2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMissing Clinton E-Mail Claims Saudis Financed Benghazi Attacks
https://medium.com/@williamreynolds/missing-clinton-e-mail-claims-saudis-financed-benghazi-attacks-b471a61b5b2b#.x912fkrtl
Wikileaks: Cross referencing Clinton emails shows Hillary may have illegally deleted email on Libya
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/707975758082412544
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)We may not be looking at a mishandling-classified-materials case, but an espionage case.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I value your input here.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)By its own confession, the Saudis gave CF somewhere between 10 and 25 million.
more about the seedy situation with CF: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/clinton-foundation-defends-foreign-donations/index.html
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Read the article.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)Neither of your links point to the claim you make in your headline. While one mentioned Saudis, it mentioned the attackers being from there nations as well. And then again, these emails are all from Sid, not Hillary so what crime/coverup are you accusing Hillary of. You think that the State Dept doesn't know about a "missing email" but you and the Russians do. The State Dept really should be reading DU as a requirement; then they'd know as much as you do. But than again, it's about Hillary, so you don't have to provide proof of anything nefarious I quess; or you provide selective proof in order to support whatever ridiculous claim you are trying to make at the time since for Bernie supporters, the accusation in itself is proof enough.
Beowulf
(761 posts)the email doesn't exist on Clinton's server, but it did exist in the hack of Blumenthal's email account. If the hacked email is genuine, then it was erased from Clinton's server. If genuine, then it's additional evidence that sensitive information was mishandled, possibly intentionally mishandled.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)it means the contents of her server were compared with the contents of some other repository. There are emails that passed from her server to the other location (or vise versa) that do not exist on her server. How'd that happen?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)"Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didnt want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation?"
or for some other reason?
Jarqui
(10,130 posts)Clinton's emails were subpoenaed. Blumenthal's emails were subpoenaed.
Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary Clintons Confidant, Turns Over Memos on Libya
If that email is missing from both sets of emails, that smells real bad of collusion to obstruct justice - there's only a tiny fraction of a chance that was an accident.
Secondly,
The most intriguing thing about the FBI recovering Hillary Clinton's deleted emails
The FBI has been able to recover deleted emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's personal server, a source close to the investigation told Bloomberg.
And intriguingly, agents sifting through the emails Clinton said were "personal" in nature have reportedly handed some over to investigators indicating that they are relevant in at least some way to the FBI's ongoing investigation.
So we have a report (of questionable reliability because it's one unnamed media source), claiming some of the emails Hillary had deleted were submitted to investigators because they seemed to be work related. This is not good if true because it raises more eyebrows on the obstruction of justice issue.
Lastly, i was thinking about my recent posts about how Hillary isn't a good liar. We or the media have caught her lying a lot. Now, it's one thing for her to lie to the electorate - there's no law against that. She does it as easily as breathing. But she lied her head off in the first press conference. That's an undebatable matter of record in the media. And she has lied or deceived about this during the debates - including last night. I hope for her sake she didn't try to lie to these investigators because again, she's not a good liar - and these folks looking this stuff over are pros at flushing out liars. There can be serious consequences if they catch someone lying to them - beyond ending her campaign.
Someone drew parallels to Watergate with this thing back when. I brushed them off. But each day with these news tidbits ... drip, drip, drip ... we seem to get closer to being like Watergate.
Beowulf
(761 posts)but also with Iran-Contra. Setting up a private server to conduct business they want to keep from the public seems a little similar to setting up a shadow government to cover up the arms sales to Iran and arms shipments to the Contra's. Even if she manages to avoid indictment, it should still give voters pause in letting her run the entire government.
Jarqui
(10,130 posts)the Clinton Foundation - the potential 3rd party money deal on the side. And in many of those transactions, weapons to other countries were involved.
Watergate's "follow the money" with Iran Contras "follow the weapons".
I would easily grant the media coverage is different than Watergate. Washington Post vs a lot of different media are providing the tidbits of news - closer to Iran Contra.
The thing is with this, even if she's as innocent as can be, one can make a pretty compelling case that she's dirty by joining the dots and telling the story a certain way. "She's dishonest (a means)... Obama administration protected her .... she and Bill got loads of dough (motive) ... she held the position of Secretary of State (access to potential donors) and had a stake in the Clinton Foundation (opportunity)" etc. She's a public figure - can't sue for defamation. She's hard to defend because it's so complex and the core dots are factually true. The simple story is more likely to be the one that sticks widely.
I think they're just sitting back. The little ads in Nevada or the Koch brothers ran is just smoke to cover their tracks. Once (if) she gets the nomination, the gloves come off and the GOP start pummeling her reputation - demanding she testify before the House, etc.
2banon
(7,321 posts)for the nom. Her nomination will obviously be devastating in the general. The GOP is keeping their powder dry until the day she's "official" and then it's all going to hit like a Tsunami, but judging from her supporters on social media (here and KOS), the rank and file are simply not prepared on any level for what should be sooooo predictable. Like watching a Sat 5 Hurricane heading for New Orleans, and making no decisions about which way to go before it hits while there's still time.
One other thing which is also sadly and pathetically predictable, they'll blame it all on Bernie and Bernie supporters.
Jarqui
(10,130 posts)Maybe i'm paranoid but I have an uneasy feeling about this and have for months. It's a significant part of the reason I support Bernie.
They may try to hang it on Bernie and his supporters - and some mud may stick in the eyes of others but not the majority.
I have liked Joe Biden for years. I think Obama is hands down the better of the two for president but Joe's been around. The GOP proves you could do a lot worse. I also like Elizabeth Warren. Have since before she became a Senator.
If Elizabeth ran against Joe, if she sounded ok on foreign policy, I'd support her. If Joe won the nomination, I'd have no trouble hopping on board. I think many Dems could say that. There do not seem to be a lot of people who dislike Bernie, Elizabeth or Joe. A bunch in the GOP do not agree with their policies but few would have deep hatred for any of them.
It's not the same with Hillary. There are a lot of people who do not like her. Some of it is the her time in Washington but many of her scandals were not brought about exclusively because of something the GOP did. The person who is by far the most responsible for it is Hillary.
If she wins the primary, it's up to her to sell herself to Bernie's supporters. If she lies, deceives and does dirty tricks like we've been seeing from her to win the nomination, a bunch of Bernie's supporters will not support her or not support her enthusiastically. If she's looking for someone to take the responsibility, she can go to nearly any public washroom to wash her hands and all she has to do is look at what is across from her.
If she loses the general election, she won't have to go far to find out who is largely to blame.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)Allen Dulles started it after World War II. For a couple of years between when the OSS was disbanded and the CIA was formed, he had his own private intelligence service (consisting largely of businessmen with international dealings and former Nazi ties who he was able to blackmail into doing favors for him.)
When Dulles joined the CIA, he brought his operation with him, but old habits die hard. The Cuban exiles who did the CIA's dirty work during the Bay of Pigs period were another aspect of it. Nixon -- who was tight with Dulles when he was vice president -- maintained his ties with the Cubans through the 1960s, and many of them were involved in Watergate.
When post-Watergate revelations resulted in restrictions on what the CIA could legally get involved in, George H.W. Bush carried on the tradition -- first as CIA director during the Ford administration, then by being extremely close with the rogue CIA guys who were forced out by Carter. The alliance with Saudi intelligence (often referred to as the Safari Club) dates to this period.
And during the Reagan years, Bush and William Casey deployed an extensive network of off-the-books operations of which Iran-Contra was just the most notorious example.
I hadn't thought of Hillary as part of that spooked-up tradition -- but the allegations of illicit CIA gun-running out of Benghazi to arm Syrian rebels do carry the same stink. And that would put *all* of this Benghazi/email stuff in an entirely new light.
starroute
(12,977 posts)The War on Terror was pretty much invented at the Jerusalem Conference in 1979, which was held by Bibi Netanyahu at his newly-formed Jonathan Institute. George H.W. Bush attended, even though he was campaigning for president at the time and it was held over the Fourth of July weekend when presidential candidates are normally off in Iowa eating corndogs. And he was accompanied by a retinue of both Neocons and at least one high-profile former CIA figure, Ted Shackley.
Although it's rarely mentioned now, when Reagan took office in 1981, the War on Terror was one of his first priorities. A lot of scare stories were planted in the media -- and Gaddafi was the main villain-du-jour. Within a year or two, the focus had shifted to Afghanistan, and the final ramping up of the Cold War and the War on Terror was temporarily forgotten. And when it was revived in the 1990s, the focus had shifted to Iran and Gaddafi was pretty much ignored.
But Gaddafi clearly knew a lot of dirty secrets dating to that earlier period when the US alternated between using him and demonizing him. And if he had been peacefully deposed, some of those secrets might have come out -- which made it prudent to assure his extra-legal execution instead.
"We came, we saw, he died."
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Manuel Noriega comes to mind as does Saddam Hussein and Hekmatyar. Yes, the agency does have a continuity of purpose as well as a long memory and allies in both parties. You're on the right path with regard to HRC.
starroute
(12,977 posts)It seems like there needs to be a lot more focus on Hillary's tenure at the State Department. It's been treated simply in terms of her being more hawkish than Obama -- with occasional snide remarks about her spending four years running around the world without accomplishing anything.
But the real question may be whether she had her own agenda -- one related to her affection for Kissinger and her ties with the Neocons -- and if so what it was.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The outcome for him was unintended but the creation of a regionalized Sunni army with Libyan weapons wasn't.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)What we have here is a shadow State Department that is not authorized by the American people or the President of the United States.
This is the worst kind of perfidy and treachery.
She set up a rogue operation.
She betrayed Obama and has used him cynically and bitterly.
That glint in her eye? It's a sign of deep danger for us all.
