Hillary Clinton broke the rules: Our view

[elleng]

As secretary of State, she ignored repeated warnings about email security.

'Everyone, including Hillary Clinton, now agrees that the newly confirmed secretary of State made a mistake in 2009 when she decided, for the sake of “convenience,” to run her own email system out of her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., rather than use an official State Department email account.

But a new report by State's inspector general makes clear that within two years, Clinton's bad decision had turned into something far worse: a threat to national security, one that she repeatedly ignored despite multiple warnings.

Warning No. 1: The report, released last week, reveals that in January 2011, hackers were attacking her private server. Twice, the Hillary and Bill Clinton staffer responsible for maintaining the server had to shut it off to protect data held by America's top diplomat and the former president. The staffer notified State Department officials of the attempted hack, and Clinton’s top aides there emailed each other to say that “sensitive” matters should not be discussed with Clinton over email.

Warning No. 2: Two months later, the assistant secretary for diplomatic security sent a memorandum on cybersecurity threats directly to Clinton, warning of a dramatic increase in efforts "to compromise the private home email accounts of senior department officials" in a likely attempt to "gain access to policy documents and personal information that could enable technical surveillance and possible blackmail.” The memo to Clinton warned her that some personal email accounts had already been compromised and had “been reconfigured … to automatically forward copies of all composed emails” to the hackers.

Warning No. 3: That May, Clinton herself suspected that there might have been another hacking incident when she "received an email with a suspicious link." Hours after her aides discussed the issue over email, Clinton received another email with a suspect link, this time from the personal account of the "under secretary of State for political affairs."

Warning No. 4: A month later, the State Department sent a cable to “all diplomatic and consular posts” about the dangers of unsecured personal email accounts. Staffers were ordered to “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.” Who signed that cable? Hillary Clinton.

Those warnings, coming in a span of six months, should have made any responsible public official, even one without Clinton’s access to classified information on cyber threats from the vast U.S. intelligence network, aware of the national security dangers of failing to secure the secretary of State’s email communications.

Instead, Clinton and several of her top aides continued to use personal email for sensitive State Department business thousands of times.

If Clinton wants to become the president of the United States, she needs to explain how she could make such a reckless decision. She had a chance to answer questions when the Obama administration-appointed inspector general contacted her about the investigation that was released last week. Among five recent secretaries of State, only Clinton refused.

While Clinton is under potential criminal investigation by the FBI for the mishandling of classified material sent through her email, remaining silent might be in her best interests and it is certainly her right. But to be president, she is going to have to convince voters that she can put the national security of the United States above her own short-term self-interest.

It's already clear that, in using the private email server, Clinton broke the rules. Now it remains to be seen whether she also broke the law.'

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/30/hillary-clinton-email-server-inspector-general-editorials-debates/85159948/

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. This is now a national trend

[elleng]

4. Looks that way.

Thanks for informing everyone!

[ebayfool]

7. As some are wont to say 'tick tock tick tock ...'! I saw that People mag is also on it.

http://www.people.com/article/hillary-clinton-emails-inspector-general-report-mean

Seeping into the general public's field of vision.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I saw it and I forgot to put it into the important timeline

[ebayfool]

16. !

Snowballs gather speed at a certain point. This one is rolling!

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. I will likely update the time line (as in movie form)

this weekend. But here is what we already posted. It is simpler than the other, but this is a time line for mere civilians who have not been following every step and turn. Enjoy. (And it has no sound)

[ebayfool]

27. Stellar job! Lays it out easy to understand, and no frills to confuse the beginner trying to get ...

to the bottom of the issue. Facts is facts!

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Timeline 3D for the Mac

but figured keep it simple. Bonus points, all those links are saved within the program with the text

[840high]

64. Wonderful job.

[Duval]

141. Thank you!

Makes for a clearer understanding.

[Land of Enchantment]

151. Terminal velocity is around 170 mph. She is approaching it...nt

[politicaljunkie41910]

48. She's still not going to be indicted.

Having a server is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. The previous post discussed the only cases which have ever been prosecuted and Hillary doesn't even come close to any of these acts which were deliberate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2068211

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. You keep dreaming

I still remember when many of you bight ones told us that the OIG report would be a nothing burger

[politicaljunkie41910]

51. I don't have to keep dreaming. I have a life.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. Good, I have one too

[highprincipleswork]

132. Doesn't have to be indicted for this to be severely damaging - to her and to us.

[KPN]

143. BINGO!!

And it will be ... unless she deals with it openly and honestly now. It may already be too late ... she's dug herself a pretty deep hole with her inadequate and obscure statements on this to date.

We may well be screwed -- because of arrogance, entitlement and too far down the river now.

[bvar22]

144. Hillary? Deal with something "Openly and Honestly"????

[glowing]

148. Especially when her way of dealing with these questions with reporters,

and "friendly" reporters at that, is to do a wildly strange laugh, bulge her eyes nearly out of her head, and then parse her statements with legalese and misdirection. Hasn't anyone on her team explained to her that this weird "laughing" reaction is incredibly odd and uncomfortable for the viewer watching the interview? And what politician running for President has used "fake giggle" to wiggle out of answering questions about national security and her choices she made at a high-level, govt office position?

Let's just reverse the situation... Hillary is asking questions of a State Dept worker who decided to use their e-mail account to send sensitive work related subjects through their personal e-mail account after she sent out a cable directive to the entire agency warning them NOT to use their e-mail, even @ dot gov e-mail, because the agency was under cyber attack... In this scenario of her asking one of her employees why they had ignored the cable directive, and had possibly allowed national security to become breached, would she accept a fake giggle as a response for their actions? Would she accept a legally parsed statement? OR would she force an investigation into the issue to check the level of harm to the agency, send information to the FBI to investigate the employee, and FIRE the employee from the State Dept. And their would be no legal aid/ council offered from the State Dept to represent the employee as the State is doing now for Clinton regarding the FOIA lawsuit from Judicial Watch.

BTW, why is it taking a lawsuit from Judicial Watch, nearly 3 years after Clinton left the State Dept, for the American People to be allowed to see what was done under her tenure at the State Dept? Seriously, a rabid, right-wing organization is the only agency out there pursuing this issue? I know CREW used to be the one's who did great work as a govt "watch dog" group... But Brock bought them up and the State Dept was off limits? If this is her reaction to govt transparency under President Obama (a former "reval" for the presidential primaries), what in the world will her administration look like when she's at the helm of it all?

She's so paranoid about the right wing attacking her that she ended up placing herself and perhaps national security in jeapordy.

She seriously needs to announce an overwhelming need to "spend more time with the family" and now out of the race before the convention and definitely before the GE gets into full swing. And if she continues on, we may, for the first time ever, see a refusal to debate by Donald and Hillary for the GE... Neither of them would want debate questions from the moderators about taxes or e-mails. Would we have an election and an Impeachment the very next day? Would the FBI be dragging one of the two potential Presidential contenders out the White House doors by handcuff? And what does the Secret Service do at that point? Protect a jail cell?

[ibegurpard]

2. But if everyone on DU

Would just stop bringing it up then surely it would go away...

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Don't worry, they will get their safe space

and it will go away... in their minds.

[joshcryer]

19. It's mostly editorials.

Go to Google news. This is news cycle pushing drama and click bait. If the FBI was going to indict we'd know because the select committee on intelligence would've leaked something. Democrats would be far more worried than they are.

So just keep repeating the blather. It's not going anywhere.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Good that you noticed it was mostly editorials

what do you think that happened during Watergate? For that matter, during our local Filner scandal, where do you think the first calls came from? The front page? NOPE, the editorial boards. This is anatomy of a scandal 101.

For the record, in every scandal, hard core, bunker mentality fans dismiss the editorials, to thanks for the market in the anatomy of a scandal.

[joshcryer]

41. 70-80% on right wing sources.

Just right wing nonsense. Right wing witch hunts that the Clinton's have endured for a quarter century. And yet nothing sticks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. That reaction is also predictable

she is in trouble. The question is whether your party wants to commit political suicide and go down with her, or not. Thankfully that decision is way, above your pay grade. So hopefully those folks will indeed have that talk with her, and soon.

[joshcryer]

46. No one credible believes there will be an indictment.

We know this because the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hasn't made rumblings. It's why Feinstein has been laughing off all the bullshit. People say she's biased for Clinton, etc, but, um, she's the vice chair of the committee. If anyone would know it's her.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. No one credible believed the State Department IG would slam her either

When you are a partisan, you get blinded, no matter if this is my local mayor. or Nixon, or this. There is a predicable pattern to a scandal.

[joshcryer]

52. Huh?

The IG report could've been far worse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. How so?

they do not recommend legal action. This was actually pretty damning, since it contradicted her year long story at key points, like major points. Such as the server was not authorized, and her use of exclusive private email would nave never been authorized, and their putting material on the cloud was against policy.

Try your cute talking points and gish gallop with people who have not read this.

