HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Clinton's emails labeled ...

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:34 PM

 

Clinton's emails labeled 'top secret'

Source: The Hill

The Obama administration will entirely withhold seven email chains found on Hillary Clinton’s private server because they have been classified as “top secret,” according to The Associated Press.

The former secretary of State’s presidential campaign quickly dismissed the news, which spokesman Brian Fallon called “overclassification run amok.”

“We adamently oppose the complete blocking of the release of these emails,” the campaign aide said on Twitter. 

The revelation comes days before Iowa holds the first-in-the-nation nominating contest and on top of mounting scrutiny of Clinton's use of the private email server.



Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/267549-clintons-emails-labeled-top-secret#



The noose tightens...

248 replies, 13312 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 248 replies Author Time Post
Reply Clinton's emails labeled 'top secret' (Original post)
hoosierlib Jan 2016 OP
retrowire Jan 2016 #1
villager Jan 2016 #2
Elmer S. E. Dump Jan 2016 #19
John Poet Jan 2016 #172
ram2008 Jan 2016 #3
Angel Martin Jan 2016 #22
cali Jan 2016 #55
IamTheNoodle Jan 2016 #67
LynneSin Jan 2016 #73
roguevalley Jan 2016 #76
IamTheNoodle Jan 2016 #84
LynneSin Jan 2016 #85
840high Jan 2016 #194
LynneSin Jan 2016 #236
840high Jan 2016 #237
7962 Jan 2016 #113
AngryOldDem Jan 2016 #229
randys1 Jan 2016 #79
IamTheNoodle Jan 2016 #100
Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #101
karynnj Jan 2016 #121
AZ Progressive Jan 2016 #155
grasswire Jan 2016 #213
Mojorabbit Jan 2016 #215
backtomn Feb 2016 #244
LiberalFighter Jan 2016 #116
jeff47 Jan 2016 #177
GeorgeGist Jan 2016 #157
Travis_0004 Jan 2016 #169
BlueStreak Jan 2016 #210
LeFleur1 Jan 2016 #235
TipTok Jan 2016 #120
notadmblnd Jan 2016 #126
SusanCalvin Jan 2016 #114
cheapdate Jan 2016 #129
ram2008 Jan 2016 #130
cheapdate Jan 2016 #135
frylock Jan 2016 #132
cheapdate Jan 2016 #133
frylock Jan 2016 #136
cheapdate Jan 2016 #137
frylock Jan 2016 #150
cheapdate Jan 2016 #154
frylock Jan 2016 #158
cheapdate Jan 2016 #160
frylock Jan 2016 #161
cheapdate Jan 2016 #165
frylock Jan 2016 #168
InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2016 #227
uhnope Jan 2016 #4
TryLogic Jan 2016 #102
bowens43 Jan 2016 #5
OrwellwasRight Jan 2016 #65
frylock Jan 2016 #131
LiberalFighter Jan 2016 #118
AZ Progressive Jan 2016 #156
840high Jan 2016 #198
Vinca Jan 2016 #6
JudyM Jan 2016 #10
leveymg Jan 2016 #7
OrwellwasRight Jan 2016 #72
roguevalley Jan 2016 #78
OrwellwasRight Jan 2016 #87
Le Taz Hot Jan 2016 #144
24601 Jan 2016 #171
jeff47 Jan 2016 #178
JudyM Jan 2016 #8
Angel Martin Jan 2016 #9
JudyM Jan 2016 #11
murielm99 Jan 2016 #43
JudyM Jan 2016 #46
frylock Jan 2016 #134
7962 Jan 2016 #115
840high Jan 2016 #199
24601 Jan 2016 #217
Arazi Jan 2016 #12
Elmer S. E. Dump Jan 2016 #28
jeff47 Jan 2016 #179
GummyBearz Jan 2016 #13
JudyM Jan 2016 #48
840high Jan 2016 #200
pscot Jan 2016 #14
OKNancy Jan 2016 #18
Hangingon Jan 2016 #53
TryLogic Jan 2016 #107
dlwickham Jan 2016 #138
Hangingon Jan 2016 #170
dlwickham Jan 2016 #173
Hangingon Jan 2016 #176
dlwickham Jan 2016 #219
Hangingon Jan 2016 #223
dlwickham Jan 2016 #224
Hangingon Jan 2016 #231
dlwickham Jan 2016 #233
Hangingon Jan 2016 #238
jeff47 Jan 2016 #181
dlwickham Jan 2016 #220
840high Jan 2016 #201
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2016 #97
7962 Jan 2016 #117
asuhornets Jan 2016 #15
LynneSin Jan 2016 #68
asuhornets Jan 2016 #88
TipTok Jan 2016 #142
OKNancy Jan 2016 #16
karynnj Jan 2016 #29
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #37
karynnj Jan 2016 #52
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #59
7962 Jan 2016 #119
JudyM Jan 2016 #32
Akicita Jan 2016 #47
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #63
Akicita Jan 2016 #74
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #77
Akicita Jan 2016 #90
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #92
Akicita Jan 2016 #148
jeff47 Jan 2016 #184
OrwellwasRight Jan 2016 #75
Pathwalker Jan 2016 #91
jeff47 Jan 2016 #182
daybranch Jan 2016 #17
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #21
Akicita Jan 2016 #149
Reter Jan 2016 #20
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #23
Reter Jan 2016 #58
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #60
Metric System Jan 2016 #104
Reter Jan 2016 #152
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #159
840high Jan 2016 #202
Ana Hauhet Jan 2016 #239
7962 Jan 2016 #122
Yupster Jan 2016 #140
7962 Jan 2016 #143
pnwmom Jan 2016 #25
karynnj Jan 2016 #33
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #39
karynnj Jan 2016 #49
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #51
karynnj Jan 2016 #54
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #71
jeff47 Jan 2016 #186
JudyM Jan 2016 #35
AzDar Jan 2016 #24
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #27
LynneSin Jan 2016 #80
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #86
7962 Jan 2016 #123
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #124
7962 Jan 2016 #127
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #139
7962 Jan 2016 #145
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #222
7962 Jan 2016 #240
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #241
7962 Feb 2016 #242
geek tragedy Feb 2016 #243
7962 Feb 2016 #245
840high Jan 2016 #204
840high Jan 2016 #203
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #221
left lowrider Jan 2016 #40
mvd Jan 2016 #26
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #31
karynnj Jan 2016 #42
mvd Jan 2016 #45
Akicita Jan 2016 #56
840high Jan 2016 #205
yallerdawg Jan 2016 #30
rtracey Jan 2016 #34
awake Jan 2016 #36
Roland99 Jan 2016 #38
lobodons Jan 2016 #41
nyabingi Jan 2016 #44
yallerdawg Jan 2016 #50
OrwellwasRight Jan 2016 #82
yallerdawg Jan 2016 #103
OrwellwasRight Jan 2016 #108
yallerdawg Jan 2016 #110
OrwellwasRight Jan 2016 #112
7962 Jan 2016 #125
840high Jan 2016 #206
Molusko Jan 2016 #57
Akicita Jan 2016 #66
Yupster Jan 2016 #141
Akicita Jan 2016 #147
Name removed Jan 2016 #216
yallerdawg Jan 2016 #70
HereSince1628 Jan 2016 #61
Kingofalldems Jan 2016 #62
thereismore Jan 2016 #64
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #81
thereismore Jan 2016 #83
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #89
thereismore Jan 2016 #93
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #94
thereismore Jan 2016 #95
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #96
thereismore Jan 2016 #98
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #109
John Poet Jan 2016 #174
840high Jan 2016 #196
Angel Martin Jan 2016 #214
MondoCane Jan 2016 #69
Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #99
IamTheNoodle Jan 2016 #106
Arazi Jan 2016 #105
AngryAmish Jan 2016 #111
JudyM Jan 2016 #146
840high Jan 2016 #207
SoapBox Jan 2016 #128
840high Jan 2016 #208
6000eliot Jan 2016 #151
Reter Jan 2016 #153
6000eliot Jan 2016 #162
frylock Jan 2016 #167
6000eliot Jan 2016 #191
frylock Jan 2016 #163
6000eliot Jan 2016 #164
frylock Jan 2016 #166
John Poet Jan 2016 #175
6000eliot Jan 2016 #190
frylock Jan 2016 #197
840high Jan 2016 #211
still_one Jan 2016 #183
leveymg Jan 2016 #226
840high Jan 2016 #209
still_one Jan 2016 #180
MrWendel Jan 2016 #185
still_one Jan 2016 #188
jeff47 Jan 2016 #187
still_one Jan 2016 #189
jeff47 Jan 2016 #192
still_one Jan 2016 #193
jeff47 Jan 2016 #195
840high Jan 2016 #212
24601 Jan 2016 #218
Calista241 Jan 2016 #225
AngryOldDem Jan 2016 #228
Calista241 Jan 2016 #234
Darb Feb 2016 #247
Odin2005 Jan 2016 #230
CharlotteVale Jan 2016 #232
Darb Feb 2016 #246
creon Mar 2016 #248

Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:35 PM

1. sigh* nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:37 PM

2. Just got an AP bulletin on my phone about the same thing. It's definitely informing/infecting

 

...the news cycles.

If she's to be the nominee, she has to make sure this doesn't hand the White House to the crypto-fascists...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:57 PM

19. I bet it will be "mum's the word" on the major networks.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:53 AM

172. SHE SHOULD NOT be the nominee. Too risky with this,

 

not to mention what may be lurking in her husband's whole
"pants-down department"...

Living through the first Clinton administration was enough,
but I don't see how she can win a general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:40 PM

3. If she's the nominee Trump will crush her

Not even kidding. This whole fiasco is caused by her stunning lack of judgment and tendency to go right up to the line without crossing it. She should step aside and let Biden take her place as the establishment candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ram2008 (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:59 PM

22. She should step aside and let Biden take her place

agree completely !

Sanders has peoples respect for standing up against big finance, big pharma and big insurance.

But he is not the man to lead against Putin, ISIS and al Qaeda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angel Martin (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:46 PM

55. Nonsense. Based on what?

 

And if you want to hand the WH to the republicans, parachuting Biden in is a sure way to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #55)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:09 PM

67. She broke the law buy sending highly classified information over unsecured servers

She removed classified information to unauthorized locations, is against the law, that's what this is all based on. It's unacceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamTheNoodle (Reply #67)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:14 PM

73. You realize that Colin Powell and Condi Rice did the same thing

It's like Benghazi. There were 13 Embassies/Consulates bombed during the Bush years that resulted in around 100 deaths. Not ONE of them were investigated. Yet Benghazi has been investigated to pieces and yet no one can find anything to pin on Clinton and/or Obama.

It's the same thing with the email 'scandal'. If there was a real issue she would have been jailed ages ago. It was a known fact that both Powell and Rice did the same thing yet no one cares. The fact that people are still trying to get Hillary jailed for this is nothing more that people drinking the right-wing kool-aid being served them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #73)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:16 PM

76. then prosecute them too. just because others do it doesn't change a thing

I still got in trouble with my mom using that excuse. The search is expanding because of this, not contracting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #76)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:20 PM

84. If the precedent has been set (of not doing anything)then it should be seen as political targeting .

I'd like to hear more about Rice and Powell doing it though.

Regardless the Republicans will use this email situation very effectively by saying she doesn't have good judgement, clearly in this situation she did not!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #76)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:20 PM

85. Jail her for what?

This has been going on for 4-5 years and if they had something real on it she'd be in jail by now and Obama booted from the White House.

Just because you don't like her means that the right-wing bullshit investigations are real. This has been 20+ years of finding some criminal activity to jail Hillary or Bill.

I get it - you don't like Hillary. But find a real reason and not bullshit stuff perpetuated by the right-wing. Even Bernie Sanders has dismissed the investigations as bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #85)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:02 AM

194. FBI is not right wing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #194)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 09:31 PM

236. FBI also said the emails were not classified when they were sent

So again right-wing conspiracy kook-aid we are drinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #236)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 09:58 PM

237. There were 16-18 emails between

 

Obama and Hillary. I would imagine they were classified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #76)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:03 PM

113. Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #76)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 04:23 PM

229. It's called "what-abouttery" and is a poor logical fallacy.

Indict anyone who has stuff like this on their private servers. No matter who.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #73)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:18 PM

79. Facts be damned some folks here just hate Hillary...if you close your eyes you might

think you are on a board with the initials FR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #79)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:32 PM

100. No, just worried

Worried that this could sink her chances of being elected and ended of with one of nuts on the right.

That said, Colin Powell and Condi Rice did the same thing I'd like to hear more about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #79)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:32 PM

101. No shit, comrade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #73)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:14 PM

121. Neither had a personal server and neither are said to have sent classified info

on their private accounts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #73)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:12 PM

155. Last that I know, Colin Powell and Condi Rice are not running for president n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #73)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:18 AM

213. Powell and Rice had aides transcribe top secret memo info to...

.....other message without the classification and then send on their private servers?

Because that's what she did, for her convenience.

Willful circumvention of the law.

And it's why she could always say "no message marked classified was sent"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #73)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 05:16 AM

215. +1000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #73)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 02:52 PM

244. NOT the same

Powell and Rice might have used their personal email at work or sent personal messages over the State Dept. server. Clinton did ALL of her State business on her own server at home, received above top secret/SAP messages on that server, backed up the server with people that didn't have clearance, only gave the documents to State because of congressional hearings and a FOIA lawsuit. One of these things is not like the others. I don't know if this will mean an indictment, but what she did was WAY beyond what was acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamTheNoodle (Reply #67)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:06 PM

116. She didn't do the sending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #116)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:21 AM

177. Doesn't matter if she didn't do the sending.

She stored the information on her unclassified server.

Wanna give someone with a security clearance a bad week? Email them something Snowden or Manning leaked. They'll have all sorts of fun dealing with the security folks. Even though they did not send anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamTheNoodle (Reply #67)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:40 PM

157. According to my sources ...

all the classified emails were sent to her not sent by her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #157)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:47 PM

169. Maybe she shouldn't have set up a private email server for work emails

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamTheNoodle (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:40 AM

210. Let's get the story straight.

I would rather see Bernie as the nominee, but not because of the emails. You said "SENDING" emails. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not heard of any evidence or even any allegations that Hillary sent any classified information using that server. It seems to me everything that has been mentioned are cases where others sent emails to Hillary and might have mentioned a classified matter.

If so, then why aren't people going after the ones who SENT the messages. They are the ones, after all, who broke the law, if there were actually any laws broken.

Having said that, it was really lousy judgment to even have such a server, and given that this had come up before, she really should have known better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamTheNoodle (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 09:02 PM

235. Not Classifed

Classified AFTER received. Sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angel Martin (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:14 PM

120. I could see myself voting for Hillary but Biden would be very reasonable...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angel Martin (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:22 PM

126. They said almost the same thing about Obama.

He was a one term Senator. He lacked experience. He was not the man to lead.