H2O Man
(73,605 posts)talked about as the "shadow government" here for years. The shadow government is neither Democratic nor republican. It's at a very different level than the concepts of "political parties" that most Americans subscribe to.
The State Department is merely a front for the CIA, to provide "official cover." In the context of issues involving weapons sales, distribution of resources, national borders, etc, it is important to keep this in mind.
The operation out of the OVP under Cheney, that exposed an operative without official cover -- as well as her husband's true employer, as opposed to State -- also played out on that "invisible" stage, hidden from the view of the public, and unknown to most journalist -- excluding those who work for CI under the "official" cover of journalism. Consider, for a moment, virtually all of the players in that drama ....myself and others (including several on this thread) had named names, and identified roles .....people might have thought that, for example, I was "nuts," a conspiracy theorist, or just guessing ......until Scooter's trial, which revealed the witnesses and investigation material that proved we were on target.
Even at that time, another internet site -- no need to identify Daily Kos here -- promoted two "investigative reporters" who were tied to the very people being discussed here in this thread (including this post), to distract from the fuller picture.
I could unload a hell of a lot of information on this, at this time. The primary reason that I have refrained from doing so is that part of the republican machine -- a sub-group with zero juice within the shadows -- would use it improperly.
There is a fuck of a lot more going on here, than most people suspect.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Because what is going on is monstrous. Exploit the cracks, while we can.
I know that you are right.
starroute
(12,977 posts)A couple of times lately, I've posted that in 2004 Robert Dreyfuss described the Center for American Progress as "a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.
I was thinking of it just in the context of Hillary expecting to run for president from the moment Bill left the White House in 2001. But in light of what you're saying, perhaps the term "shadow government" could be read more as "deep state." And Hillary, with her private web server and covert interactions with Sid Blumenthal, was acting very much in the model of the off-the-books operations that I cited above.
And that's extremely disturbing.
H2O Man
(73,605 posts)are remembering the old "Plame threads," and connecting a few things. To too large an extent, good people put those events as being party-oriented. It was a bigger challenge to the shadow government. Cheney was delusional enough to think he could control it. He was basing that largely upon actions he took in 2001, that were documented in Senator Robert Byrd's hugely important 2004 book, "Losing America."
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Do the intel elites support HRC?
H2O Man
(73,605 posts)pkdu
(3,977 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)Are you saying that the shadow government was always State+CIA, that outing Joe Wilson was Cheney's challenge to that shadow government, and that Cheney was delusional to think he could bring it off? That would certainly fit with the suggestions I've seen that going back to the 1950s, the State Department and the analysis branch of the CIA were seen as overly liberal by the McCarthyite right and that there's been a covert war between the two factions ever since.
I've checked my files for Sid Blumenthal and found this:
http://www.salon.com/2005/11/24/cheney_94/
Nov 24, 2005
The long march of Dick Cheney
Sidney Blumenthal
The hallmark of the Dick Cheney administration is its illegitimacy. Its essential method is bypassing established lines of authority; its goal is the concentration of unaccountable presidential power. When it matters, the regular operations of the CIA, Defense Department and State Department have been sidelined. . . .
Nixons resignation in the Watergate scandal thwarted his designs for an unchecked imperial presidency. It was in that White House that Cheney gained his formative experience as the assistant to Nixons counselor, Donald Rumsfeld. When Gerald Ford acceded to the presidency, he summoned Rumsfeld from his posting as NATO ambassador to become his chief of staff. Rumsfeld, in turn, brought back his former deputy, Cheney. . . .
Rumsfeld and Cheney quickly gained control of the White House staff, edging out Fords old aides. From this base, they waged bureaucratic war on Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger, a colossus of foreign policy, who occupied the posts of both secretary of state and national security advisor. ... In 1975, Rumsfeld and Cheney stage-managed a Cabinet purge called the Halloween massacre that made Rumsfeld secretary of defense and Cheney White House chief of staff. Kissinger, forced to surrender control of the National Security Council, angrily drafted a letter of resignation (which he never submitted). . . .
As part of the Halloween massacre Rumsfeld and Cheney pushed out CIA director William Colby and replaced him with George H.W. Bush, then the U.S. plenipotentiary to China. The CIA had been uncooperative with the Rumsfeld/Cheney anti-détente campaign. Instead of producing intelligence reports simply showing an urgent Soviet military buildup, the CIA issued complex analyses that were filled with qualifications. Its National Intelligence Estimate on the Soviet threat contained numerous caveats, dissents and contradictory opinions. From the conservative point of view, the CIA was guilty of groupthink, unwilling to challenge its own premises and hostile to conservative ideas.
