Email

dooley_womack1 · Mar 9, 2015

cranberry said:
This could be bigger than Benghazi as a campaign issue.

Personally, I use my work e-mail for almost everything (although I probably shouldn't) but for various reasons I've also signed up for a few private accounts to use for various work-related social media feeds and web services (porn sites).

Fixed

Baron Scicluna · Mar 9, 2015

old_tony said:
Do you really believe there is something in there that would totally exonerate her and she didn't make sure they saw it already? Seriously?

I am a lot more certain that there are emails that make her look bad that will never, ever be turned over.

Damn, some people are really gullible.

It's already been proven that Republicans will cherry-pick portions of emails that they release to the media, to the point of ignoring the rest of the email which has the opposite effect. I can see them ignoring any emails that she gives that makes her look good.

User 11148 · Mar 9, 2015

Baron Scicluna said:
... any emails that she gives ...

Your word choice there is very, very, very, very, very, very ... telling.

Baron Scicluna · Mar 9, 2015

doctorquant said:
Your word choice there is very, very, very, very, very, very ... telling.

Oh, I know, there's a huge conspiracy out there. If she deleted a bunch of emails, then go find them on the server, then.

Anything more until that point is just useless speculation and gossip.

User 11148 · Mar 9, 2015

Baron Scicluna said:
Oh, I know, there's a huge conspiracy out there. If she deleted a bunch of emails, then go find them on the server, then.

Anything more until that point is just useless speculation and gossip.

The point is they're NOT HERS TO GIVE. Let me repeat that ... they're NOT HERS TO GIVE. I'm gonna write it one more time, just so that it has a chance to sink in ... they're NOT HERS TO GIVE.

bigpern23 · Mar 9, 2015

old_tony said:
Do you really believe there is something in there that would totally exonerate her and she didn't make sure they saw it already? Seriously?

I am a lot more certain that there are emails that make her look bad that will never, ever be turned over.

Damn, some people are really gullible.

Wait, what is it she needs to be exonerated for?

Baron Scicluna · Mar 9, 2015

doctorquant said:
The point is they're NOT HERS TO GIVE. Let me repeat that ... they're NOT HERS TO GIVE. I'm gonna write it one more time, just so that it has a chance to sink in ... they're NOT HERS TO GIVE.

Oh, sorry, the grammar police has checked in.

Very well, "I can see them ignoring any emails from her own private account, that would make her look good."

Better?

Baron Scicluna · Mar 9, 2015

bigpern23 said:
Wait, what is it she needs to be exonerated for?

Yeah, what crime is she being accused of, again?

Starman · Mar 9, 2015

Baron Scicluna said:
Yeah, what crime is she being accused of, again?

BENGHAZZZZZZZZIIIIIIIIII !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And they're still looking for the video where she screams "Kill Whitey."

LongTimeListener · Mar 9, 2015

Baron Scicluna said:
Oh, sorry, the grammar police has checked in.

Very well, "I can see them ignoring any emails from her own private account, that would make her look good."

Better?

dq, if Baron thinks you're just in a grammatical argument about what you mean, it's probably time to cut bait.

User 11148 · Mar 9, 2015

Yeah, LTL, I have to agree with you there.

Baron Scicluna · Mar 9, 2015

Should I have said, "which would make her look good," or was "that would make her look good," the proper grammar?

Baron Scicluna · Mar 9, 2015

Starman said:
BENGHAZZZZZZZZIIIIIIIIII !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And they're still looking for the video where she screams "Kill Whitey."

Hannity will have it, and it's a game changer. Any day now ...

Baron Scicluna · Mar 9, 2015

LongTimeListener said:
dq, if Baron thinks you're just in a grammatical argument about what you mean, it's probably time to cut bait.

He missed my point entirely. Regardless of whether she's giving the emails, or the emails are from the government server, from Monica Lewinsky, or whomever, my point was that Republicans would ignore any emails that made her look good. And my point was backed up by how Republicans have in the past treated emails that made the administration look good.

LongTimeListener · Mar 9, 2015

OK I'm going to wade in say dq's point (and I think I can speak for him on this) is that they are not her emails, they are our emails.

You would be losing your **** like your avatar if this were a Republican official. It's kind of good to see because every time I think I'm getting too hyperpartisan, I read what you have to say and think, Nah, I'm not that bad.

Baron Scicluna · Mar 9, 2015

LongTimeListener said:
OK I'm going to wade in say dq's point (and I think I can speak for him on this) is that they are not her emails, they are our emails.

You would be losing your **** like your avatar if this were a Republican official. It's kind of good to see because every time I think I'm getting too hyperpartisan, I read what you have to say and think, Nah, I'm not that bad.

I figured that was his point, which I feel is quite irrelevant to the point I was making.

Here's my sentence again:

"I can see them ignoring any emails that she gives that makes her look good."

So let's say I had posted this:

"I can see them ignoring any emails that make her look good."

Would that have been sufficient if I had taken out those three words? If it had, then my response on grammar is relevant.

If anything, my original posting is accurate because they are demanding that she, well, literally give them emails from her own personal file. They want her to give up the emails. She does so. Then they ignore the 49,999 pages that make her look good and focus on three words on one page. Whether or not she's legally supposed to not do emails on her own account is currently in dispute. As has been pointed out, others in the past have done the same thing, just not to the extent that she did.

As far as partisanship goes, I'll admit, I'm not pleased that she did this, and I frankly wish she'd speak up and actually give some rationale as to why she did. If anything, if she did speak up, it probably would end most of the discussion, unless something else major crops up, and we can move on to the next Republican faux scandal.

User 11148 · Mar 9, 2015

Baron Scicluna said:
They want her to give up the emails. She does so.

And you know this how?

Baron Scicluna · Mar 9, 2015

doctorquant said:
And you know this how?

How do you know she doesn't?

User 11148 · Mar 9, 2015

Let me just say that I'm not as (insert WFB-esque pause) ... trusting as you.

JayFarrar · Mar 9, 2015

Well when Sarah Palin calls you out for not being transparent enough, you got a problem. Of course, as I recall, it took the threat of multiple lawsuits and other legal threats to get Palin to give up her emails, but I digress.

Her critics will not be satisfied with anything she does though as the Clinton rules are, as always, in effect.

My advice would be to call ap, the times and the post, tell them to bring some IT folks and some flash drives, then have them copy the entire contents of the server and do a forensic audit to make sure nothing is missing.

Email

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

Do you use your personal email to conduct work business?

Yes

No

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads