get traction on Fox. Maybe even elsewhere. There is one aspect to it that it has in common with the whole Bengazi bullshit. And that is that she can't really talk about the state of the art in diplomatic communication of sensitive information any more than she could talk in details about what happened in Bengazi (relative to the CIA presence etc.)

Yeah. playing gotcha is such fun for the dirtbags of the political world. I guess maybe they are still all butthurt about watergate.

Did she do something illegal?
Get back to me when charges are filed. OH,WAIT! All members of the Big Club have immunity as in bush & cheney committing war crimes.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/_ZfrLTD1PZ0

Just what is it with these clintons???

Call it Crazy says

"What difference, at this point, does it make"

*

marcus says

This is another one of those stupid republican witch hunts. And you're falling for it.

It's not a witch hunt. The federal records act is clear. Hillary broke the law unless she can prove every single email was saved at the agency in accordance with federal law. There is no room for interpretation.

Vicente says

What's the big deal? Most politicians use private email addy for some of their business.

I worked in Georgia State Capitol offices once. It was well known that there were rogue Wifi routers setup, specifically to service each office's various unofficial email access.

Remember when Gov. Palin did it? Or Mittens? Right.

I'd be surprised if there are any politicans who DON'T do this.

I have 6 email accounts myself.

Gov Palin, mittens, and you aren't federal employees who are bound by federal law.

It's not a witch hunt. The federal records act is clear. Hillary broke the law

Before you get too excited about this, you might want to realize that the law you're talking about went in to effect way after she left the state department.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/03/hillary-email-scandal-not-so-fast.htmlbob2356 says

She doesn't love America.

Maybe Hillary is an immense hirsute lesbian and didn't want to be caught? She could have been sending love notes to Rosie O'Donnell ??

turtledove says

We were...

http://patrick.net/misc/And+that+was+THAT!

I can't find it. When I click on it, I get a message that there's no such thread... I did look before I posted.

What's up with that?

turtledove says

I can't find it. When I click on it, I get a message that there's no such thread... I did look before I posted.

oh crap, that is definitely a bug. sorry, will fix today.

@patrick note to self: fix this

ah, the linkify routine is failing to include the exclamation point:

http://patrick.net/misc/And+that+was+THAT!

I think the bigger scandal is that Hillary literally accepted 10's of millions in donations to her foundation from foreign governments like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait,,,,,while serving as Secretary of State.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/03/03/390504044/clinton-foundation-funding-woes-touch-hillary-too

She was flying around the world on tax-payer funded jets and shaking down foreign rulers to donate to her foundation........all the while having her emails and communication routed through her own server at her house.

Yah - nothing fishy at all! Rules and laws are for the little people.

Even without all of these scandals, can anyone name a single accomplishment Hillary achieved while serving as Secretary of State? Libya? Pulling all troops out of Iraq? Russia/Ukraine? Israeli/Palestinian peace process? China? North Korea? Yemen? Iran?

This would be equivalent to say, allowing the tyrants of the world an open book to how to create havoc on the world due to understand the thoughts and movements of the agency designed to maintain global diplomacy.

This is beyond high treason - open emails if read by Putin, Ping, give a schematic towards undermining the US in every way!

There is just something very dishonest about this couple. Yes, there are other dishonest politicians out there, too... but this pair seems to be especially allergic to honestly. They epitomize all the worst qualities of lawyers. The way they like to play word games and demonstrate how they can outsmart you and the system. They don't even pretend. Naked hubris, short and simple.

turtledove says

There is just something very dishonest about this couple.

I always enjoy the part where libertoonian dipshits tut-tut harder over Democrat swine than Republican swine.

There are so few actual libertarians. Maybe 10% of those calling themselves such really hew to the tenets. The rest are just pseudo-intellectual parrots repeating the Republican talking points du jour, while adopting a fashionable label.

"Something very dishonest ... especially allergic ... play word games ... pretend they can outsmart you (i.e. "think they're better'n me) ... Naked hubris."

You are one dim bulb.

1993 called - they want their cliches back.

Call it Crazy says

Clinton Private Server Listed Under Mysterious, Untraceable Name

Respect

Call it Crazy says

socal2 says

Even without all of these scandals, can anyone name a single accomplishment Hillary achieved while serving as Secretary of State?

Can you name 4 big accomplishments of secretaries of state in the past 60 years ?

By definition their accomplishments (often diplomacy) aren't big news. Improving relations with other governments. Avoiding big problems. Advising the President regarding tricky situations. Representing our government in high level, important, international and yet not super newsworthy meetings.

Hillary actually was a very successful secretary of state. That's the reason for the big Benghazi push and it's also the reason for this story. Anything to tarnish her image.

turtledove says

They don't even pretend. Naked hubris, short and simple.

Yeah. With their level of transparency, they haven't even hardly earned the name scumbag.

It's much better when politicians act holier than thou, while secretly molesting children, or funding off shore accounts with bribes. As
long as they appear honest and clean, and maybe even a little simple minded, that's what matters the most.