It's not an unreasonable take on Dick Cheney's career -- but it's interesting that Sid Blumenthal was the one writing it and that he framed Cheney's agenda specifically as an attack on State and the CIA. I also find another Blumenthal piece published in Salon a few months earlier that lashed into John Bolton for his attacks on the intelligence community and the State Department's intelligence professionals. (http://www.salon.com/2005/04/14/john_bolton_2/)
So yes, certain things are becoming clear -- but I still can't see where Hillary fits into all of this. She seems like an unlikely candidate to serve as leader (figurehead?) of a shadow government -- though for that matter, she was also an unlikely figure to be chosen as Secretary of State. Who are the real puppetmasters here? Has Kissinger been pulling the strings for forty years?
(And is Bernie Sanders' call in 1974 for the CIA to be broken up just a historical curiosity or does it somehow figure into all of this?)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)My next one. And no one need answer it. I'm just throwing it out here.
How far will Clinton go to gain the WH (aside from the lying and cheating that apparently isn't working thus far)?
starroute
(12,977 posts)Hillary's ambition is limitless and her campaign has shown itself willing to use dirty tricks -- or at least milk the rules for all they are worth. The Clintons as a couple have an enormous ability to call in favors and to threaten people with being closed out of the circles of power.
But if Clinton comes to be seen as a liability, she could be dropped like a hot potato by the funders and party power brokers who are really calling the shots. And if that happens, no amount of personal clout will matter.
In fact, I could even see an accommodation between Sanders and a substantial segment of the real powers behind the scenes. "You know it's not safe to cross us. You understand what happened to Kennedy and Carter. But on the other hand, we have a lot of interests in common. You want to stay out of wars but accept the need for a strong national defense, and we're perfectly happy to rely on diplomacy with just a bit of covert operations around the edges. You worry about climate change and inequality and we're farsighted enough to see those things as threats to long-term national stability. You don't like the excessive power of Wall Street and the corporations, you want to protect the interests of workers and minorities, and you believe that securing the health and education of all Americans is essential to maintaining America's status in the world -- and we can get behind all of that as well. We're not utopian idealists, but we're not right-wing crazies either, and our long-term goals are generally compatible with yours. So suppose we agree to work together and we both get what we want?"
I could totally see something like that happening -- and the only stumbling block I see is that they, whoever "they" really are, would have to be willing to cut Wall Street loose. And even that may be in the cards no matter what else happens in this election.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Deep State.
Here is the title of the program.... the website is very difficult to navigate but check out the audio. Worth the trouble....
The Devil's Chessboard:
Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
http://www.tucradio.org/new.html
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)She kept it from OBAMA.
She was apparently running a rogue operation or a shadow office of SoS, and disobeying Obama's specific orders to ban Blumenthal.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)making this up, witches, psychics and shamans. And no matter where they are in the globe, they' re all saying that this black energy will prevent Hillary from achieving her goal of being in the WH.
I am such a cynic that I still perceive her being able to win the WH. But how long would she be there? Would we have another glorious situation wherein a helicopter or plane has to take her away, like that great day in August 1974 when Tricky Dick was finally scrubbed out of American History forever!
Merryland
(1,134 posts)I don't claim to be a psychic or whatever, but her vibe is unique.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)You should start a thread on that so we can ask you about it
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And the rules here on DU, wisely, are somewhat against having "advertising" under the guise of membership.
But since you asked about his work, here is a link -
sethreturns.com
I will see if I can find the link to Mark's Feb 6th 2015 radio show with George Noory.
And also, on George Noory on December 25th, Mark was channelling Seth, and Seth stated that Bernie would definitely win the WH!
First person to predict that. (If you can call a disembodied entity a person!)
I didn't think it possible for Bernie to go very far. Especially given that the Mainstream News media blathered on about Trump and Hillary endlessly, with only an occasional photo or statement from Bernie.
But here it is going into mid-March,and here we Sanders supporters are - it is all very much a possibility!
Anyway you made my day asking about this!
####
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)I am familiar with some of that... Seth, OBE, Tarot, Old Souls... things like that.
I still think you should start a thread on this... I am quite certain many would love to hear
more.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)it is shocking and I am amazed that she can keep it together - all of this hanging over her and running a Presidential campaign.
She may be putting the entire election and possibly her nomination/Presidency at risk.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Extract to follow:
The first three e-mails in the Russia Today leak from Blumenthal to Clinton all appear word for word in the State Department release. The first e-mail Clinton asks to have printed and she also forwards it to her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan. The second e-mail Clinton describes as useful insight and forwards it to Jake Sullivan asking him to circulate it. The third e-mail is also forwarded to Jake Sullivan. The fourth e-mail is missing from the State Department record completely.
This missing e-mail from February 16, 2013 only exists in the original leak and states that French and Libyan intelligence agencies had evidence that the In Amenas and Benghazi attacks were funded by Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia. This seems like a rather outlandish claim on the surface, and as such was only reported by conspiracy types and fringe media outlets. Now, however, we have proof that the other three e-mails in the leak were real correspondence from Blumenthal to Clinton that she not only read, but thought highly enough of to send around to others in the State Department. Guccifer speaks English as a second language and most of his writing consists of rambling conspiracies, its unlikely he would be able to craft such a convincing fake intelligence briefing. This means we have an e-mail from a trusted Clinton adviser that claims the Saudis funded the Benghazi attack, and not only was this not followed up on, but there is not any record of this e-mail ever existing except for the Russia Today leak.
Why is this e-mail missing? At first I assumed it must be due to some sort of cover up, but its much simpler than that. The e-mail in question was sent after February 1st, 2013, when John Kerry took over as Secretary of State, so it was not part of the time period being investigated. No one is trying to find a copy of this e-mail. Since Clinton wasnt Secretary of State on February 16th, it wasnt her job to follow up on it.
So lets forget for a minute about the larger legal implications of the e-mail investigation. How can it be that such a revelation about Saudi Arabia was made public in a leak that turned out to be real and no one looked into it? Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didnt have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldnt it be relevant? Shouldnt this be information she volunteers? And why didnt the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement?
Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didnt want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent.
Another E-Mail Turns Up Missing
Guccifer uncovered something else in his hack that could not be verified until the last of the e-mails were released by the State Department last week. In addition to the four full e-mails he released, he also leaked a screenshot of Sidney Blumenthals AOL inbox. If we cross reference this screenshot with the Blumenthal e-mails in the State Department release, we can see that the e-mail with the subject H: Libya security latest. Sid is missing from the State Department e-mails.
SCREEN SHOTS OF SID'S AOL EMAIL
( . . .)
This missing e-mail is certainly something that would have been requested as part of the investigation as it was sent before February 1st and clearly relates to Libya. The fact that it is missing suggests one of two possibilities:
1. The State Department does have a copy of this e-mail but deemed it top secret and too sensitive to release, even in redacted form. This would indicate that Sidney Blumenthal was sending highly classified information from his AOL account to Secretary Clintons private e-mail server despite the fact that he never even had a security clearance to deal with such sensitive information in the first place. If this scenario explains why the e-mail is missing, classified materials were mishandled.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Her emails classified as The Top Secret emails were likely about US and "allied" (Saudi) operations in Libya and Syria, and the details are highly embarrassing or even catastrophic to US policy at that time and to ongoing foreign relations. That would also explain several things:
1) why Gucifer is now being extradited to the US.
2) what Hillary's understanding at the time actually was, and why her email explanation to her daughter about what happened the night of the Stevens killing differed so much from the official version given out by the State Dept and UN Ambassador Rice.
3) why similar materials were classified by the State Dept as TS.
4) why Hillary hasn't yet been prosecuted - there is a tussle between the CIA and State Dept over what to do about Hillary's breach of security by running these through her (manifestly) unsecure server and her encouraging others to do the same.
As I posted elsewhere, a few hourse earlier today, before I came across this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1461758
(HRC's role in aborting UN-sponsored Syrian peace talks in 2012) is just one aspect of her documented larger role as chief instigator of serial regime change extending from Libya to Syria, and her role in facilitating the pipeline of heavy arms and Jihadi fighters that flowed through Turkey with Saudi funding and Qatari airlift. It seems apparent that is part of the Top Secret-Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (TS/SCI) program emails we won't be allowed to see, and which her uncertified private server compromised.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)I had wondered why Guccifer was suddenly being extradited and now I can understand the background. I'd given up on anything coming of her e-mails and the private server. Now I wonder how far they can go to keep this all under wraps before the Primary ends. She is a very flawed candidate, with poor judgement, who is easily used by those who can manipulate her for their purposes. Of course she and Bill always seem to benefit--so they are not without blame in their usefulness.
I, also, found a bit more about Hillary's role at State with "Import/Export Bank" that I'll post over in Good Reads.
It's like "connecting the dots" and going back to news that was reported before but not followed up on. Now is the time for some of that to be revisited.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)how he hacked the emails moving back and forth across Hillary's server to Sid, and who he may have been sharing these with. If it turns out there were other eyes on (as now seems likely, given the contents), then barring some unknown exculpatory factor (such as her role in a CIA disinformation program), Hillary is in even more severe trouble than we thought.
starroute
(12,977 posts)I was getting very deep into speculation in those and have no idea if I'm on the track of something real or am just fantasizing. I'd value your take on the questions I raised.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)The center will not hold
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)So monstrous that I am not convinced the story will ever be told. Bigger than Watergate. Big as Iran Contra.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)involved.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It's the same way Civil War contractors sold the War Department rotten meat. He's a friend, lots of people died, they get rich together. Same as it ever was.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Response to KoKo (Reply #6)
dreamnightwind This message was self-deleted by its author.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)the emails she didn't contain things she wanted to cover up is willfully blind
"The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." --Kissinger
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)that is an amazing quote...
amborin
(16,631 posts)As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton waived restrictions on selling weapons to governments that "donated" heavily to her family foundation, making it her personal mission to ensure that $29 billion worth of fighter jets were sold to Saudi Arabia -- despite the concerns of foreign allies and others in the U.S. government, including her department's and her own criticisms of Saudi Arabia.
In the years prior to her becoming Secretary of State, Saudi Arabia had given the Clinton Foundation at least $10 million.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511395413
In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom's troublesome human rights record.
In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511146951
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html
U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels
....the United States has been reluctant to openly criticize Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses, its treatment of women and its support for the extreme strain of Islam, Wahhabism, that has inspired many of the very terrorist groups the United States is fighting. The Obama administration did not publicly condemn Saudi Arabias beheading this month of a dissident Shiite cleric, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, who had challenged the royal family.
Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the extent of their partnership with the C.I.A.s covert action campaign and their direct financial support had not been disclosed.
New Report of U.S.-Made Cluster Bomb Use by Saudis in Yemen
By RICK GLADSTONEFEB. 14, 2016
The aftermath of a Saudi-led air strike in Sana, Yemen, on Sunday. Credit Khaled Abdullah/Reuters
Human Rights Watch released a report Sunday providing new indications that Saudi Arabia has fired American-made cluster munitions, banned by international treaty, in civilian areas of Yemen, and said their use may also violate United States law.
snip
If confirmed, the report could put new pressure on the United States over support for its ally Saudi Arabia in the Yemen conflict. The Americans have sold arms and furnished training and expertise to a Saudi-led coalition that has faced widespread criticism for what rights groups call an indiscriminate bombing campaign against Yemens Houthi rebels in nearly a year of fighting.....
Vinca
(50,303 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)that doesn't reflect too well on her!!
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)to run someone with so many vulnerabilities. Let HRC go through all these investigations on her own time, not in the White House where the American taxpayers will have to pay for the proceedings. The Clintons have cost us too much money already.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)so it's not a conspiracy theory that the Saudi's funded the Benghazi attack. And either:
1) she didn't pass this info (1st missing e-mail) onto John Kerry because the e-mail was done after her time was through (very sloppy!!) or
2) she didn't want this info getting out there and she deleted it
3) the State Department took it off of the rolls because it was too important and sensitive to be released - which means WHY was it on her private server in the first place??
Then the osecond e-mail suggests that it was important but it was deleted.
1) a mistake (they do happen! er... yeah...)
2) the State Department took it off of the rolls because it was too important and sensitive to be released - which means WHY was it on her private server in the first place??
Sounds like she is in deep doo-doo. Maybe that's why she lost it last night at the debate. I can imagine that she's under amazing stress right now.
If they are putting together a Grand Jury - and from this article it sounds like that is a strong possibility - then how will she have time to do that AND run for President?? And of course WHY is she running since it sounds like a strong possibility that she will e indicted IF there is a Grand Jury forming? I there isn't a Grand Jury, it would be interesting to find out why the State Department didn't think that this case warranted it.
This may be all old news to you guys but this is the first time that I sat down to actually read an understand what the fuss is about.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)lovuian
(19,362 posts)during the flight stoppage in America
Yes the FBI has to be careful too here
Sibel Edmunds testified the FBI may have spies connected to Turkey within its walls
so you can see the FBI has to be careful here too ....can they be independent investigator without influence? Congress will be asking that question
A American Ambassador was killed ....Sullivan testified before Congress under oath for seven hours
It's not good and the DNC needs to wake up
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Seems most likely that, to a degree that has not been fully and honestly presented to the public, 9/11 was blowback from US involvement in Saudi covert operations against Russia, as well as the result of a misguided alliance with Saudi paramilitary groups operating globally on behalf of various splinter factions of the Royal Family engaged in a civil war for control over the oil Kingdom.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Note Obama's "free rider" comment about Libya, and the coalition partners identified with that problem, and how addressing that was the core of the Administration's policy there (first article) and the "real failure" to reach a deal with Saudi Arabia to deliver everything they now demand (second article)
President Obama, frustrated with allies, calls out the 'free riders'
NBC News
ERIK ORTIZ Mar 10th 2016 11:46AM
In some of his bluntest comments yet on the subject of foreign policy, Obama told The Atlantic that he warned Great Britain that it would no longer have a "special relationship" with the U.S. if it did not start spending at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense.
It was previously reported that Obama spoke with Prime Minister David Cameron about England's military spending during last year's G7 summit.
"Free riders aggravate me," Obama said in a wide-ranging interview with The Atlantic that was published online Thursday and will be featured in its April issue.
Obama said he has struggled to get other nations to take the lead and pull their weight when necessary on several issues including terrorism, Russian incursions and Chinese aggression.
Jeffrey Goldberg, who conducted the interview, said the president was especially perturbed when The New Yorker reported, citing an anonymous administration official, that the White House was "leading from behind" amid the Libya crisis of 2011.
"We don't have to always be the ones who are up front," Obama told Goldberg, the magazine's national correspondent. "Sometimes we're going to get what we want precisely because we are sharing in the agenda. The irony is that it was precisely in order to prevent the Europeans and the Arab states from holding our coats while we did all the fighting that we, by design, insisted" they lead during the mission to oust longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi. "It was part of the anti-free rider campaign."
Obama held up Britain and France as examples of nations who seemed resistant to stepping up wholeheartedly at that time.
He said Cameron became "distracted by a range of other things," while former French President Nicolas Sarkozy "wanted to trumpet the flights he was taking in the air campaign (in Libya), despite the fact that (the U.S.) had wiped out all the air defenses and essentially set up the entire infrastructure" for the intervention.
Obama also questioned America's relationship with the oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which has played a pivotal role in the Middle East as a U.S. ally and Iran's archrival.
He said he did not want to throw "our traditional allies overboard," but that the Saudis will need to get along with Iran for the sake of extended peace.
"The competition between the Saudis and the Iranians which has helped to feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen requires us to say to our friends as well as to the Iranians that they need to find an effective way to share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace," Obama said.
The Atlantic piece also revealed that Obama has likened the entire Middle East to Gotham, the metropolis in the "Batman" comics, and said ISIS was akin to the Joker from the 2008 movie "The Dark Knight," according to advisers.
"There's a scene in the beginning in which the gang leaders of Gotham are meeting," the president has said, according to The Atlantic. "These are men who had the city divided up. They were thugs, but there was a kind of order. Everyone had his turf. And then the Joker comes in and lights the whole city on fire. (ISIS) is the Joker. It has the capacity to set the whole region on fire. That's why we have to fight it."
The president was also introspective of what he's accomplished in his foreign policy efforts so far. He told The Atlantic that he realizes that historians will one day question his decision to not bomb Syria in 2013 after it appeared Damascus had violated his so-called "red line" against using chemical weapons.
But of that decision, he said, "I'm very proud of this moment. ... The perception was that my credibility was at stake, that America's credibility was at stake. And so for me to press the pause button at that moment, I knew, would cost me politically."
The White House sought to quash concerns that the withdrawal of four of the six top leaders of Gulf nations from a planned summit later this week at Camp David signals strained relations between the administration and countries in that region.
Of the six Arab states invited, only two of the those countries Kuwait and Qatar plan on sending their top leaders. The remaining countries Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are all sending delegates.
"There had been some speculation that this change in travel plans was an attempt to send a message to the U.S. if so, the message was not received because all the feedback we have gotten from the Saudis has been positive," Earnest told reporters on Monday.
Monday afternoon, King Salman called President Obama and "expressed his regret at not being able to travel to Washington this week" according to the White House readout of the call. Both leaders reviewed the agenda for the summit and discussed Iran, Yemen and the need to work closely to address a range of threats.
The White House hopes the summit will be an opportunity to discuss "our shared concern about Iran's destabilizing activities in the region," and address military cooperation throughout the region, deputy press Secretary Eric Schultz had said previously. The talks will also likely include a potential deal between several world powers and Iran on that country's nuclear program as well as crises in Syria and Yemen.
[White House Denies Tension Exists Between Saudi King, Obama]
White House Denies Tension Exists Between Saudi King, Obama 1:01
However, the Obama administration is facing tough questions after King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, one of the administration's key allies, backed out of the summit. Saudi Arabia announced that King Salman will not attend the summit and would instead send Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef to lead the Saudi delegation.
A senior White House official and officials from the State Department told NBC the administration first learned of the King's possible change of plans from the Saudis on Friday night and this was confirmed by the Saudis on Saturday.
The administration also insisted that the change was not in response to any substantive issue.
"Nothing could be further from the truth that there was some 'snub' to use the term used by cable news talking points," State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said during a briefing on Monday afternoon, adding that Secretary Kerry left his visit in Riyadh last week after "very positive discussions."
When the summit was first announced by the White House on April 17th, the official White House statement said the president would "welcome leaders from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates to the White House on May 13 and to Camp David on May 14."
[Saudi Oil Min: Not worried about Iran crude]
Saudi Oil Min: Not worried about Iran crude 1:10
Saudi Arabia's decision not to send its top leader is the most jarring: both because of its role as a key ally in the region, but also because it was such an abrupt change, coming just hours after Schultz confirmed the meeting between the president and King Salman on Wednesday at the White House.
A rare Camp David summit with Gulf leaders could have been both a symbolic show of the president's foreign policy cooperation and a substantive play to boost Middle East allies and persuade nations to embrace a potential nuclear deal with Iran, foreign policy experts said. Instead, the White House spent the entire day explaining why just two of the six top leaders of Gulf nations will attend.
While White House officials insisted this is not a setback for the Obama administration, some foreign policy experts disagreed.
Former Ambassador to Morocco, Mark Ginsberg said Gulf leaders believed there would be progress, if not agreements on a mutual defense agreement, ballistic missile cover and the transfer of F-35 jets, and when they found out they weren't going to get any of the things they were asking for, they decided it wasn't worth their time to attend.
"This was a real failure," Ginsberg said.