So, do you feel Obama f*&ked everything up or do you feel even though he was not the man to lead- he has done an ok job?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ram2008 (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:04 PM

114. No. Just no.

Biden (and anyone else), STAY OUT. No, we do not need a replacement establishment candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ram2008 (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:35 PM

129. Bull. Secretaries Powell and Rice before her did the same thing.

It's only an issue because of Republican relentlessness in attacking all things Clinton. Not a "judgement" issue at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheapdate (Reply #129)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:38 PM

130. Secretary Powell had a private server? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ram2008 (Reply #130)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:45 PM

135. Well, he said he used his personal email for Department business,

and it's reported he didn't have a private server, so I guess I'd conclude he used a public, commercial server.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheapdate (Reply #129)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:40 PM

132. No, they didn't.

If you can prove otherwise, then please do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #132)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:43 PM

133. Give you Rice. Powell said he used private email for State Department business.

Said so in writing in response to an inquiry from the State Department.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheapdate (Reply #133)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:46 PM

136. No, he didn't.

Powell had two computers in his office. One for private email, and one for government business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #136)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:02 PM

137. I'm being told something different.

"As we wrote in July, the State Department in October 2014 sent letters to three other previous secretaries: Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Only Powell used personal email for official business. None of them had their own servers."


http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/clintons-email-brag/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheapdate (Reply #137)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:24 PM

150. I was mistaken when I said that Powell had one system for private email, and one for govt business..

I believe that Rice had a similar setup.

Colin Powell said he had two computers for sending emails as secretary of state

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 (UPI) -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said he kept two computers to send and receive emails while he was in the position.

During on an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, Powell said he used one computer for sending sensitive material and a second for less important communications.

"I had a secure State Department machine for secure material and I had a laptop that I could use for email. I would email relatives, friends, but I would also email in the department," he said.

<more>

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/09/07/Colin-Powell-said-he-had-two-computers-for-sending-emails-as-secretary-of-state/2481441631695/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #150)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:03 PM

154. Bottom line for me - I'm not concerned over

how she communicated with her staff, advisers, aides, etc. when she was Secretary of State. I think this matter will resolve itself through normal processes and result in another Inspector General's report containing recommendations for improving State Department communication practices. Pretty much how all of the other blown-up "scandals" in her career have resolved themselves.

But what I am concerned about is her outlook on U.S. foreign policy. As I see it, she has a "traditional" outlook on "American exceptionalism" that creates in her mind a belief that America has a moral duty to spread American-style capitalism and to impose it upon "less developed" states.

I don't "hate" Hillary Clinton. I rather like her as a person. I love her boisterous laugh. I disagree with her view on the proper relationship between government and private business, especially big businesses and corporations, and banks and financial firms.

Her environmental ethics might not be as deep as mine, but she does believe in the need for environmental regulations enforced by functioning regulatory agencies.

She might very well become the Democratic nominee for president. I'll do anything I can to keep the White House out of Republican hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheapdate (Reply #154)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:41 PM

158. I think it speaks to her incredible lack of judgment and absolute hubris..

It would be one fuck up after the next with her in the WH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #158)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:16 PM

160. A Republican White House

would be a far more consequential fuck-up than any possible foibles of Hillary Clintons'.

Holy crap, Noam Chomsky says that barring a Sanders nomination he would support Hillary Clinton's bid without hesitation to avoid the unthinkable prospect of a Republican win. Noam fucking Chomsky.

Anyway, the prospect of a Republican president at this time even more so than at others, is a ghastly scenario.

That's my take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheapdate (Reply #160)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:27 PM

161. Then vote for Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #161)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:31 PM

165. Plan to.

He might win the nomination. He might not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheapdate (Reply #165)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:44 PM

168. It's not going to be easy, but I feel more confident with every passing day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ram2008 (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 04:17 PM

227. I hafta agree Hillary should step aside... but only to let President Sanders assume his rightful place as leader of the progressive movement in this country.

Biden is a nice enough guy... but would not be an effective leader like Bernie.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:43 PM

4. sad that this, instead of her support of the Iraq War, is what might be her downfall

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:34 PM

102. In both cases it is her bad judgment. Wisdom and good judgment are extremely serious

qualities needed by the President of the United States!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:45 PM

5. she knew what she was doing was illegal but figured she's a clinton, she can do as she pleases

arrogance is another of her endearing qualities.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:01 PM

65. It's also bad staffing.

Staff should have said no way, no how, especially given that they knew she had ambitions to run again. This is one of those stupid things (Monica Lewinsky anyone?) where the actual "scandal" is stupid and dumb, but that raises questions of judgment --- as in, "Why in the hell would anyone think this was a good idea?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #65)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:38 PM

131. She surrounded herself with sycophants and yes men..

nobody in that circle was about jump in and suggest that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to set up a private, unsecure mail server.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:11 PM

118. Really? None of the emails were classified or marked top secret at the time.

They were reclassified after the fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:12 PM

156. +100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:07 AM

198. .^that

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:46 PM

6. This morning on one of the news shows I heard a commentator musing about whether the FBI

could clear her of all wrongdoing before the election so we wouldn't have to worry about a sitting president being indicted. That's what we'll be facing if she's the nominee. Trump will have a field day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:51 PM

10. She can't defend against this and be focused on running an effective campaign at the same time.

It is good that this came out this early in the process; that is Obama putting the public good before personal alliances, IMO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:46 PM

7. HRC (7/25/15) - "I did not send or get classified emails in private account"

Clinton: I didn't have a computer in my State Dept. office
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-no-computer-state-department-benghazi-hearing-215053
Politico
Oct 22, 2015 - Hillary Clinton said at the Benghazi hearing that she did not conduct most of her official business as secretary of state via email ...


Clinton: I did not send or get classified emails on private ...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0PZ0S920150726
Reuters
Jul 25, 2015 - U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Saturday that she did not use a private email account to send or receive classified ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:12 PM

72. The second statement makes no sense whatsoever.

She was Secretary of State, FFS. She didn't use an official government email account. She only used her gmail account with her private server. So if she never sent or received classified emails, then how did she do her job? Is she claiming that the only time she ever discussed classified information for four years, it was in person or over the phone? I call bullshit on that. That is not how people work these days. Maybe in 1994, she could have said that truthfully, but not in 2016.

Or is she claiming not to have ever dealt with classified information? I also call bullshit on that.

What am I missing here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #72)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:18 PM

78. I can't remember which crazy repub rep said they will impeach her the moment she

gets there if she does. expect it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #78)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:21 PM

87. I don't think any of this is impeachable.

It just seems like poor judgment in the age of the internet and the vast, right-wing conspiracy that has hated her for 20+ years. Why would she do something so dumb?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #87)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:35 PM

144. They impeached her husband for lying

about oral sex. You REALLY think they wouldn't act on that threat? Do you want to take that chance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #87)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:16 AM

171. Anything is impeachable. All it takes is a majority vote in the House. Expecting the Senate to

convict is another matter.

It's not like a court where the judge states the law and jurors vote guilty or not based on the evidence and judges instructions. Instead, Senators are triors and determine not only of the official did what the House charged, but also if it rises to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. If 2/3 vote that it does, the the official is removed from office. It is undecided if a second vote must e takes to bar the individual from any future office or if that is automatic with the conviction, or if it refers only to Executive Branch and Judiciary positions. For example, Congressman Hastings is a sitting Representative despite his impeachment conviction as a Federal Judge. (Both House & Senate were Democratic majorities)

Because impeachment is a political process rather than a judicial one, anything is impeachable & can result in conviction, in theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #87)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:23 AM

178. Everything is impeachable. Doesn't even have to be a crime.

"You wore a blue tie" is impeachable. If the House votes for it, and the Senate convicts, the president is thrown out of office for wearing a blue tie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:47 PM

8. Meaning Hillary is going to be too mired in congressional inquiry for the next year or more to

be able to effectively focus on running for office. She will be greatly distracted and based on past inquiries, this will significantly distract her and ruin her credibility if she is elected.

Most of us remember that she and Bill were stuck in inquiries for years. And this time we have active terrorist cells to contend with along with other, more serious problems that demand a full-time, undistracted president. Not to mention a far more vitriolic, bloodthirsty tea party contingent to render her ineffective with hearings and demands for more records, on and on endlessly. That's how they roll.

The good of the party should be her first concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:50 PM

9. The good of the party should be her first concern.

LOL !

