Discussion
  • Read More
    The Ghost of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ AKA BabyStepsHudson Hongo
    3/28/15 10:56am

    Let the conservative meltdown commence!

    All jokes aside, this is very troubling.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Brock SamsaThe Ghost of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ AKA BabySteps
      3/28/15 11:02am

      To be honest, I'm pretty damn left leaning and nothing about this gives me a good feeling.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      No one you know.The Ghost of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ AKA BabySteps
      3/28/15 11:20am

      Very left person here as well, I keep thinking "Replace The name Hillary with Dick Cheney and that is all we would hear about till 2016."

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Graby SauceHudson Hongo
    3/28/15 10:55am

    "Not only was the Secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest," said Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina in a written statement.

    Isn't this how it's done? When email records are subpoena'd, the email owner searches for the relevant ones and turns them over. A third party isn't asked to do it in normal circumstances. Why should Clinton be held to a higher standard?

    And wow, when is waiting two years to delete something considered a bad thing? If Gowdy Or Gawker, in this case, wants to allege something, fucking do it. But because you have no wrongdoing to allege, then you'll just keep "asking questions" in hopes that something will materialize.

    We see you.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      The Beet Goes OnGraby Sauce
      3/28/15 11:02am

      No, you don't get to wipe out the whole server because you don't think anything is responsive to the subpoena.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      wingz4evaGraby Sauce
      3/28/15 11:02am

      I think that would be a voluntary turnover. A subpoena is a demand right? I'm not an attorney so I'm just guessing. But from what I understand, a subpoena on records isn't "go through your stuff and give us what's relevant" but "give us everything and we will determine what is relavant."

      All this could have been avoided by using business email for business and personal for personal.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    TRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)Hudson Hongo
    3/28/15 11:05am

    Hillary was most definitely there for the Whitewater investigation and its attendant idiocies. How did she not anticipate that this new witch hunt would be equally thorough? The Republicans have had it out for her for 20 damn years. You'd think she'd have learned not to give them ammunition.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      CharlieKellyKingofTheRatsTRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)
      3/28/15 11:10am

      She isn't dumb, there must have been something worth deleting.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      TRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)CharlieKellyKingofTheRats
      3/28/15 11:14am

      This is the lesson of the JFK "conspiracy": unanswered questions are worse than the truth. Unless she committed an actual crime, she'd have been better off getting that into the open posthaste.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    NuOrder72Hudson Hongo
    3/28/15 10:53am

    As someone that has been cheerleading for Elizabeth Warren to run for president, this is great news!

    On another note, FoxNews had to temporarily close their headquarters down due to a disproportionate amount of semen being sprayed around the office from all their reporters having a simultaneous orgasm.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      BoozinSusanNuOrder72
      3/28/15 11:01am

      That Fox News comment gave me a very bad image in my head ...

      GIF
      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      VictorScopeNuOrder72
      3/28/15 11:24am

      Warren ain't running. Get over it.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    The Hammock DistrictHudson Hongo
    3/28/15 11:06am

    I'm guessing Hillary erased the Gawker servers and that's why we're all suddenly in the grey again.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Homey the ClowneyThe Hammock District
      3/28/15 11:26am

      I KNEW it was a conspiracy.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Monkey Grinder's OrganThe Hammock District
      3/28/15 1:51pm

      BENGREYZI!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    BaggyTrousers3Hudson Hongo
    3/28/15 10:56am

    OK, I have more than 500 emails on two "private" email accounts (Gmail and Yahoo) that should probably be deleted and I don't have nearly the number of important emails that she must have had. I should get her to help clean out my inbox because she's quite efficient.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Isaac88Hudson Hongo
      3/28/15 12:43pm

      She's a war hawk, Neo con scumbag. She treated the WH staff like shit her entire time as First Lady. She's shady as all hell. The excuse making coming from the left is revolting. I hope this derails her so a real progressive can run and keep this washed up, status quo loving ass hole out of the WH.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Medieval KnievelIsaac88
        3/28/15 3:55pm

        She's worse than a war hawk. She — and John Kerry, among many others — was willing to vote for war for politically expedient motivations.

        Most Senate Democrats saw that those who voted their consciences and (more or less) with their party's ideology against the first Gulf War paid the price politically, when George H.W. Bush's strategy was not only successful, by some measures, but extremely popular after the fact and went a long way toward erasing the country's hangover from Vietnam.

        So another Gulf War vote comes along, one where it's obvious to anyone who has picked up a newspaper or Mad Magazine in the last year that George W. Bush is proposing to attack the wrong goddamn country, and the misguided lesson that Hillary and others have learned is: Don't vote against war, or risk looking too dovish.

        Thanks, Senate Democrats. We're still paying the price for that one. And let's not forget that France was fucking right about Gulf War II, as well, Freedom Fries notwithstanding.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      dvdoffHudson Hongo
      3/28/15 11:06am

      Clinton's IT guy.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Subtitles999Hudson Hongo
        3/28/15 10:56am

        I understand what she has done is not technically illegal, but it really brings up doubts for me about if she is fit to be president.

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          ThankYouForAgreeingWithMeSubtitles999
          3/28/15 11:21am

          Why? See hasn't been SecState in years. She reviewed the emails in October for FRA purposes, and turned them over to State in December. That's the way it works.

          Why didn't the House subpoena her emails from State last March? They would have gotten to read everything. Oh yeah - because nobody has alleged any wrongdoing.

          Reply
          <
        • Read More
          craigthejollyfatmanSubtitles999
          3/28/15 11:43am

          Which is the intent of the E-mail request. It is not about fact-finding, it is about insinuating wrongdoing in an attempt to undermine her presidential campaign before it begins.

          Reply
          <
      • Read More
        Anti-Star Super-ChristHudson Hongo
        3/28/15 11:36am

        I maintain email servers for legal firms, government agencies, etc. And I can tell you there are "email retention policies" that will automatically go into affect after a certain time frame. There are also "data loss prevention policies" that prevent certain types of emails from going out, like those that include social security numbers, credit cards, etc. There are also policies in place for certain standards like Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPAA, etc that require certain privacy or retentions. And finally, you almost always have the ability to put someone on "legal hold" when a lawsuit is filed that will prevent someone from deleting anything, even if it looks to the user that they deleted it...it's still "discoverable on the server.

        With all of that said, none of that applies here. The emails were deleted before anything came under investigation, which is outside of the realm of "legal hold." No retention policies like SOX apply to her position. It is not uncommon, even in government agencies, to either automatically or manually delete unneeded emails after 2 years. Storage doesn't grow on trees, and maintenance and backup of an inbox of that size is a pain. Not to mention there are fixed limits on how large a default inbox can be before the program starts getting slow or unusable. For instance, Outlook 2013 has an upper OST limit of 50gb before it becomes almost unbearable, not to mention unsupported by MS.

        In short, nothing to see here...move along.

        Reply
        <