An administration official pushed back on that idea, insisting leaders were told weeks ago there would be no formal treaty, and only one nation expressed disappointment in person at a meeting in Paris.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)It's not a perfect book, but it does lay out a convincing narrative involving how the US became reliant on Saudi intelligence during the George H.W. Bush tenure at the CIA, the Saudis' own agenda for maintaining their power (which ranged from encouraging their religious extremists like bin Laden to go off to play jihadi in Afghanistan to financing the Pakistani nuclear program), and the blowback that came home to roost on 911.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Met with him a few times. Burly and tough. Smart, like a detective out of a Dashel Hammet book. I trust him and his account.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)All the President's Men because this shit seem just too similar in how it is all coming to a head.
lovuian
(19,362 posts)the White House to not get involved and to shut up talking to the Press.....it was a heads up because the White House needed to know they are in the middle of a serious situation
the situation is out of their control now .... Congress is definitely watching and waiting as well as the Republican party
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)to protect the Saudis and their involvement in attacks on Americans. It's been a damn elephant in the room since 9/11, when 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis. If indeed they financed the attack on Benghazi, and Hillary knew and deleted that intel, we will witness the largest Kumbaya moment in the Republican party, EVER.
It's not just an email issue and questionable handling of classified info. This is obstruction, and it sounds like they have her cornered.
Holy shit.
amborin
(16,631 posts)not wanting to give them anything but how can this be pursued further?
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)and Wahhabism before 9/11...........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Lake_(film)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hdcji
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)this would be absolutely devastating!
when did they know this?
and she withheld this info?!
amborin
(16,631 posts)other questions:
like, why was Clinton essentially taking input from Blumenthal when she was SoS? He was a paid employee
of the Clinton Foundation at that time, but with zero foreign policy credentials. He also had business interests
in LIbya and would have benefited from toppling Qaddafi.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)though that time the business interests were the Facusses'
IllinoisLabour
(86 posts)That's why green energy should be promoted as a national security matter
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)If there are issues with it, I am sure someone will be along shortly to debunk.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)My crystal ball is a little cloudier than yours.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)It's about corruption, the security of our national secrets and watch a state-sponsored hacker might have learned.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)are using here.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)We can not afford to nominate a candidate that could be found culpable of any high crime or misdemeanor. If the investigation drags on beyond the primaries, it will not help Fmr. Secty. of State Mrs. Clinton chances in the General.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Can this email business please come to light ASAP? The FBI needs to hurry up and either indict or drop their case.
However, the shenanigans of her time as SoS and the ties to the Clinton foundation is a matter of record and
will never go away.
The fate of this election, of the Democratic party and the nation hang in the balance.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Hekate
(90,793 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)mvd
(65,180 posts)Prefer they wouldn't be more fodder for the Repukes in a general election. I am also waiting to see if any criminal action is taken. If so, Clinton would be in major trouble.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)actually read some of the leaked ones, and noted the time line, and realized how she lied during the hearings, and that she was communicating with Blumenthal behind Obama's back while dealing with Libya, it was apparent that the emails REEK.
If you have time, please take a peek at the links in this OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511468802
mvd
(65,180 posts)I don't blame you for having concern and posting this. I am sure Hillary will have to respond, and if she's the nominee, hopefully in a good way.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)is a fucking loon.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)I've noticed this thread stay on the front page for the entire week, so it's definitely not being ignored. The information is vast and almost overwhelming so that could be why responses are slow, but they've been steady and the interest is definitely there.
Here's another kick to the top.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)at the thought of either a Bernie or tRump presidency. Stuff like this will be exposed by an "outsider."
amborin
(16,631 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)One of the most informative I've read here.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)warrprayer
(4,734 posts)For exposure
thereismore
(13,326 posts)gordianot
(15,245 posts)Old fashioned wire taps are nothing compared to what happens to simple emails that proliferate on phones and computers, you will be caught. If I were the opposition to such shenanigans I would want the author to succeed in their political aspirations so they could be ripped to shreds at a later date. The risk playing with the rich and powerful even though they have similar interests such forces are constantly seeking leverage to stay at the top. In short the Clinton's have enemies they are playing a dangerous game in a dangerous arena.
Look what happened to the small time players out West the Bundy's. Where was the outcry from the Right Wing politicians when the Federal Government finally addressed their flagrant disregard for the law? Big time players Bill and Hilary Clinton are at risk. Their down fall will benefit someone or staying where they are now will be perfect for someone else as long as they do not wear out their usefulness. This is how you get owned.
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)RT released all four of Guccifer's emails in March, 2013. The missing email is also there for all to see. I haven't had the chance to compare RT's version of the three emails and those released by the State Department, but I remember reading somewhere that they are indeed the same. No wonder the FBI is investigating this breach of what once was Top Secret information.
http://www.netadvisor.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2013-03-20-Hillary-Clintons-hacked-Benghazi-emails-FULL-RELEASE.pdf