... this is the Clintons we are talking about...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angel Martin (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:52 PM

11. It was part wishful thinking and part tongue-in-cheek. We shall see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angel Martin (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:22 PM

43. That is pretty comical,

coming from a supporter whose cronies do nothing but tear down the Democratic Party on a Democratic website, and whose candidate has spent his political career disdaining the Democrats and joined the party recently, for the sake of expediency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #43)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:32 PM

46. It's about progressive values, which used to be the heart of the party.

I suspect that FDR would think Bernie's more of a Democrat in spirit than HRC is. Post-Reagan and Newt, etc etc, there has been a seismic shift to the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #43)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:44 PM

134. Some people care about policy. Others care about the level of respect being shown to the Party.

There's a reason that only 30% of voters are registered as Democrats. This is one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angel Martin (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:05 PM

115. I was thinking "LOLOLOL" before I clicked your post!! Good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angel Martin (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:09 AM

199. Hillary's concern is Hillary.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angel Martin (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:52 AM

217. Mais oiu, la parti c'est moi. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:53 PM

12. This isn't ever going to go away

God help us if she manages to keep the lid on this until after the GE. It's not going to blow,over, it's going to simmer until it explodes all over the place.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:04 PM

28. It would be worse if the lid popped off right before the general.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:25 AM

179. Why do you think the Republicans aren't talking much about it?

They're waiting until September.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:53 PM

13. I like how her spokesman "adamently opposes the complete blocking of the release of these emails"

It's so easy to claim it is over classification, and the emails contain no real secrets, when no one will ever be able to read the emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GummyBearz (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:33 PM

48. Not only that, but if it's questionable how can disclosure be good for national security?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GummyBearz (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:11 AM

200. Yep

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:54 PM

14. Question is

is this material being classified after the fact. The article suggests that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:56 PM

18. I just wrote in post #16

It was classified after the fact. The Hill is a right-wing rag and they aren't going to emphasize that fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:45 PM

53. Even if it was classified after the fact...

we have Sec. Of State that can't recognize classified material. Does not speak well of her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #53)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:40 PM

107. Good judgment is not one of her strong points. Quite the opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #53)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:05 PM

138. Huh?

she couldn't recognize classified material before it became classified?

Hillary is a lot of things but I don't think she's psychic so she wouldn't know necessarily what would become classified and what wouldn't, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #138)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:04 AM

170. So, all the. Years of experience she tells us she has and she cannot recognize sensitive subject mat

A large volume of records contain sensitive subject matter and have no markings. I think that is very hard to believe that a former First Lady, a Senator and a Secretary of State of sources and methods that yield information. No psychic powers needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #170)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:59 AM

173. What's considered sensitive today

What's considered sensitive today may not be considered sensitive tomorrow.

For example it may have been considered sensitive about the number of Russian troops on the Ukraine border until one in the news organizations decided to broadcast that information from independent sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #173)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:13 AM

176. News organizations do not determine classification.

In your example, you say that they publish using "independent sources". That may be the difference. The newspaper publication does not declassify the information from government sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #176)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:27 PM

219. But they can publish information that might be considered sensitive

But they can publish information that might be considered sensitive and after publishing that it's no longer sensitive so who knows what might be considered sensitive tomorrow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #219)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:45 PM

223. Wrong!

Publication doe NOT change the classification of the published material. NYT published the Pentagon Papers. SCOTUS said they could. The papers remained classified and were treated accordingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #223)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:36 PM

224. The Pentagon papers were eventually declared unclassified

It appears that the method across find information and defining classified information varies from administration to administration

The US government is currently under executive order in regards what is considered classified and what isn't considered classified

Now I'm sure that the government has a basic guideline for what should be considered classified. The question is whether or not the government went back and classified information that wasn't previously considered classified as now classified.

The emails that the government has now marked classified weren't marked classified originally.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #224)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:09 PM

231. You seemingly took my poor example as an unfortunate ray of hope.

Yes the Pentagon Papers were eventually declassified over the last 40 years. There is constant pressure to declassify.

"It appears that the method across find information and defining classified information varies from administration to administration" No idea what the first part of this means. In my experience, defining classification has been consistent from administration to administration.

Classification is basically defined in 18 USC. Classifying agencies do not specifically discuss what they classify. I did not know that Executive Order defined what is "considered" classified. Could you provide the EO number? The President can certainly declassify the emails and he can certainly pardon the former Secretary of State.

It is extreme unlikely that the emails were "classified" after the fact for no reason. The information in the emails may have had their markings removed or, more likely, the information is derivative. Unmarked classified material is found in files frequently. Where I have worked, employees have been trained to recognize it and deal with it appropriately.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #231)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 07:06 PM

233. Ray of hope?

not from you and yours

Using the Pentagon Papers for an example, information is classified one day and then it isn't. In this case, it was classified for forty years but that really doesn't matter because the information was out there.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

that is the current EO in regards to classifying information, I believe

EO 13526 restated the authorized list of designees who can originate classification, in effect rescinding any previous designations made by officials or agency heads to subordinates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13292

this is Bush's EO

from that

Clinton's order set declassification deadlines for classified material and made it harder for politicians to classify information. Bush's order appears to allow much more information to be classified and for longer periods; the wording is hard to decipher in some areas. It also appears to give more power over classification to the Offices of the President and Vice President, but the wording used was not properly defined in the listing of relevant definitions now consolidated into their own section in Part 6 of the Executive Order.

it appears that the process of declaring information as classified does change from administration to administration

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #233)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:19 AM

238. Late at night to read turgid EOs but I did see this at first glance.

PART 1 -- ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION

Section 1.1.

(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.

So the information could be out there but it is still classified. And yes, when classified information is declassified, one day it is classified and the next it isn't.

I don't quite get the other part of your response. The other referenced EOs make mechanical changes but basically leave the system intact. If you wish to say there is significant this is okay with me. In any case, I don't believe these changes have much impact on the present problem faced by the former Secretary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #173)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:27 AM

181. Nope.

For example it may have been considered sensitive about the number of Russian troops on the Ukraine border until one in the news organizations decided to broadcast that information from independent sources.

Nope. Still classified.

Everything that Manning and Snowden leaked is still classified. Someone with a clearance can lose it if they go read the documents on Wikileaks from an unclassified computer.

Leaking is not declassification. Which is explicitly explained to everyone who gets a clearance during their initial training.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #181)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:28 PM

220. Would leaked information be reclassified

As more sensitive after-the-fact

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #173)


Response to pscot (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:27 PM

97. Does it matter?

The subject content of some of them was apparently about programs about which information is ALWAYS top secret. She shouldn't have needed someone to stamp the email with a digital rubber stamp, unless she was so clueless about her job that she didn't know that those programs were automatically top secret.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:09 PM

117. You're trained to recognize sensitive material whether marked or not.

Everyone in government & military knows this. She knows it. When she continually says "I never sent nor received any emails marked classified" she IS telling the truth, because thats not the way classified documents are labeled. Thats why she constantly says the same sentence over & over.
Whats been released already shows that emails containing classified information WERE sent and received by her, her associates, using her unsecured server.
But nothing will happen to her; its just a question of who will take the fall FOR her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:54 PM

15. Same ol bullshit..

And yet she is still standing..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asuhornets (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:11 PM

68. I was just thinking the same exact thing

This whole Email/Benghazi bullshit is nothing more than decades of right-wing propaganda and it's tiresome. Time and time again very notable publications have come out and said there were no classified details in the emails (even though Clinton did the same thing that Powell and Rice did before her) and that she was not at fault at Benghazi.

Yet I come here to DU and see people buy into that shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #68)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:21 PM

88. Unbelievable n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asuhornets (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:31 PM

142. Exactly...

Anyone else would have to answer for it but she is special somehow...

Wonder why that is...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:55 PM

16. The Hill doesn't state it specifically, but other more reputable sites point out that

THEY WERE NOT CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME THEY WERE SENT.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-clinton-emails-withhold-idUSKCN0V72JB

"The State Department will be denying in full seven email chains, found in 22 documents representing 37 pages," said State Department spokesman John Kirby. "The documents are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain a category of Top Secret information ... These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent."

---------

But you guys keep dreaming that something will keep Hillary down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:05 PM

29. Kirby said the emails were not MARKED classified

that does not mean the content was not classified at that time.

Tell me how something at least 3 years after it happens can be TOP SECRET ... if it was not even classified as confidential back when it happened. This is NOT good news for HRC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:13 PM

37. do you realize that discussing a news story about a drone strike makes an email

classified and potentially top secret?

That anything about wikileaks-driven stories are considered classified?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #37)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:43 PM

52. Sure - it would be the information included in the discussion that would be more or less significant

based on who said things. That discussion would be informed by everything the people discussing it know because of their positions and briefing.

To take this out of the arcane world of FP or national security imagine a discussion here on DU about some NYT article on say - Clinton's strategy in Iowa .... now imagine that there was a transcript of HRC, BC, Podesta, Palmieri etc commenting on that article ---- if you were a NYT reporter and you were accidentally included in either -- is it the same thing?

One is essentially the same value as the NYT article itself the other is a gold mine!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #52)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:57 PM

59. depends on what they say.

if they say "did you see this?" no rational person would consider that classified or top secret, but our intelligence services do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:11 PM

119. Thats exactly right. Yet everyone says "nothing to see here...."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:08 PM

32. That doesn't matter, or it shouldn't. As Sec of State she should know the info is top secret.

Apparently these were email strings, not just random emails sent to her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:32 PM

47. They were not MARKED classified when they were sent. That's a far cry

from not containing classified information.

Two points:

1) It is legal Clintonese or Clinton legalese to use the term "not marked classified". No secret documents are marked "classified". They are marked Secret, Top Secret, etc.

2) There is no way to email documents marked Secret, Top Secret, etc. to a private server. Classified info is kept on an entirely different secure email system or systems and can only be accessed by going to a secure, guarded, room and producing an ID showing you are cleared to see the classified info. The only way this secret information could find its way to Clinton's private email is if the information was transcribed, copied, or summarized into an emai written on a non-classified email system, with the Secret or Top Secret markings removed(That's What Hillary referred to as turning into non-paper in one of her emails) and then sent to Hillary's private server. If that was done it is highly illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #47)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:00 PM

63. Classified information appears in the press on a regular basis.

So, if they email a NY Times story about drone strikes, the government considers that classified/top secret.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #63)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:16 PM

74. Ok. That may explain one. What about the other 1,300?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #74)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:17 PM

77. every discussion of the drone program would be considered classified.

as would anything about documents in a wikileaks story.

where are you getting the 1300 figure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #77)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:21 PM

90. Its been widely reported that there are over 1,300 classified emails found so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #90)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:23 PM

92. to be precise, FOIA bureaucrats have labeled 1300 documents 'classified'

during the FOIA review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #92)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:10 PM

148. 1600 now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #63)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:31 AM

184. And it's still classified.

Know someone with a clearance and want to ruin their day? Email them something Snowden leaked.

They'll have all sorts of fun reporting it, filling out paperwork, and dealing with the security folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:16 PM

75. I'm not sure that gmail

has an option to mark an email "classified". But emails that you receive from State Department accounts do. They say right across the bottom "The information in this email is unclassified." So I think this may be a trickier issue than you are implying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:23 PM

91. DIRTY TRICKS WEEKENDS HAVE BEGUN!!!

The time honored dirty tricks weekends start in earnest, as the primaries are upon us. Who will be the next targetS, I wonder - both this weekend and next, then before South Carolina?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:30 AM

182. "Not marked" is not the same as "Not classified".

Information is classified whether or not it is properly marked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:55 PM

17. Overclassification?

Are you alleging someone involved in the classification area is out to get her? Obama has already said he is certain there was no security violations in her use of a private server to send emails. It is beginning to look like he cannot protect her any more. She needs to get out now before she embarrasses us further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daybranch (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:58 PM

21. no, it's that the government doesn't like to provide the public access to how it does business

a lot of stuff that's already in the public record due to Wikileaks or Snowden is still considered top secret. Ditto discussions of the drone program


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daybranch (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:22 PM

149. It's obvious the CIA classfied Hilliary's secret yoga moves and some top secret

Photos from Chelsea's wedding. That's all. Nothing else. Move along now. Move along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:57 PM

20. When will she be indicted?

 

What's taking so long? Better now than late October.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:59 PM

23. Stop watching Fox News. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:57 PM

58. It's on every news channel

 

She broke the law. She will likely be indicated. I don't want it to happen in October, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Reply #58)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:58 PM

60. Stop watching Fox News.

Fox News has filled your head with the notion that she broke criminal law and will be going to jail.

Turn the TV off when Hannity comes on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #60)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:37 PM

104. Thank you, geek tragedy. You represent your candidate well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #60)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:45 PM

152. Don't watch Fox

 

I don't think she's going to jail either, but she committed a massive federal crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Reply #152)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:48 PM

159. "Massive federal crime" lol sure you don't watch Fox nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #159)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:24 AM

202. Yes - federal crime. I don't even have cable TV.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Reply #152)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:05 PM

239. no-hillary-did-not-commit-a-crime-

 

"Even before 2014, however, it seems quite clear that the 2009 language and follow up cables from the State Department indicate she did not adhere to proper protocol. But there is a colossal difference between “wrong,” “improper” or even a regulation violation, and a federal crime."

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/no-hillary-did-not-commit-a-crime-at-least-based-on-what-we-know-today/2/


http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/no-hillary-did-not-commit-a-crime-at-least-based-on-what-we-know-today/

"Hillary bashing is good clean political sport but a federal criminal indictment is serious business, saved for serious crimes and hopefully based on serious evidence, which as of yet, has not materialized."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Reply #58)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:14 PM

122. No, she wont. You forget who we're talking about. Someone else will take the fall.

Thats probably already been decided. The whole "i dont know anything about tech stuff" allows her to plead ignorance whenever the shit finally hits the fan. And then 1 or 2 minions will be charged and she can say "I had no IDEA this was happening!"
She's NOT going to be indicted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #122)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:21 PM

140. And then the minions will get jobs

with the Clinton Foundation.

It's the Circle of Life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #140)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:31 PM

143. There you have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:00 PM

25. Who do you know who's been indicted for documents retroactively classified?

All DUers should be shocked and outraged at the practice; that they can take info from the public domain -- even news articles and pages on government websites -- and retroactively decide it is classified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:09 PM

33. It is completely unlikely that these top secret threads were discussing things in the public domain

If they were, the entire thing would not have to be redacted. Anything from the public domain could be left intact -- the comments etc which made some earlier things more classified than the public info was are what made some things more secret. Note in that case we know what the public domain part was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #33)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:14 PM

39. it's actually highly unlikely the top secret designation has anything to do with national security

http://www.nationaljournal.com/twentysixteen/2015/08/19/other-top-secret-problem-hurting-hillary-clinton

“The odds are good that any clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion in the Clin­ton emails should not have been clas­si­fied,” said Eliza­beth Goitein of the Bren­nan Cen­ter for Justice, a left-lean­ing law and policy think tank. Her reas­on­ing? Es­tim­ates show that 50 per­cent to 90 per­cent of clas­si­fied doc­u­ments could be made pub­lic without risk­ing na­tion­al se­cur­ity.