I like it when they seem super honest, but also less intelligent than I am. When they're clearly more intelligent than I, it makes me really nervous.

turtledove says

There is just something everything very dishonest about this couple. Yes, there are other dishonest politicians out there, too... but this pair seems to be especially allergic to honestly. They epitomize all the worst qualities of lawyers. The way they like to play word games and demonstrate how they can outsmart you and the system. They don't even pretend. Naked hubris, short and simple.

Fixed it for you, they are a textbook example of sociopaths and the treason that wreaks from them is beyond maddening.

humanity says

I like it when they seem super honest, but also less intelligent than I am. When they're clearly more intelligent than I, it makes me really nervous.

More intelligent than you? Is that possible?

I don't think that they are more intelligent. They are clever. They are good at finding little loopholes that enable them to circumvent the law. They revel in word games (remember, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." Everyone else understood the spirit of the question... But not slick Willy. He was too busy playing word games and figuring out how he could technically be right while still DOING wrong.)

I think it's a very sad state when people who devote their cleverness to skirting the law are lauded as "intelligent." You are a smart guy, Humanity. Don't you find it a little insulting that they are constantly trying to out-clever you by diverting your attention to some insignificant detail rather than the matter at hand? Perhaps you can just sit back and say, "well played." But, YOU aren't supposed to be the enemy that they are outsmarting!!!!!!

Call it Crazy says

humanity says

Hillary actually was a very successful secretary of state.

Why, because YOU said so.... Well, I guess that settles it!!!

I hear she's got the global warming scientists working up some scientific models that prove her success.

socal2 says

and shaking down foreign rulers to donate to her foundation

She didn't shakedown. She delivered the goods and got her payment :)

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

When Rosie O'Donnell is sitting on your face, do you really need email to communicate?

ah, refreshing! we're so glad you're back, apocalypsefuck.

The thing that really sucks is that Buffet and a few others say she is a shoe in. The zombies have officially taken over...

turtledove says

Call it Crazy says

humanity says

Hillary actually was a very successful secretary of state.

Why, because YOU said so.... Well, I guess that settles it!!!

I've heard both republican and democrat pundits complimenting her term as secretary of state. Then there's also polling data.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/hillary-clintons-popularity-reaches-near-record-high/2011/03/31/AFJWTXAC_blog.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/17/wsjnbc-poll-hillary-clinton-exits-with-69-approval-rating/

Then I guess the WSJ is to liberal for you to pay any attention to it.

An eye-popping 69% of Americans approve of the job she has done as the country’s top diplomat, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, with a scant 25% disapproving of her performance.

Pretty impressive, considering the fact that about 35% (or maybe 40%)of the electorate hate her.

If Hillary gets in the White House, will Rosie O'Donnell give her a blow job? Maybe Monica can give husband and wife a couples' blowjob??

turtledove says

They revel in word games (remember, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." Everyone else understood the spirit of the question... But not slick Willy. He was too busy playing word games and figuring out how he could technically be right while still DOING wrong.)

Only a republican could have that kind of a take on it.

My take was that his sexual afairs were none of our fucking business. And since he was cornered on the issue by a full time special prosecutor whose sole purpose was to find something he could nail Clinton on, he behaved exactly as one would expect.

What the hell do you expect ?

Was he supposed to go into lurid detail about fooling around with (but not fucking) an intern ? What you intellectually dishonest folks refuse to acknowledge is this:

Many of us might judge him for the behavior (fooling around with an intern), even though we don't know the status of his marriage at the time, but only republicans fail to comprehend that it's none of our business. And if it's none of our business, how can you judge him for private behavior that you shouldn't even know about ?

And how can you blame him for telling white lies (not even) about it, actually playing lawyer word games as you say, trying to avoid people knowing what is none of their business. Trying to avoid not only unnecessary diminishment of his reputation for his private behavior, but also reflecting poorly on the office of President ?

Maybe being dishonest with oneself is simply a prerequisite to being a republican.

You know it's none of our business, but you're okay with going after him for it, because it's hurting the enemy, a democrat. And then when he reacts to people going after him for his private behavior, you call him slimy for trying to avoid having the public know about personal affairs he'd rather keep to himself (and that he should be able to keep to himself)

Maybe republicans got what they wanted with the impeachment of Clinton.. But in time I think history will make it obvious that the republicans in this era are a total joke. The big historical debate will be over what they lacked more, honesty and integrity, or intelligence. I have to admit, I don't know the answer to that. Both were (and still are) shockingly low.

It takes a right winger as stupid as CIC to conflate my thinking that ones sexual behavior is none of my business, with my approving of their behavior.

IS that what we're doing in this country now ? Monitoring everyone's sexual behavior (between consenting adults) and deciding which behaviors we approve of and which ones we don't. ?

Thanks for weighing in as a representative moron CIC. IT saves me the trouble of expanding on my point of view further. AS I said, in time history will show this, and idiots such as yourself for what you are. Nice try though. I'm sure there are people out there that are retarded enough to buy your nonsense. Why am I not surprised that even 18 years later (or whatever it is) you still don't get it.

Call it Crazy says

Do you want a guy this this low level of moral character to be a role model for future generations?

Better question is, do you want that ?

After all it's only because assholes like you that wanted to take him down that future generations will know about his private behavior..

I know you can comprehend this. And yet itwon't even scratch the surface of your bubble.