The Clinton Mail Baggage: Are Hillary’s ETHICS Behind The Bernie Sanders Surge?

[Segami]

"..The Clintons are banking that most of the media will continue to ignore the email scandal. Democratic elites and their media allies have invested their hopes for 2016 on Mrs. Clinton’s electoral inevitability. Mr. Sanders’s latest polling boomlet is a message that many rank-and-file Democrats are having second thoughts..."

Hillary Clinton has taken to attacking Bernie Sanders in the wake of polls showing the Vermont socialist is beating her in Iowa and New Hampshire. The fascinating question is how much Bernie’s comeback is related to his message, and how much to the continuing doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s honesty and thus her ability to win in November. The former Secretary of State wants voters to believe that her private email server scandal is old news, but every month brings new evidence that she put state secrets at risk in order to hide her emails from the public. The slow public release of new emails commanded by a judge, combined with an expanding FBI probe, may be making Democratic voters wonder if they should nominate such an ethically challenged nominee.


The latest cache hit Friday when the State Department released 1,262 more of Mrs. Clinton’s emails. That dump contained another 66 emails deemed classified, which means State has now discovered some 1,340 instances of the nation’s top diplomat handling sensitive material on an unsecure server—including spy satellite information and the name of at least one confidential CIA source. Given that we know Mrs. Clinton’s server was the target of attempted hacks, this is grossly negligent behavior. Mrs. Clinton’s assurance that none of these emails were classified “at the time,” and that she always handled such material properly, also looks to be undercut by one recently released message. In a June 17, 2011 email thread, aide Jake Sullivan tells Mrs. Clinton that he can’t get her certain documents she wants because “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax.” Mrs. Clinton appears to direct Mr. Sullivan to ignore protocol and send the information by insecure methods. “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” she wrote.

The State Department says it can find no proof the information was sent. On CBS ’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, Mrs. Clinton said she was only requesting the transmittal of information that was “unclassified.” You can believe this if you choose, but there is no documentary evidence that she made this classified versus unclassified distinction to Mr. Sullivan. There is evidence of the former Secretary of State instructing an aide to ignore security procedures that State presumably had in place for a reason. The State Department’s inability to find a record of transmittal counts for little, given that State has proven incapable of tracking the private email accounts of employees, or even locating and producing documents requested in Freedom of Information Act requests. Last week the State Department Inspector General skewered the department for giving “inaccurate and incomplete” answers to groups seeking Mrs. Clinton’s records.

IG Steve Linick included the example of State in 2013 telling an outside group that it had no information about Mrs. Clinton’s use of private email for public business, though “dozens of senior officials throughout the Department” knew about it. State has its own interest in hoping the email issue goes away. Meanwhile, Fox News reported Monday that three intelligence sources say the FBI has expanded its email probe and is now looking at the “intersection” between Mrs. Clinton’s State Department business and her Clinton Foundation work. Mrs. Clinton told the Des Moines Register that “there is nothing like that that is happening” at the FBI, but the question is how Mrs. Clinton would know. The FBI rarely alerts subjects on the details of its probes.


cont'

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-mail-baggage-1452730477

[bowens43]

1. of course not, hillary has no ethics......

[Betty Karlson]

14. Opportunism is a value too. So is ambition.

Most people would regard those values as testifying to bad ethics, but among the 1 %, up is down and all that. Third Way Betty says:

What you need to understand is that trustwortiness is overrated. Wall Street doesn't rely on trustworthiness - it relies on being beyond litigation. The question "Can I Get Away With It" is the key here, not "Is it right?" or "Do I really believe that?"

But if you want to go that way: I really believe that Clinton is a terrific candidate, that she will be a smashing president, that DWS is a tremendous chair who does an unbiased job, that TPP is God's gift to America but not in the way that makes Clinton ineligeable and if you want more information on that subject you are a poll-clicking complacent millennial who won't bother to vote anyway so screw you. I also believe that fracking should be pushed on the world - as secretary Clinton did - but not in a way that makes us look like Flint is a motherload of lead-infested egg on our faces, I believe that 9/11 has shown the world why Wall Street has to be coddled, and if you think otherwise you are sexist and racist.