“It is so rare that I have seen leaked or sub­sequently dis­closed clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion where I think, ‘Yeah, I would ex­pect some na­tion­al se­cur­ity harm from re­leas­ing this in­form­a­tion,’” Goitein said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:33 PM

49. Disingenuous estimate - even accepting the premise

It seems intuitive that the higher the designation, the more likely it could be something that impacts national security. So, she says that 50 to 90 percent of CLASSIFIED documents would not. First of all, that is a pretty broad estimate. You would react differently if the sentence just included 50% or just included 90%. Then consider that there are things labeled "confidential" , "secret" and "top secret".

Not to mention, there are things that might not raise to the level of "risking national security" whatever that means. What if it identifies and gives a confidential assessment by a national of some allied or enemy country of the situation in a troubled county. That might not impact our national security, but even 4 years later it could harm someone who we got information from.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #49)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:37 PM

51. do you consider the existence of the CIA's drone program to be "top secret?"

the federal government--including the bureaucrats responsible for reviewing FOIA requests, does.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.
The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

“Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.”

The State Department is likely to persist in its contention that some information the intelligence community claimed was “top secret” because it related to North Korean nuclear tests was actually the product of “parallel reporting” that did not rely on classified intelligence products and so should not be treated as highly classified, the official said.


Overclassification is a real thing.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #51)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:46 PM

54. I agree there is over classification - but these are not confidential, but top secret nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #54)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:12 PM

71. they certainly do overclassify stuff as top secret too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #71)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:34 AM

186. TS/SCI and SAPs require tons of paperwork to justify.

If it's just for burying something embarrassing, you don't use TS/SCI or SAP. Because (ironically) you'd have to tell a lot of people the embarrassing thing to justify the classification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:10 PM

35. Are you serious? This isn't a procedural issue. The *content* is top secret regardless.

If not worthy of official sanction, it blares terrible judgment, negligent handling of top secret information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:00 PM

24. Same question regarding her IWR vote: Criminal or Incompetent? Either way, she should be

NOWHERE near the Oval Office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AzDar (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:04 PM

27. so you believe the Fox News spin on this.

Note that I am not stating that as a question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #27)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:18 PM

80. After two decades of villifying Hillary Clinton we have plenty of right-wing kool-aid drinkers here

And I appreciate that you made this post seeing that you are a Bernie Sanders supporter.

If the Clintons were to be jailed they would have found a legitimate reason ages ago. The Right-Wing has made it a career of villifying Hillary Clinton since she first stepped into the White House as First Lady back in 1993. (her husband too). Yet not once have they found ANYTHING even remotely close to sentencing her or her husband for jail time. Bad choices made, sure, but criminal activity - not a thing.

This is why I haven't picked sides for the primaries. I like all the Democratic Candidates equally (would have supported Biden but he's not running). And it's annoying with this petty bullshit.

Just as much as it is annoying when Clinton Supporters say things like 'Bernie couldn't win in the general election'. Why? Have these people seen the village idiots running for the GOP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #80)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:20 PM

86. seriously, embracing the security state's hatred of transparency in an effort to score

points on Clinton is not a very progressive move.

People treat Sanders v Clinton as if it's a football game where extreme fans cheer their own side no matter what and boo the other side and hope their star player gets injured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #27)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:17 PM

123. If all the news reports are talking about this, why keep insisting its just Fox?

Its on every news broadcast I see or hear whenever the Friday dump occurs.
Fox isnt the only one talking about this
But i still say nothing will happen to her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #123)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:19 PM

124. every news story has stated as a factual matter

that Clinton is either a criminal or grossly incompetent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #124)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:22 PM

127. Many reporters have said as much, yes. Especially incompetent.

And it is ridiculous that this has happened at all. But the clintons have always been used to doing what they wanted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #127)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:12 PM

139. which beacons of journalistic credibility have stated

that the only two possible explanations are Clinton being a criminal or Clinton being hopelessly incompetent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #139)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:43 PM

145. I saw it on Chris Cuomo's show; one of his reporters,

Dont know her name. I'm sure you could google it. The NYT had a story not too long ago referring to it. More people have commented about it being incompetent than criminal, because its not as harsh. And it WAS at least incompetent, wouldnt you say?

I've seen stories of people being punished for a lot less; such as a navy guy punished for taking a selfie with a radar screen in the backround. The whole existence of SAP documents points to incompetence at the very least. There's no excuse for it. Especially when using my "Bush filter"; what would I think if Bush had done the same thing?
But as I said, it really doesnt matter because NOTHING will happen to her regardless of the outcome of the investigation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #145)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:38 PM

222. That the email server was a mistake has already been conceded.

Even competent people make mistakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #222)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 11:47 PM

240. Except that it wasnt just a "mistake". There's also this:

http://nypost.com/2016/01/31/this-was-all-planned-former-ig-says-hillary-state-dept-are-lying/

There are a lot of points in this article that need answering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #240)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 11:59 PM

241. Lol, Murdoch Post. Very revealing. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #241)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 08:10 AM

242. Shooting the messenger again.

The story is there. The interview is real. I didnt know we went the entire Clinton SoS term without an Inspector General. Why? If that wasnt true, its easily proven wrong. If this guy is lying about all he points he made, then refute them, dont fall for the "its from murdoch," or "Its _______". I remember when the John Edwards story was dismissed by so many because "Its the ENQUIRER, for God's sake"
Most of this just furthers the things we've already known; the rules have been different for her than the rest of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #242)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 10:47 AM

243. Yes, it's there, in the NY Post. nt



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #243)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 03:46 PM

245. Its not an op-ed, its an interview. There's a difference

But obviously its your right to ignore it simply because of where its printed.
If this former IG didnt say the things quoted, I'm sure he'd be letting everyone know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #123)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:29 AM

204. ABC opened with this tonight.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:26 AM

203. You must watch Fox. You seem

 

to know what's on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #203)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:37 PM

221. I know the "throw Hillary in jail" cries come from the bowels

of the rightwing noise machine.

Repeated by extremists purporting to be anonymous Bernie supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AzDar (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:18 PM

40. perfect summation

 

yes- criminal or incompetent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:02 PM

26. Why is the administration doing this?

If not classified then, why now? I don't think there is anything to hide if Hillary's campaign wants them released. I hope Bernie wins, but because of the issues - not the e-mails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mvd (Reply #26)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:06 PM

31. it's career bureaucrats doing it.

the government has had a "classify everything" mindset for decades now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mvd (Reply #26)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:22 PM

42. This is correctly being done by career professionals in the state department

It would be wrong if this were led by non foreign service people in the position because of their relationship with Kerry or Obama. That would be a formula that would lead to Kerry and Obama having their reputations tarnished. It has been clear for a long time that Kerry has been extremely hands off from this - other than demanding it be done seriously vetting what is put out to avoid putting stuff out that should be redacted.

As soon as a State Department IG was nominated and installed (after none existed for 5 years including all of Clinton's term) Kerry asked them to critique what was done and to recommend changes on that and on how the SD handles email. Kirby has commented that they have implemented every recommendation. One recommendation was to hire someone to head the process and to hire or transfer 50 people to this to add to the (I think) 12. Per Kirby, they have had trouble finding enough people trained on FOIA and classifications.

Incidentally the Republicans expressed anger that the retired SD employee hired to head this operation - during the time she was retired - maxed out her contribution to HRC. It is infuriating to see HRC people suggest that this was done to hurt Clinton. These are professionals doing a tough job, under intense pressure having agreed to take on what is obviously a lose/lose job with no possible upside and lots of potential trouble - starting with being the one to miss something that should have been redacted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #42)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:31 PM

45. Ok thanks for the explanation

It would be nice though to know what was going on with the e-mails since she could possibly be President. I wouldn't let them influence my vote, but it will be a clear issue during the election cycle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mvd (Reply #26)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:48 PM

56. See post #47 for the answer to your question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mvd (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:31 AM

205. Hillary's campaign wants them

 

released because they know it cannot happen. Top secret.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:05 PM

30. This is standard with Freedom of Information Act releases.

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby told the AP, describing the decision to withhold documents in full as "not unusual." That means they won't be published online with the rest of the documents, even with blacked-out boxes.

It wouldn't matter what 'server' she used, public or private.

Another 'higher standard' for Hillary.

Guilty before charged!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:10 PM

34. Wow

Well, hey I have an Idea, instead of assuming, let's see if these were e-mails that were actually classified when they were sent/arrived... or are you all on board with just putting her in handcuffs and walking her into federal prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:10 PM

36. I Remember hearing that in a earlier email Hillary was giving instructions on

How to send info from a restrictive server by changing the heading does anyone hear have a link to that story. The question that will soon be asked is how did "Top Secret " info get into 22 emails if this info came from the same employe who "changed" the other headers on Hillary's instructions then her goose is cooked and we can not risk having her as our candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:13 PM

38. Bug-man said an indictment was coming

Not that I believe a word out of his treacherous mouth but this sure doesn't look good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:20 PM

41. All they have is 22 retroactively Re-classified emails out of 30,000 total..??

 

Eyes Roll

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:26 PM

44. The only time Hillary tells the truth is if she tells a double lie (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:35 PM

50. What's the problem with classified emails anyway?

Assange and Manning are heroes of 'the left'.

I thought that was one of the reasons Democrats don't even pay attention to this stuff. The issue is with the government entities feeling it necessary to classify endlessly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #50)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:19 PM

82. The problem is electability.

Not support for over-classification. Or, at least that's why I think people are concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #82)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:37 PM

103. You understand this is all more Benghazi Republican mischief?

What alternative, backup, Plan B Democrat will the Republicans show the love?

Their goal is to take out the presumptive nominee by any means necessary. They said so.

I'm not fallin' for this BS. Seen it before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #103)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:42 PM

108. No, I don't understand it that way.

I understand it as poor judgment and bad staffing. Just use the damn state.gov email you were given and be done with it. "Don't get your own personal server in your living room and a gmail account because it is going to look bad years from now when you run for President again." That is what someone should have said, and that is what should have happened. Now we are in a clusterfuck of scandal because of arrogance and poor judgment. Why does this even need to be a thing? It shouldn't be because it should not have happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #108)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:56 PM

110. That's your interpretation.

Guess what? The Republican goal worked perfectly!

I trust Hillary a hell of a lot more than any Republican dissemination, spin, propaganda, character assassination, BS of 'anonymous sources,' same old ginned-up crap, same old back-stabbing Machiavellian political think-tank machinations!

You are welcome to your opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #110)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:01 PM

112. Yes I am.

And the private email server is not a rumour from an anonymous source. The server exists. The decision not to use the state.gov email system was made. These things really and truly happened. Avoiding the reality-based community won't be a great campaign strategy for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #112)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:19 PM

125. The "covered eyes & ears" syndrome IS amazing isnt it? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #103)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:34 AM

206. No I don't.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:53 PM

57. Was it classified when it was received/sent?

 

or afterward?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Molusko (Reply #57)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:04 PM

66. All we've been told is that they were not "marked Classified" which means nothing because no secret

documents are marked "Classified. They are marked Secret, Top Secret, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #66)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:25 PM

141. What happens if Huma sends classified info to Hillary

or vice-versa.

It would not be marked classified since neither Huma or Hillary marked it classified. No one else would even know it was sent.

So is something not classified unless Hillary or Huma marks it classified?

That doesn't seem to make any sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #141)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:09 PM

147. Exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #66)


Response to Molusko (Reply #57)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:12 PM

70. All the emails are being reviewed for release to the public.

They are being classified now.

Since we won't see what is being classified, anonymous sources can drop all kinds of speculation and innuendo.

Right before the Iowa caucus.

And they are conveniently saving some more emails for the last Friday of February.

Right before the SEC Primary (formerly Super Tuesday).

The plot thickens...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:59 PM

61. I don't know about over-classification, but for sure there's some over exceptionalism

going on. Rules just don't apply to her like they do to everyone else.

I'm sure the administration is in a bad spot on this. I'm sure the campaign donor class would rather have HRC fighting socialism than defending herself in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:59 PM

62. As with all the Clinton email stories--this will be debunked quickly.

And then we'll see another one next week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:00 PM

64. So they are spinning it as overclassification. Clever, but not good enough. Now they are impugning


Obama's own people. Seems like they are firing everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thereismore (Reply #64)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:18 PM

81. so you've reviewed these documents and can verify that the Fox News spin on this

story is accurate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #81)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:19 PM

83. Don't drag Fox into this. It's Obama's people saying this. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thereismore (Reply #83)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:21 PM

89. really? Which Obama people are saying Clinton broke the law and is going to get

indicted, etc etc?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #89)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:23 PM

93. Obama's people are saying her emails contained information of the highest sensitivity.


That is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thereismore (Reply #93)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:24 PM

94. state department FOIA bureaucrats are saying that, not Obama's inner circle

at the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #94)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:26 PM

95. It's the Obama administration. He is the top executive and they are his people. Got it? nt


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thereismore (Reply #95)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:27 PM

96. career civil servants are not Obama's people any more than they were

Bush's people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #96)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:27 PM

98. Don't insult me and take your bone somewhere else. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thereismore (Reply #98)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:45 PM

109. that post was not insulting and none of my bones are out of place nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #96)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:08 AM

174. Either way, they are not 'Fox News'

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #81)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:05 AM

196. Not Fox.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thereismore (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 04:47 AM

214. yeah, it's "overclassification"...

like emails too sensitive to ever be released

and 37 pages of emails on Special Access programs (naming intelligence sources etc)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35446455

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:12 PM

69. facebook

Is anyone else not seeing any news articles about this in their Facebook newsfeed? I was when it first broke and now... nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:31 PM

99. Thank god it's Friday, where stories go to die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #99)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:40 PM

106. You forgot /Sarc tag

This story is no where close to being killed off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:39 PM

105. Just reported on NPR



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:00 PM

111. I just find these accusations very sexist.

She is being attacked because she is a woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #111)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:47 PM

146. Sarcasm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #111)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:37 AM

207. Groan.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:30 PM

128. No...More...Clintons.

I've had enough of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #128)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:38 AM

208. ....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:32 PM

151. Thanks again, Sanders supporters!

NOBODY ELSE CARES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6000eliot (Reply #151)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:47 PM

153. The FBI cares

 

You should too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Reply #153)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:28 PM

162. According to liars like Issa and Delay,

but thank you for carrying their water for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6000eliot (Reply #162)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:42 PM

167. The FBI doesn't serve under Issa or Delay.

Take a guess as to who they do take direction from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #167)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:50 AM

191. Whatever. Ho hum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6000eliot (Reply #151)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:29 PM

163. We're a year into this shit, but..

NOBODY ELSE CARES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #163)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:31 PM

164. True, if by "shit" you mean "right-wing smears against Hillary Clinton."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6000eliot (Reply #164)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:40 PM

166. No, I mean Hillary's shit show..

written, produced, and directed. She owns this colossal fuck up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #166)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:12 AM

175. This "colassal fuck up" is evidence of Hillary's superior

 

"foreign policy experience", and don't you dare forget that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #166)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:49 AM

190. How boring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6000eliot (Reply #190)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:06 AM

197. Utterly droll

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #166)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:41 AM

211. You bet she does.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6000eliot (Reply #151)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:31 AM

183. None of Those 22 New Hillary Emails Were Classified When They Were Sent

I guess some here think right wing talking points will help their client.

It won't, and just the opposite will occur because of their disingenuous half truths


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #183)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 04:07 PM

226. They were all stripped out of other agency classified documents

"Retroactively classified" isn't a legal term. It's certainly not a legal defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6000eliot (Reply #151)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:39 AM

209. The Administration cares.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:27 AM

180. why leave out that NONE of those emails were classified when they were sent?