[joshcryer]

59. The good thing is we'll know in 6 months.

And in just two short weeks the "questions" will go away.

I just feel sorry for the true believers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. No josh

she lied, and her story was contradicted not a little, but 180 degrees by the OIG report. It is what many of us suspected, but now it is in writing from an OFFICIAL AGENCY. She lied.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. By the way, your comment about "true believers" is also a marker of a mature scandal;

keep going.

[riderinthestorm]

101. In 2 weeks this goes away?

No josh. In 2 weeks this story goes ape-shit as Republicans crank this sucker up to the stratosphere.

I actually feel sorry for Hillary supporters. The denial is off the charts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. My evil side can't wait

[riderinthestorm]

109. Honestly how the hell does Skinner put a black out on this?

It's stunning levels of crazy denial.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. He wil try

and it will as entertaining as Free Republic II. The freepers did the same thing during the Iraq and were stunningly uninformed. It is a bunker mentality

[riderinthestorm]

117. SMH. Like Romney only relying on internal polling...

You and I have "history" with some rabid Hillary supporters so I know the lengths some will go to in order to shut down dissent.

This story though, blacked out by Admins, will be in Pravda-land of willful blindness imo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. That is where the comedy value comes in

and we both have experience. While they shut it down here, the WAPO, NYT, Facebook and the rest of the world will be informed. It reminds me of this

[emulatorloo]

152. I think you seriously underestimate Skinner as a person.

You seem to be claiming that there will be a news blockout regarding the FBI investigation. I don't know what you base that on. Skinner has never done anything like that.

I admire you enormously but I think you are getting a bit over invested in this "bunker mentality" narrative you've got going.

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. It is part of scandals,

that happens and it is not my business what he does or not, The world will go on. the sun will rise, and the FBI will continue their investigation. It matters little what people do here.

[emulatorloo]

154. Never mind, then

[Duval]

142. Mine, too.

drip drip drip

[frylock]

147. "I just feel sorry for the true believers."

You type that in the same post in which you claim that the purging of Sanders supporters will make all the uncomfortable questions go away. Who is the true believer here, Josh?

[Press Virginia]

60. I don't know why he thinks the DOJ is going to inform the senate if it's

going to indict.
If there's already a grand jury convened, the rules are that it cannot be disclosed.

[joshcryer]

72. The only thing they can bank on is negligence.

That means Clinton will have had to have transmitted highly confidential information willfully and negligently. Everything was classified after the fact. The Senate Select Committee has all the relevant emails.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Hold it right there

if you have SAP intel (my friend Sid did) in an email, that was classified before he received it, and he had like zero clearances.

Moreover, there are documents that no matter what marking they have, are born classified. This was already established by Reuters about a year ago. You need to do some research, I mean it.

Here you go

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

Some of us have these things now in timelines.

[joshcryer]

81. Yawn.

You're not convincing me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. I don't need to convince you,

nor the FBI, they are on their own time line, but this is not going away. And the media narrative my friend has radically changed.

That said, you can go argue with Reuters, and their experts,

[joshcryer]

87. You. Are. Wrong.

And you will see. It's just a damn shame the email pumpers aren't going to be hanging around here when she's elected president.

I'll miss the gloating opportunity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. So what is your clearance level? What agency by the way?

Because I have actually talked with lawyers who have pointed to me the violations in law, and with people who actually have held clearances, this is not a nothing burger. I pointed to you the Reuters story, which came early, and for god sakes I read one of those emails that was born classified... state released it, oopsie, and obviously so did the Reuters people, why they looked into it... when you say things were later classified, you are wrong. This is how this shit has worked for over 25 years.

You are a partisan Josh. I get it. Denial is what it is. But this is not going away and if your party decides to use that loaded, round in the chamber, cocked gun to commit political suicide, go right ahead. Just don't blame those of us who have tried to warn you. In fact, the rest of us will not be kind on your party, neither will historians.

[joshcryer]

98. And when nothing comes of it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Ah you will learn that this the stumps that started to grow with that

Reuters piece have grown to full grown and well articulated legs.

My hope is that you never again fall in love with a politician where your judgement gets this clouded.

[joshcryer]

111. Yeah, done engaging you on this.

These phone back and forths are low substance. If I was on PC I'd explain in excruciating detail how utterly wrong you are. MSM narrative be damned.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Partisans will deny until after the story blows

part of the issue... it is called a bunker mentality.

[Press Virginia]

79. One of the laws in play involve Gross Negligence

Her server, itself, could establish intent. As well as her failure to turn over her work related e-mails until she was forced to.

If the server was in place to circumvent the FOIA process then any removal of classified information from its proper place of custody is also intentional.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. And she lost control to somebody without a clearance

and when the server was stored for two years at a non authorized place. Yes, intel agencies will assume that server was compromised.

[Press Virginia]

97. Yep. They don't even have to access the server or the information. There

just has to be the ability for them to do so.
The people who went through her e-mails for her may not have been cleared to see some of the stuff on the server.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. Correct

[joshcryer]

82. Yeah, she violated the records act.

Hardly a felony.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Violating NARA is the kid stuff here

[Press Virginia]

95. If it was established there is a single document

that was so obviously sensitive....satellite imagery or human Intel source information then her intent to violate one federal law could be enough to establish intent with regard to mishandling classified information.

But the information would have to be so sensitive that there would be no misunderstanding that it was classified....marked or unmarked.

[joshcryer]

102. Senate Intelligence would know about something like that.

Feinstine isn't worried.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. LMAO

You are naive to the extreme

[Press Virginia]

106. She's an HRC supporter. She's selling the "marked classified" and

HRC didn't send anything. Neither of which are relevant.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Here is the early reuters story on this

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

[lagomorph777]

136. Ignoring 4 separate warnings (at least) is prima facie evidence of willful negligence

Not easy to dismiss.

Thank you elleng and Nadin!

[bvar22]

145. No one who was "credible" believed that Bernie would run Hillary into a near dead heat this year.

But he did.
So much for your "credible" pundits.

[Scootaloo]

56. Ah yes, this again

"If it criticizes a Clinton it is automatically a right-wing source."

If she wins, the next four years are going to see you paring down what you consider "acceptable media" until you're running off white house press releases and nothing else.

[joshcryer]

57. In other words the great right wing conspiracy is real.

[Scootaloo]

115. Ah huh

And the Kerry State department and the FBI are all in on it, along with every major media outlet. It's all just a nasty conspiracy, with its tentacles in everything, all devoted exclusively, completely to making Hillary Clinton look bad. Because it's impossible that maybe - just maybe - Hillary Clinton fucked up. That's completely inconceivable, because as we all know, both Clinton are essentially perfect beings, whose only failings are due to being held back by lesser beings.

Or. Or...

Maybe she actually fucked up and you're just wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. Ok I am not in the right distribution list as media

we did miss the memo... I mean, there must be some good pay in the VRWC...

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. And blue nation review

[840high]

69. Doesn't it bother you that

for a quarter century the Clintons provided enough bad to be investigated? Certainly did not happen to Carter or Obama.

[Depaysement]

65. The FBI doesn't indict

DOJ does. The FBI recommends either indictments or doesn't.

The FBI isn't doing anything yet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. The recomendation can be accepted or not

and if DOJ does, it will seal the indictment until they release it. Since DOJ personnel is already involved... mechanically it gets a tad faster.

[bjo59]

116. Editorials by the editorial boards of major newspapers are nothing Hillary Clinton wants, as should

be very obvious. USA Today is read by millions of people as it's found, aside from online, all over airports, in front of hotel room doors in the morning, in doctors offices, and on and on. You think commentary like this isn't effecting perception and that the superdelegates aren't paying attention?

[joshcryer]

134. "it remains to be seen whether she also broke the law"

She didn't.

[bvar22]

146. Oh?

And where did you get your Law Degree necessary to make such proclamations?

[JudyM]

28. Sexist! Right wing smear! Everyone else did it! Nothing was "marked"! Math! B&J's taxes!

And other endless, transparent or delusional, whiney diversions from The Facts.

[840high]

71. Either stupidity or fear on their part.

[JudyM]

73. Fearful and arrogant makes a nice mix.

[B Calm]

3. This is not going away, she is a flawed candidate and her nomination almost assures a Trump win.

[apcalc]

54. Never

She may be flawed, but hands down she is the best.

[One Black Sheep]

5. Hillary is not viewed as trustworthy, but as shady and corrupt by huge blocks of the

population...exactly because of excessive secrecy and shenanigans like this email thing. Hillary seems unable to put this behind her, no matter how she tries to spin it.

USA Today is right on target here.

[elleng]

8. Yes, they are on target,

and the important part, imo:

'Clinton and several of her top aides continued to use personal email for sensitive State Department business thousands of times.

If Clinton wants to become the president of the United States, she needs to explain how she could make such a reckless decision. She had a chance to answer questions when the Obama administration-appointed inspector general contacted her about the investigation that was released last week. Among five recent secretaries of State, only Clinton refused.

But to be president, she is going to have to convince voters that she can put the national security of the United States above her own short-term self-interest.'

I think her judgment is highly flawed.

[One Black Sheep]

13. Yes, for sure. And all the Hillary's campaign lame excuses seem to be ringing hollow

these days. Only a few ultra sycophants in the media seem to be buying the excuses any longer.

[elleng]

14. and sycophants around here too, sadly.

[One Black Sheep]

15. yup, exactly.

[JudyM]

30. But... she "tries" to tell the truth!

[Fawke Em]

6. And the people who work in InfoSec and Intelligence believe she broke more than the rules.

Apart from the guidelines for proper handling of classified information, outlined in Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code, there is some evidence of a cover-up regarding what was compromised. This itself would be a violation of the 2009 Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

Numerous messages both in New York and in Washington have reportedly been erased or simply cannot be found. In addition, the law cited above explicitly makes it a felony to cut and paste classified information removing its classification designation. Retaining such information on a private email system is also a felony. In one of Secretary Clinton’s emails, she instructed her staff simply to remove a classification and send the information to her on her server.

So the question is not whether Secretary Clinton broke the law. She did. If the laws are to be equally applied, she should face the same kind of consequences as others who have been found, often on the basis of much less convincing evidence, guilty of similar behavior.

[elleng]

10. HI, Fawke!

[think]

12. Wake up Democrats. Seriously. Wake up....

[Alex4Martinez]

17. She has responded. Her response was seasoned, professional, grave, AND very presidential.

[elleng]

18. You got it.

[winter is coming]

31. For "presidential", read "Nixonian". n/t

[opiate69]

21. Wow... just...

[One Black Sheep]

26. lol, exactly. And age is no excuse. I know people as old as Hillary who use computers and

the internet just as well as any millennial does these days.

[elleng]

33. like ME, Sheep, even OLDER than Hillary

and using a computer and the INTERNET!

[mmonk]

138. .

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. That is months old

[grasswire]

22. it's mainstream now. nt

[IdaBriggs]

24. The USA Today Editorial Board.

It's not going to stop. This week, more shoes will fall.

[elleng]

25. You got it, Ida.

[KoKo]

38. So far, Editorial Boards of NYT, Daily News, USA Today...I think there's

another one. Is it the WaPo? Anyone know any others?

This is significant!

[antigop]

84. Charlotte Observer editorial: "Why Hillary Clinton’s real problem is more than just emails "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512086794

[antigop]

86. Augusta Chronicle editorial: Of hypocrisy, imperiousness and accountability

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512088519

[KoKo]

139. Thanks for the links to Other Papers...

very helpful.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. Yes, and a regional heavily partisan paper

the Boston Herald, called for indictment. The patter is obvious to anybody who knows how these scandals evolve.

[antigop]

108. Wow! "Hillary Clinton's Endless Lies"

http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/editorials/2016/05/editorial_hillary_clinton_s_endless_lies

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. As far as this editirial board is concerned

it is already following a familiar pattern of a mature scandal.

[BillZBubb]

34. The media has been pretrified about reporting on the email fiasco. The IG report changed that.

They now have a non-partisan opinion that they can run with and expand upon. The flood gates are open and there is more bad news to come for Hillary and her supporters.

Everyone who is conscious now knows she's been lying for over a year about this. Everyone who is paying attention knows she either broke the law and/or was arrogantly careless with respect to national security.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Yes, the floodgates are open

why they want to kick us out of here, so they can have a nice safe space where none of that reality will come and hurt their feelings, And I intend to abide by that, right until she steps down. It will happen, if the party has any brains and does not want to commit political suicide, If they do... well we tried to warn them. Their issue.

[Segami]

40. Welcome to WeathervaneUnderground........

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. He should have Elad chahge the title of the site

to EstablishmentUnderground.

I am half kidding

[sadoldgirl]

58. Forget the brains,

the party is only interested to keep the status quo, even
if that means the Dumpster may win.

They may also see that replacing her with another
Third Way candidate could rip the party totally
apart.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. It is already fracturing

so they have no worries there.

[rhett o rick]

39. She clearly wants power, power, and more power.

[Waiting For Everyman]

122. Exactly. It's the first quotable, indisputable source of record.

It's an important turning point.

I'm a bit surprised that her own Department was that tough on her. That doesn't bode well.

[riderinthestorm]

44. I foresee another bad week ahead for Hillary nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Yup I think you are correct.

if not now, it will come. This is not going away.

[KoKo]

53. Hillary Clinton Cancels N.J. Event to Campaign in California

From LBN....

----------

Hillary Clinton Cancels N.J. Event to Campaign in California
Source: Wall Street Journal

Campaign seeks to avoid embarrassing loss to Bernie Sanders

By LAURA MECKLER

Updated May 30, 2016 7:28 p.m. ET

Democrat Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign on Monday canceled an event in New Jersey to spend more time campaigning in California this week ahead of the June 7 primary, hoping to avoid an embarrassing defeat to rival Bernie Sanders, who has barnstormed the Golden State.

Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-cancels-n-j-event-to-campaign-in-california-1464647927

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. I fear she will have to cancel them to go answer some tough questionsn at the FBI building in DC

but that is a bad sign for other reasons. If Bernie does well, it will be embarrassing, extremely well... well could be fatal to her campaign

[frylock]

149. She's just pivoting to the GE.

[KoKo]

150. Agree..."The Pivot!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

47. it's not only about breaking rules and laws

it's about being fit for presidency. If this had been someone else there would be calls from the media for her to 'get out of the race'

[oberliner]

62. Thank goodness the USA Today editorial board has weighed in

Their newspaper has always been filled with so many bright colors.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

90. is that the one at every motel door?

#1 in circulation http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/10/28/aam-circulation-data-september/18057983/

[Lars39]

92. And generally in kiosks everwhere other papers are sold too

[oberliner]

100. Yes, indeed

Fox News is also the #1 news network in terms of viewership.

[bjo59]

119. Also mentioned this in a response here. The Washington Post is a "paper of record" but USA Today

is has an incredibly wide circulation. Like you said, one at every motel door (and airport lounge, doctor's office and repair shop waiting rooms, and on and on). It's the famous easy-to-readnewspaper. The drip-drip-drip is turning into a torrent.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. This is the same pattern that famously was seen with Watergate

the bunker mentality here will get far, far worst. We have not hit the bottom on that one.

[Uncle Joe]

70. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, elleng.

[elleng]

78. Thanks, Joe.

[Bob41213]

76. Oh the humanity!

You can't make stuff up like this....

Warning No. 4: A month later, the State Department sent a cable to “all diplomatic and consular posts” about the dangers of unsecured personal email accounts. Staffers were ordered to “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.” Who signed that cable? Hillary Clinton.

[Waiting For Everyman]

88. Oh, c'mon. She just misspoke and mislooked and mistaked and misjudged and misacted.

She's just trying to have a little privacy for pete's sake, according to DiFi, that's why she's running for President!

[elleng]

91. Thanks, Everyman.

[Waiting For Everyman]

93. Hey, neighbor!

[uponit7771]

96. I'm glad, I hope she breaks more rules... like ... Not slowing down under a yellow light and shit

[bjo59]

114. Wow. Another statement like this from the editorial board of a major US newspaper.

Does not look good.

[MFM008]

123. Soon will be relieved to see posts like these

delegated to sore loser forum.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. Do remember to tell the FBI that they are not doing anybody a favor

and State, they should be flogged for that report. Obviously they are part of the VRWC...

You think the scandal will stop becuase DU decides to go La, La, La? Soon I am looking forwards to Treating DU'ers the same way I treat Freepers, mostly a source of entertainment.

[elleng]

128. Thanks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. You welcome

The shit will continue to hit the fan. I wonder if in small dribs or large ones, and at this point does it matter?

[elleng]

133. I think it does matter,

large would be better.

Some obnoxious stuff happening, but some kindness too. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512091492

[Babel_17]

124. Several major editorial boards and fact checkers want to make that clear

I get the impression that they don't appreciate having lent the benefit of the doubt to previous statements. They see themselves as having been somewhat duped and to have aided in putting out a false narrative.

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. And you really do not want to piss off people

who buy ink by the bucket full. Some of whom have printing presses in the basement.

Same happened with Watergate.

[lagomorph777]

137. Basement publishing

- hmm, that's pretty much how the "Chappaqua Press" worked - published to Guccifer, Putin, ...

[dchill]

126. K&R

[jfern]

127. Doesn't the US Today know that rules don't apply to the Clintons?

[elleng]

129. Au contraire,

USA Today seems to know the rules DO apply to the Clintons.

[Herman4747]

140. You can now add "incompetence" to Hillary's list of traits...

...to go along with deceitful, insincere, corrupt, short-sighted, narcissistic, etc.