Lastly, I think everyone should stop attacking Chelsea for speaking out against Sanders' plans for health care reform. As the wife of one of us and the daughter of two of us, she should know what is best for the United States and its ruling elite. So get thee down on thy knees, you unbelievers!

And if I don't really believe all that, who cares?

As long as I can get away with it... trustworthiness is so overrated.

[Metric System]

2. Right-Wing crap from the Wall Street Journal. Politics really do make strange bedfellows.

[Segami]

3. Really?

Then why is Bryan Pagliano, the tech worker who “helped Clinton manage a private e-mail server at her home invoking his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination?

And yes, I'm also curious as to how Hillary Clinton seems to know that, “there is nothing like that that is happening at the FBI"........really,....how does she know with certaincy that no such FBI investigation IS "happening"?

[anigbrowl]

6. Simple enough

Clinton's comment on the FBI is presumably based on their failing to question her about it or demand additional information via her attorney, which are the sort of things that usually happen in an investigation. Perhaps you might want to reflect on why you and the WSJ editorial writer are perfectly willing to believe an unsourced claim from Fox News, given that media organ's poor reputation for accuracy.

[emulatorloo]

9. Well, Rupert Murdoch owns both Fox and WSJ

So I pretty much consider them one entity. Fox is a popular source on DU recently, not sure why. The more unsourced the more popular it gets.

[CorporatistNation]

10. It Is Ludicrous To Believe Hillary on This Issue... As If A Secretary of State Does Not Recieve...

Classified emails?

What kind of rubes does she think we are to believe such utter nonsense in the first place?

Hillary has no respect for our intelligence! Her veracity is certainly in question here as well. A principle rationale for supporting Bernie rather than Clinton Inc.

If someone is Secretary of State by DEFINITION they will be receiving classified information. In this era, much information is via email. Does classified information arrive by Courier or the Pony Express for gawd's sake?

A sterling example of very poor judgement on the part of Madam Secretary. "Inevitable?" Not so much...

[senz]

4. People like Bernie and his message. He speaks to where they live and tells the truth.

But of course, comparisons between Bernie and Hillary can only help Bernie, so there's that, too.

[A Little Weird]

5. Here are the jury results

On Wed Jan 13, 2016, 10:42 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

The Clinton Mail Baggage: Are Hillary’s ETHICS Behind The Bernie Sanders Surge?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511005037

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Really? Why not just full on embrace Trey Gowdy and the GOP here at DU? This is a disgusting attack using a right wing rag and right wing effort.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jan 13, 2016, 10:58 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I am a very strong supporter of Senator Sanders. But, using extreme right-wing sources to attack Secretary Clinton is not appropriate.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation:
The OP is raising true concerns. Better to have them come up during the primaries than in the GE.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I think this opinion piece from a right-leaning news source is unnecessarily divisive. I do think some of the issues brought up are worthy of discussion. She has a lot of negatives that shouldn't be ignored, but overall this article just feels like a hit piece. I very strongly favor Sanders in the primary, but I think he can win because he has better positions on the issues and not because he has to rely on her negatives.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Republican talking points.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Let people bash it based on the source and judge the person who posted it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[anigbrowl]

7. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, from the people who brought you Fox News

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, since your thread titles all resemble Daily Mail headlines.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. I think it's a realization that we don't have to settle.

It's not going to be a coronation.

[scottie55]

11. The Email Crap Does Not Bother Me Personally

If my family had been attacked like the Clintons, I would be as private as I could.

I think Hillary thought a private server would keep the Republican Dirt Bags from going through every message she ever sent.

Backfired, and poor judgment, but I don't hold it against her.

I don't blame her for wanting privacy.

I do blame her for poor judgment, and not understanding the legal ramifications.

[Divernan]

12. Awww! She's perfected Bill's pensive bite your lower lip pose.

Probably subconscious since seeing him use that over the decades as he tried to think up excuses and spin for his personal behavior.

[Todays_Illusion]

13. Segami, we don't need the conservative created attacks to dislike Hillary's conservatism.

[Betty Karlson]

15. You know what is wrong with this article? The Sanders surge is because of SANDERS's ETHICS.

The writer implies that the preference for Sanders over Clinton has something to do with Hillary's negatives.

The truth is that a lot of that enthousiasm is because of Sanders' positives.