No noose is tightening, and those who keep jumping onto the republican talking points with enthusiasm will look like fools


again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #180)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:32 AM

185. Hey!

don't confuse the issue with facts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrWendel (Reply #185)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:40 AM

188. In fact here is the real story that Sanders' supporters want to ignore

"since the email “scandal” began, it has become a mainstream media pastime not to ever mention this, but these 22 emails, and every other email that journalists mainstream and conservative have gotten all sweaty over, were not marked classified when they were sent or received. If only some sort of talk-guy from the government thingy that Hillary worked for would just come out and say that, so people could prominently report that highly relevant fact that means Hillary won’t be going anywhere near a courtroom:

I can confirm that as part of this monthly production of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, the State Department will be denying in full seven e-mail chains found in 22 documents representing 37 pages. The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information. These documents were not marked classified at the time that they were sent.”

That was U.S. State Department Spokesman John Kirby, for those of you playing along at home. Watch below, via MSNBC"

http://www.mediaite.com/online/hold-your-benghazm-none-of-those-22-new-emails-were-classified-when-they-were-sent/

Sanders is supposed to be very honest and trustworthy. Makes me wonder if the Sanders' supporters that post such things as in this OP believe in those traits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #180)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:40 AM

187. Because that isn't true.

None of the emails were marked classified. The information is classified, whether or not it is marked.

Also, keep in mind this entire thing is going on because Clinton broke FOIA rules - she didn't turn over her work emails when she stepped down, which has lead to a FOIA lawsuit that found her server.

Hand over the emails, no lawsuit. No lawsuit, no finding the server and the classified messages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #187)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:49 AM

189. The state department John Kirby came out and said they were NOT classified at the time



"since the email “scandal” began, it has become a mainstream media pastime not to ever mention this, but these 22 emails, and every other email that journalists mainstream and conservative have gotten all sweaty over, were not marked classified when they were sent or received. If only some sort of talk-guy from the government thingy that Hillary worked for would just come out and say that, so people could prominently report that highly relevant fact that means Hillary won’t be going anywhere near a courtroom:

I can confirm that as part of this monthly production of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, the State Department will be denying in full seven e-mail chains found in 22 documents representing 37 pages. The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information. These documents were not marked classified at the time that they were sent.”

That was U.S. State Department Spokesman John Kirby, for those of you playing along at home. Watch below, via MSNBC"

http://www.mediaite.com/online/hold-your-benghazm-none-of-those-22-new-emails-were-classified-when-they-were-sent/

Keep it up. Hillary will come out of this just fine.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #189)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:55 AM

192. Once again, not marked is different than not being classified.

but these 22 emails, and every other email that journalists mainstream and conservative have gotten all sweaty over, were not marked classified when they were sent or received


The information is classified, whether or not it is marked classified.

Also, that still doesn't change that Clinton broke FOIA rules, causing this entire thing to blow up.

If she had done what FOIA required and turned over her work emails, the FOIA lawsuit wouldn't have found "@clintonemail.com" messages that did not have the "Clinton" side. Those missing emails turned a very minor issue into a giant one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #192)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:00 AM

193. Nothing is going to happen. The only ones who are making this an issue are republicans and Sanders

supporters.

enjoy it while it lasts, because nothing is going to happen

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1091962

"
Here's what you need to know about the 7 Clinton emails ...

Last edited Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:55 PM - Edit history (2)
...which the State Department is withholding due to classification issues.

1) There was no government rule which prevented Hillary from setting up and using a private email server to handle her government emails.

2) Other State Departments heads including Colon Powell used the exact same set up. I don't hear the Republicans complaining about him.

3) Hillary's server was used to send and receive messages to and from other government employees in the State Department and her personal emails as well.

4) Any official State Department emails set to or received from Hillary's server were also maintained the State Department's government servers - therefore there is a government record of each and every one.

5) Investigations determined that Hillary's server had the exact same security protections required on all State Department government servers.

6) Investigation have also concluded that that there was no security breaches of Hillary's server - yes IT security experts can determine if such a breach occurred.

7) Because an email server is most vulnerable to security breaches cause by user error - such as opening a document on a fake email which releases a virus which allows 0the server to be hacked - the less people having access to a server, the more secure it is. So Hillary's server was probably more secure than the State Department's email machines. (Note: There have been several reports of government servers being hacked and very sensitive data being lost. This did not happen on Hillary's server.)

9) The 7 emails in question were not classified when they were sent and received.

9) The State Department is not withholding the 7 emails because they believe they that the emails should be classified; it is another government agency that is claiming that they should be classified. It is a well known fact that there is a propensity in many government agencies to over classify data - often because the information in question may make the the agency look bad if it was ever publicized. It is their way of making sure that the public never knows that they screwed up. I am not saying that is what is going on here, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised me if it were the case because that is often a prime reason why different agencies disagree on information classification.

10) The State Department is not saying that they will never distribute the emails. They are saying that they are withholding them for now until they can do their own investigation as to whether the emails should be classified.

Bottom line: The entire affair was totally blown out of proportion by Republican seeking political advantage."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #193)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:02 AM

195. Just rock back and forth, telling yourself that.

Nothing's gonna happen....Nothing's gonna happen. Hey look, it's October and the Republicans just turned this into a firestorm right before the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #193)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:43 AM

212. You're living in De Nile.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:55 AM

218. Easy way to settle it. Even if classified, the President has authority to declassify material

regardless of any objections from any Department or Agency.

Mr. President, if they are not too damaging to our nation, declassify them.

If they are, admit it. As the 1st line supervisor of the SoS, he needs to look and decide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:43 PM

225. Worst case senario is if she defeats Bernie in the primary

And is indicted in August or September.

The FBI had an investigation open on Patraeus for nearly 2 years before the indictment came down. They've only been investigating Hillary for 6 months. This is going to go in throughout the election year even if she isn't ultimately indicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Reply #225)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 04:22 PM

228. Worst case scenario...

...she somehow wins the election and her presidency is DOA from the time she takes the oath. You know damned good and well articles of impeachment will be brought on Jan. 21, 2017, and will hound her and the nation into oblivion.

I agree with posters above who say she should do the right thing for the good of the party and for the nation and step aside in favor of Biden or whoever else the establishment picks to run. Because as of right now I think it's unlikely she will beat Trump in the general, and the longer this drags on, the more unlikely it will be.

And do we want an entire campaign from Labor Day to November dominated by nothing but e-mails? I, for one, do NOT want to be held hostage by her arrogance, sense of entitlement, and just flat-out poor judgment. The stakes this year are just too high, especially considering the GOP's nuttiness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryOldDem (Reply #228)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 08:28 PM

234. No, if she wins and has to vacate, her VP would take over.

Before the election would be way worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Reply #225)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 04:00 PM

247. Patreus gave secrets to his mistress, who was a reporter,

 

Hillary did her goddamned job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 04:27 PM

230. Hillary is a fucking anvil that will sink the Democratic Party...

...if she is the nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #230)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:36 PM

232. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #230)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 03:58 PM

246. More than slightly hyperbolic.

 

But I think that you knew that. Hillary is exactly the SECOND Secretary of State to even use email. There is very little precedence to look at with regard to servers, etc. The Bush Admin used the RNC email to run around the law and that is a fact. This whole thing will amount to exactly jack shit, except to teabaggers and, for now, Bernie supporters, who I don't truly believe really give a shit.

If she is the nominee it will be landslide of epic proportions, in our favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hoosierlib (Original post)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 10:36 AM

248. legally not guilty

The investigation is on going and the final result is unknown.

I strongly suspect that she did not violate the law. She came very close to breaking the law; but, I think that she managed not to break the law.
I think that she knows how to read a statute.

I think that it is unfortunate that the Clintons are still in public life; I would have liked to see someone else run.

But, we have what we have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread