HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Exclusive: Dozens of Clin...

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:23 AM

Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest

Last edited Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Reuters

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters. "It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

. . .

Clinton and her senior staff routinely sent foreign government information among themselves on unsecured networks several times a month, if the State Department's markings are correct. Within the 30 email threads reviewed by Reuters, Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information. In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government.

The information appears to include privately shared comments by a prime minister, several foreign ministers and a foreign spy chief, unredacted bits of the emails show. Typically, Clinton and her staff first learned the information in private meetings, telephone calls or, less often, in email exchanges with the foreign officials.


Read more: http://www.aol.com/article/2015/08/21/exclusive-dozens-of-clinton-emails-were-classified-from-the-sta/21225607/



Here's the kicker, HRC received training on how to handle classified information as SOS, and proceeded to continue to use her own unsecured personal server for all Department email, nonetheless:

State Department staff, including the secretary of state, receive training on how to classify and handle sensitive information, the department has said. In March, Clinton said she was "certainly well aware" of classification requirements.


Anyone else would have been indicted by now for this.

P.S. - Did anyone else spot the part that says that Hillary sent email containing foreign gov't information to Blumenthal over her own private server? I seem to recall a couple things: 1) Blumenthal's emails to Hillary were hacked by a Romanian and released, and that's what brought public attention to this, initially; and 2), several months ago, Hillary claimed she didn't (respond to)(Correction: her spokesman used the term "solicit" Blumenthal's messages. She (her spokesman) appears to have misspoken, (or mischaracterize) again. See, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/politics/benghazi-emails-put-focus-on-hillary-clintons-encouragement-of-adviser.html?_r=0

196 replies, 16472 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 196 replies Author Time Post
Reply Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest (Original post)
leveymg Aug 2015 OP
snooper2 Aug 2015 #1
L0oniX Aug 2015 #32
lewebley3 Aug 2015 #131
candelista Aug 2015 #168
Darb Aug 2015 #33
shawn703 Aug 2015 #44
IthinkThereforeIAM Aug 2015 #66
Darb Aug 2015 #72
daybranch Aug 2015 #157
candelista Aug 2015 #169
lewebley3 Aug 2015 #128
daybranch Aug 2015 #159
lewebley3 Aug 2015 #164
candelista Aug 2015 #170
Agschmid Aug 2015 #2
jeff47 Aug 2015 #22
candelista Aug 2015 #30
jeff47 Aug 2015 #31
Adrahil Aug 2015 #175
Sancho Aug 2015 #185
Darb Aug 2015 #35
Agschmid Aug 2015 #40
Darb Aug 2015 #45
cali Aug 2015 #52
840high Aug 2015 #59
Darb Aug 2015 #78
frylock Aug 2015 #90
Darb Aug 2015 #99
frylock Aug 2015 #102
Darb Aug 2015 #110
frylock Aug 2015 #111
Darb Aug 2015 #115
frylock Aug 2015 #140
zappaman Aug 2015 #150
candelista Aug 2015 #171
frylock Aug 2015 #104
Darb Aug 2015 #107
frylock Aug 2015 #114
Darb Aug 2015 #119
frylock Aug 2015 #141
leveymg Aug 2015 #153
840high Aug 2015 #158
lewebley3 Aug 2015 #165
candelista Aug 2015 #172
lewebley3 Aug 2015 #173
lewebley3 Aug 2015 #167
Darb Aug 2015 #76
cali Aug 2015 #143
dixiegrrrrl Aug 2015 #86
WashingtonConsensus Aug 2015 #3
nichomachus Aug 2015 #10
pocoloco Aug 2015 #12
JDPriestly Aug 2015 #23
840high Aug 2015 #60
Darb Aug 2015 #88
frylock Aug 2015 #94
Darb Aug 2015 #123
frylock Aug 2015 #142
cali Aug 2015 #144
jonno99 Aug 2015 #108
Darb Aug 2015 #112
jonno99 Aug 2015 #126
840high Aug 2015 #139
cali Aug 2015 #145
IthinkThereforeIAM Aug 2015 #80
frylock Aug 2015 #92
hughee99 Aug 2015 #186
still_one Aug 2015 #4
Purveyor Aug 2015 #25
still_one Aug 2015 #34
hrmjustin Aug 2015 #5
secondwind Aug 2015 #6
leveymg Aug 2015 #13
YoungDemCA Aug 2015 #7
jeff47 Aug 2015 #14
leveymg Aug 2015 #16
jeff47 Aug 2015 #18
leveymg Aug 2015 #20
candelista Aug 2015 #19
leveymg Aug 2015 #24
candelista Aug 2015 #26
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #63
candelista Aug 2015 #74
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #83
candelista Aug 2015 #174
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #179
candelista Aug 2015 #181
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #62
24601 Aug 2015 #120
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #138
24601 Aug 2015 #156
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #162
candelista Aug 2015 #194
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #196
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #8
jeff47 Aug 2015 #17
renegade000 Aug 2015 #53
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #55
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #79
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #75
renegade000 Aug 2015 #96
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #116
frylock Aug 2015 #109
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #68
Historic NY Aug 2015 #9
leveymg Aug 2015 #11
ChairmanAgnostic Aug 2015 #15
Darb Aug 2015 #41
ChairmanAgnostic Aug 2015 #54
Darb Aug 2015 #81
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #89
Darb Aug 2015 #122
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #195
OnyxCollie Aug 2015 #21
HFRN Aug 2015 #27
PatrickforO Aug 2015 #28
Darb Aug 2015 #38
frylock Aug 2015 #101
Darb Aug 2015 #125
HFRN Aug 2015 #29
zipplewrath Aug 2015 #36
leveymg Aug 2015 #42
zipplewrath Aug 2015 #57
leveymg Aug 2015 #103
zipplewrath Aug 2015 #118
leveymg Aug 2015 #121
zipplewrath Aug 2015 #127
leveymg Aug 2015 #155
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #91
zipplewrath Aug 2015 #105
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #137
zipplewrath Aug 2015 #187
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #189
zipplewrath Aug 2015 #190
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #191
hollowdweller Aug 2015 #37
Darb Aug 2015 #39
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #93
randome Aug 2015 #43
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #98
randome Aug 2015 #100
jonno99 Aug 2015 #132
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #135
lamp_shade Aug 2015 #46
leveymg Aug 2015 #71
HFRN Aug 2015 #47
FlatBaroque Aug 2015 #49
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #56
frylock Aug 2015 #146
Darb Aug 2015 #84
leveymg Aug 2015 #87
lewebley3 Aug 2015 #130
FlatBaroque Aug 2015 #48
renegade000 Aug 2015 #50
candelista Aug 2015 #70
leveymg Aug 2015 #82
HassleCat Aug 2015 #51
FairWinds Aug 2015 #58
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #61
leveymg Aug 2015 #64
madville Aug 2015 #65
leveymg Aug 2015 #67
dreamnightwind Aug 2015 #69
questionseverything Aug 2015 #95
SoapBox Aug 2015 #73
randys1 Aug 2015 #77
leveymg Aug 2015 #85
Vinca Aug 2015 #97
blackspade Aug 2015 #106
asjr Aug 2015 #113
jonno99 Aug 2015 #134
leveymg Aug 2015 #117
24601 Aug 2015 #124
lewebley3 Aug 2015 #129
frylock Aug 2015 #147
lewebley3 Aug 2015 #148
frylock Aug 2015 #149
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #152
Sunlei Aug 2015 #133
cpwm17 Aug 2015 #136
bobthedrummer Aug 2015 #151
Sienna86 Aug 2015 #154
840high Aug 2015 #160
underthematrix Aug 2015 #161
Sen. Walter Sobchak Aug 2015 #163
lewebley3 Aug 2015 #166
840high Aug 2015 #176
Sen. Walter Sobchak Aug 2015 #178
lewebley3 Aug 2015 #183
Sen. Walter Sobchak Aug 2015 #184
lewebley3 Aug 2015 #188
Teamster Jeff Aug 2015 #177
6000eliot Aug 2015 #180
leveymg Aug 2015 #182
yurbud Aug 2015 #192
yurbud Aug 2015 #193

Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:25 AM

1. waiting for hard core hill fans to tell us how it is now big deal LOL

 

Hillary can do no wrong!

SHE IS AWESOME! HEAR HER ROAR!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:28 AM

32. Reuters is pro Bernie Sanders ...and is being mean to Hillary supporters.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #32)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:40 PM

131. Reuters is working for the GOP with the New York times

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lewebley3 (Reply #131)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 10:10 AM

168. Reuters is working for the illuminati and the lizard-people.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:30 AM

33. I am just a Democrat, but I'll say it, it is no big deal.

 

She will be the nominee and she will be the next president.

There is NO safe place from hackers, as we can all attest. I am waiting to see what harm was caused. So far, all I see is innuendo about some Bhengazi bullshit, which has been cleared up 6 times already. And maybe some "classified" tidbits got put in emails that weren't on .gov servers, but are you suggesting that they were sent to Russian spies? The emails were sent to Chinese spies? Are you suggesting treason? What are you suggesting?

Again, what is so terrible about what transpired? So far, I don't see a goddamned thing. Can someone who is not out to harm the Democratic front-runner, either overtly or covertly, please explain why this means anything other than jack shit? It is clearly a tempest in Clinton hating teapot and won't make a hill of beans to anyone but those same Clinton obsessing asshats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #33)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:48 AM

44. There's places a lot harder to get to than others

And I'd venture to guess that the classified network at State is a little harder to break into than a server set up in someone's basement. No it's not treason, I'm sure Clinton had no intent to hand over sensitive information to the Chinese. But it sure was negligent and stupid. I wouldn't even say she deserves most of the blame for this situation, because a lot of other people had to be involved for this setup in the first place, and not one of them told her No. if she's surrounding herself with only Yes people, there's going to be a lot more mistakes like this in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shawn703 (Reply #44)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:01 PM

66. It all comes down to...

... the antiquated computer system at State Department. Rice and Powell used non-government, private email while serving, also. It has been reported that at times, it can take 4 hours for an email to make it's way through the State Department email system, if it makes it at all.

Just another, "defund government and then show everyone how government(or Hillary) doesn't work right".


http://www.pcworld.com/article/2458180/state-department-computer-crash-slows-visa-passport-applications-worldwide.html

"
The U.S. State Department has shut down its unclassified email system in a last-ditch attempt to purge its network off hackers, who were discovered lurking in the Department's unclassified network since November."

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/39729/20150316/state-department-toughens-up-computer-network-against-cyber-threats.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shawn703 (Reply #44)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:06 PM

72. Basement? Don't you mean bathroom?

 

Did you see the Morning Joe thread today? He's pushin bathroom, you're saying basement. Both are bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #33)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 06:42 PM

157. You cannot hear jack shit, can you?

No matter How Hillary breaks laws and regulations, no matter how much she lies about how things occurred, you insist it is nothing.
Let me think about this, Hillary received training on security procedures that all government personnel who handle classified are supposed to follow. She refused to follow the rules and continued to use her own server. You will just have to ask her why she is superior to the rest of the government.
Then she put information on that server regarding foreign governments, information that is automatically classified when received. For this reason and possibly other types of classified material the FBI is investigating whether she broke a long standing US law regarding classified information. Oh she also apparently sent some classified information via email from her server to Blumenthal. Blumenthal does not even have clearance and why did she need to tell him anything. But apparently his account was hacked possibly revealing classified information Hillary sent him. Then after freedom of information requests came in asking for the emails which presumably should not have been classified, Hillary puts her spin out that she released all this stuff before reporters asked for it. Spin or lying that is up to you, but I find her actions detestable and betraying a sense of privilege far exceeding what I would expect in a responsible government official. I do not believe Hillary did any wrong regarding Benghazi but I do understand government security procedures and the needs to follow them. Hillary really blew it, and now she is trying to cover up what she did. Running against a candidate who comes across as truthful and one of the people, this is really going to destroy her campaign as it certainly destroys that image of a capable secretary of state, so necessary for her campaign. But you should never mind, just keep calling it jack shit as she buries herself deeper and deeper, Lincoln said you can fool some of the people all the time, and I think he was talking about people like you who spout desired conclusions without facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #33)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 10:12 AM

169. No, you are a prophet. :)

 

From your post:

She will be the nominee and she will be the next president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:36 PM

128. Hillary has done no wrong with EmailS

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lewebley3 (Reply #128)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 06:51 PM

159. Keep telling yourself this.

I will wait until DOJ finishes their investigation until I decide once and for all. I recognize that where there is smoke, there is not always fire, but there already seems to be burning embers here.
Biden sees this as do other insider democrats who are pushing him to run. I personally believe these dems like repubs will eat their own and Hillary will become unpopular with the insiders soon due to flubs like she makes. Gore may be a better choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daybranch (Reply #159)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 09:44 AM

164. This is comimg from the GOP: When you see GOP telling a story about Hillary you know its a lie

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lewebley3 (Reply #164)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 10:14 AM

170. This seems to be a persistent theme in your world-scenario.

 

That the NYT is a mere instrument of the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:25 AM

2. So where is the indictment?

What's the hold up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:06 AM

22. The relevant law requires intent.

The relevant federal law requires Clinton to intend to hand over information to another country, or to sell it. She obviously didn't sell it.

That leaves intentionally giving it to a foreign country. Proving that intent would require a lengthy investigation.

Most likely, she won't face charges for this. The punishment if she was government peon #4726 would be losing her clearance and getting fired. She'd face a similar punishment, except that she doesn't have her job as SoS anymore, and doesn't have a clearance anymore. So the punishment is moot.

That doesn't mean there should not be an investigation. There are other people involved, and finding out what may have leaked to where is very important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #22)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:18 AM

30. No. Negligence about such information is also a crime.

 

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or

(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to candelista (Reply #30)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:24 AM

31. Except it was intentional, not negligence.

At least, the currently leaked information is that the information was intentionally sent over unclassified email.

Essentially, there's a hole in the law. This hole is why they couldn't manage to come up with charges against Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers case), and flailed about until the judge cut them off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #31)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 11:42 AM

175. So, did they KNOW it was classified?

 

The rules involving what is classified and what isn't are often quite complicated and subjective. I guarantee you that ANYONE who handles a significant a,ount of classified data and subjected to this kind of fine toothed comb can be protrayed in the same way. This is bullshit. In the U.S. Navy alone there are 14 guides describing the rules for classifying information. Each one has at least several hundred rules. No one... I mean NO ONE knows them all.

Some people HATE Clinton and will do ANYTHING to take her down, no matter how ridiculous. That includes people here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #175)

Sun Aug 23, 2015, 04:14 PM

185. What's particularly funny is that some of the "now classified" email is on an open site!

It was already given to Congress. Under this "legal theory", all the members of the oversight committee and all the news services who already shared the "now classified" email that has recently been discovered should be investigated!! All of their government computers should be turned over to the FBI!

https://www.facebook.com/TheBriefing2016/videos/vb.415405165314505/452560401598981/?type=2&theater

It goes to show that the whole thing is a farce. The classifiers didn't even know they had previously seen the same email and didn't think it was classified!! They aren't even consistent with themselves a few months later!

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/08/14/ap-exclusive-top-secret-clinton-emails-include-drone-talk

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:31 AM

35. Shark jump alert.

 

In case you didn't know, you are jumping a shark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #35)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:40 AM

40. Sounds dangerous...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #40)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:48 AM

45. Not so much dangerous as stupid.

 

But shark jumping is the pastime here on DU these days. It's more like The Discussionist around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #45)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:05 PM

52. what is profoundly stupid is insisting this isn't a significant problem for her

 

Not legally, but in all kinds of different ways

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #52)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:43 PM

59. Not only stupid but disturbing, too.

 

Why do we need to close our eyes to the truth all because it's Hillary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #59)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:10 PM

78. What truth are you clamouring about?

 

Make your case.

I will wager this "truth" doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #78)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:24 PM

90. that classified emails were sent over a private mail server..

try and keep up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #90)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:35 PM

99. Try and stop lying.

 

There has not been one item that has been proven to be "classified" that was intentionally leaked or handed over to anyone for nefarious purposes right? Prove your assertion please, with complete documentation. Otherwise, quit carrying so much teabag water, it doesn't mean jack shit that it was sent over telegraph or however.

And FYI, Foreign Government Information is not considered the same as "Classified". But that doesn't matter to the folks over at Free Republic either.

Thanks in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #99)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:39 PM

102. Try reading the article..

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #102)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:51 PM

110. So he's "God" on the subject?

 

Prove somebody did something nefarious, because that is what you all are wetting your pants over right? If not, a mistake of letting some foreign government tidbit go over a particular server doesn't amount to a hill of shit and you know it, except to those that like to play in hills of shit.

I am backing Clinton, but I like O'Malley too. And Joe Biden too. And Bernie as well. So you won't catch me out there parroting Free Republic to bring down any one of them. Pretending some bullshit "server" issue actually means jack fucking squat. I am not inadvertently, or otherwise allying with the Tea Party and the fascist fucks trying to take over our country. I am too smart for that. But apparently, there are plenty here who are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #110)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:53 PM

111. More of a subject matter expert than a god..

but perhaps you'd like to share your credentials of expertise in this field.

And the only reason I'm wetting my pants is from laughing so hard at the excuses being made to cover Hilary's poor judgment. Comedy gold!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #111)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:01 PM

115. If you are wetting your pants over this then I think you might be on the wrong site.

 

It's pathetic and destructive. Most of the Hillary supporters just ignore this ridiculous shit. Some of us Democrats see the harm and try to stop it. It is fucking stupid and the term "useful idiots" comes to mind.

Poor judgement"? You sound just like many others I have heard. Oh yeah, because that is the EXACT meme that is being used by the fascist right wing and their nitwits in the media. You sound just like them. Hmmmmm. You should wet your pants over that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #115)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:26 PM

140. blahblahblah right-wing blahblah..

keep fucking that chicken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #115)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:45 PM

150. Jury results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Fri Aug 21, 2015, 04:31 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

If you are wetting your pants over this then I think you might be on the wrong site.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1184419

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Wetting your pants? Useful idiots, etc

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 21, 2015, 04:40 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Wetting pants, useful idiots - not over the top. Should not have been alerted on at all.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I was going to hide it until I read the alerter was upset over "wetting your pants". LOL Really?
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree wetting paints and useful idiots don't belong here
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not hiding this one post when the person they are responding to is just as bad with "keep fucking that chicken". Sorry Sanders-alerter. You and your crew should keep looking for posts to hide.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The pant wetting meme was exchanged between Frylock and Darb upthread, and both of them have used it to describe a fearful response--why are you crying about it NOW, alerter? Darb might want to watch his back (admins/check?); alerter, you need to stop alerting on a term that both conversationalists have used and to which neither has expressed objection in the thread. Everyone should try being nicer to one another--it's not that hard. They might also try not using right wing sources to "prove" their points, and maybe people would object less to their comments. LEAVE.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Time to stop the tit-for-tat.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #110)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 10:19 AM

171. "Prove somebody did something nefarious" :)

 

That suggests a great bumper sticker:

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT 2016
She didn't do anything nefarious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #99)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:40 PM

104. And yet another example of how mean and nasty Sander's supporters can be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #104)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:43 PM

107. Wrong again.

 

But since when does that matter to the waterboy club.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #107)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:59 PM

114. You called me a liar for merely quoting the former director of ISOO..

I mean, technically, he would be the liar, but you opted to attack me instead. Moreover, the former director of ISOO isn't lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #114)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:05 PM

119. The lie is of omission.

 

You got jack shit and you are pretending that you do. Just because that one guys says so doesn't make it rise to the level that you and the fascists are trying to take it. It is inconsequential and was not intentional, and quite frankly, not really considered classified, and definitely not nefarious. So by pretending it is because of one quote then I'd say you were leaving out a great deal of the information, and therefore, lying by omission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #119)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:26 PM

141. what was omitted?

please do enlighten me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #99)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:58 PM

153. "Deemed classified" and "presumed classified" are classified. Doesn't have to be leaked

for a conviction as "mishandled classified material." See the posts on this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #78)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 06:47 PM

158. You and I want different

 

things for America. I'm through with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #59)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 09:46 AM

165. Email story just an GOP attack on Hillary: She will win the white hosue !

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lewebley3 (Reply #165)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 10:21 AM

172. Ah, Prophecy! :)

 

Do you also speak in tongues?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to candelista (Reply #172)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 10:24 AM

173. No, followed the scources: GOP tried this with New York times: They are trying again

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #59)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 09:54 AM

167. We Know the truth about HIllary: Email story is a GOP creation:

 



Its an O'Keeffe stunt: NPR are was given its story by
GOP people with right wing ties.

The Corporate media with the GOP are attacking Hillary
with phony stories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #52)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:09 PM

76. What is "profoundly stupid" to a partisan, doesn't mean shit.

 

You are a partisan. And a suspect one in my book. Your actions are not helpful to the Democratic Party, they hurt it.

Keep up the bad work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #76)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:32 PM

143. froth away, drab. you just look.....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #52)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:16 PM

86. The bottom line at this point is this:

One of these had to be true:

1. There was indeed no classified information on her server, despite the analysis of the intelligence community to the contrary.

2. There was classified information on her server.

If number one is true, then she really did not do much in her role as Secretary of State,since the role required much classified communication.

If number 2 is true, then she violated the law.

I suspect the underlying issue is WHAT classified info. was involved and possibly hacked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:27 AM

3. It seems everyone has forgotten the Bush Email Scandal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WashingtonConsensus (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:38 AM

10. Well, then I'm definitely not voting for him either. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WashingtonConsensus (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:41 AM

12. Oh Shit! You saying Hillary is as bad as *??

 

LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WashingtonConsensus (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:06 AM

23. Right! The technology is hard to understand in my opinion.

But this will probably hurt Hillary, even though I, a Bernie supporter, think the mistakes are very understandable.

I have tried numerous times just to get a name for Twitter. Can't seem to enroll myself.

Yet I am really good at word processing and dealing with spread sheets.

The internet is baffling. I have been hacked on my e-mails. I have somehow gotten Herndon, Va. as my default weather report on Yahoo (no longer since the law on NSA snooping changed just a bit), and many other strange internet phenomena. I can totally sympathize with Hillary on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WashingtonConsensus (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:44 PM

60. I get it. They did it

 

so it's ok for us to do it, too. Crap logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #60)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:19 PM

88. Let me try my best to explain the difference.

 

Bush/Cheney did it to hide malfeasance. Clinton did it to keep your private shit private from criminals like Bush/Cheney and the rest of the fascists fucks that some folks here just cannot keep themselves from aiding and abetting.

They are not the same and only an uninformed, partisan would think otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #88)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:29 PM

94. Clinton could've set up a private server to protect her private shit..

but instead, she elected to set up a mail server for both her private shit, and SoS shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #94)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:14 PM

123. And?

 

What happened? Besides the whining of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #123)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:30 PM

142. The only whining is coming from you..

all up and down this thread. You haven't provided any rational argument in defense of this. None. Just personal attacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #142)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:34 PM

144. far worse than mere whining

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #88)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:43 PM

108. "only an uninformed, partisan would think otherwise." Et tu, Brute?

I'm always amused by those who know that intentions of others.

Unless - you are a Clinton insider ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #108)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:56 PM

112. Well then, what nefarious purpose did she intend? Cut to the fucking chase.

 

I back every Democrat in this race. I am defending Hillary because she is the one who is being attacked by a healthy portion of DU for bullshit reasons. The attacks are pretty much the same shit they are bellowing over at Free Republic and every other right wing shithole on the net, and yet, here they are, one after another. Lather, rinse, repeat. And many times, the same folks.

So again, cut to it, what the fuck are you suggesting was the motivation? If you cannot come up with a reasonable motivation, then be a decent Democrat on the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND and quit aiding the baggers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #112)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:21 PM

126. I'm suggesting that in this whole "scandal", Hillary is her own worst enemy.

My personal guess is that there is nothing "there". However, her own actions suggest otherwise.

And this is why I jumped on your comment; we can't be so blind (partisan) as to believe that our side can do no wrong.

Whether or not Hillary did anything wrong (and neither you nor I actually know if she did), her actions and responses regarding inquiries into her email accounts/server(s) are those of a person trying to hide something! And the fact that the RW is making hay out of this shouldn't be a surprise; Hillary is handing them a gift for cripes sake!

If there is nothing "there", then why has she been trying so hard to cover it up? Just hand over the fricking emails, stop playing cute with the law and be done with it - stop giving the RW any more ammunition!

Bottom line: the "reasonable person" will conclude that she is not completely forthcoming. And they will be wondering: "why?"

On a partisan would think otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #126)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:25 PM

139. Thank you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #112)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:35 PM

145. she was trying to skirt FOIA requests

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WashingtonConsensus (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:11 PM

80. Yep...


... all one has to do is some googling on, "state department computers obsolete", and a whole bunch of tech and news links come up, take your pick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WashingtonConsensus (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:27 PM

92. It seems SOME people forget that we called Bush out on that as well..

because now SOME people are using Bush's email scandal to excuse Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WashingtonConsensus (Reply #3)

Sun Aug 23, 2015, 04:22 PM

186. So AFTER the Bush Admin went through all sorts of shit for this, Clinton decided to run her own

email system ANYWAY? At least the Bush Admin can TRY to claim they didn't know better, but given what she had already seen by 2009, Clinton can't even claim that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:28 AM

4. Oh boy, the first LBN story on the emails

today

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:10 AM

25. Damn it. I wanted the first...

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #25)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:31 AM

34. lol. You are a good person Purveyor, I like your sense of humor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:31 AM

5. You will forgive me if i neglect to panic over this.

 

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:32 AM

6. I have mixed feelings about this... I'm a hardcore Bernie fan, and maybe it's psychological, but I

have always had "Hillary" as a backup... in case Bernie didn't make it.

NOW WHAT?

This sounds very frightening to me... first time I use this emoticon since I started here 8 yrs ago

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to secondwind (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:43 AM

13. I feel more relieved than frightened. There will be a viable D candidate.

My biggest fear was that I wouldn't be able to hold my nose tightly enough to pull the lever for Hillary. Now, I think I won't have to face that dilemma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:33 AM

7. "Anyone else would have been indicted by now for this"

 

Presumably that includes this lot:







Oh wait....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:44 AM

14. I'm not sure "We're just like W" is a positive argument. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #14)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:59 AM

16. It's certainly not a good legal defense.

I wouldn't rely on that. Since she was trained to recognize such information as "presumed classified," she can't claim anymore that transmitting that information was okay because the materials weren't stamped classified.

She's had piss-poor counsel (including her own) on this from the beginning. Time for her step away from the plate and get new lawyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #16)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:01 AM

18. Lawyers aren't much help now.

She needed good advice in 2009. She didn't get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #18)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:04 AM

20. She doesn't seek out good advice. That's been apparent from 2009. That's a real liability if she

really wants to be President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:01 AM

19. Don't forget Bill Clinton's CIA Director, John Deutch

 



Deutch left the CIA on December 15, 1996 and soon after it was revealed that several of his laptop computers contained classified materials. In January 1997, the CIA began a formal security investigation of the matter. Senior management at CIA declined to fully pursue the security breach. Over two years after his departure, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, where Attorney General Janet Reno declined prosecution. She did, however, recommend an investigation to determine whether Deutch should retain his security clearance. President Clinton pardoned Deutch on his last day in office.

All Deutch did was to take some classified material home with him to work on it on his unsecured home computer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to candelista (Reply #19)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:07 AM

24. Unfortunately, it's too late for President Clinton to issue another pardon of the same kind.

This has been left to someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #24)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:10 AM

26. Maybe President Obama could do it.

 

As one of his last acts as President. You know, "In light of all the contributions she has made during a long and distinguished career of public service...."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to candelista (Reply #26)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:55 PM

63. That wouldn't look like interference in the election?

 

I sure would be howling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #63)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:08 PM

74. Good point. I was thinking "after the election, but before leaving office." nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to candelista (Reply #74)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:13 PM

83. But that wouldn't help Hillary get elected, which is what I thought we were discussing.

 

But I could be wrong, so no need to reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #83)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 10:44 AM

174. Well, he could do it before the election.

 

Then Hillary fans could have a new campaign slogan:

Hillary for President 2016
She Was Pardoned!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to candelista (Reply #174)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 04:55 PM

179. Shhhhh. That idea could actually play out. People (not me) would eat it up!

 

She would become a saint-like figure. Like the Phoenix rising from the ashes, she would give great joy to her supporter(s), and others. I don't think either of these scenarios will happen. Possible? Anything is possible today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #179)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 06:12 PM

181. LOL :) nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:52 PM

62. Scooter Libby was indicted and convicted.

 

But he was expendable. He also got his sentence commuted and received a pardon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #62)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:06 PM

120. His sentence was commuted - he did not receive a pardon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #120)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:24 PM

138. I stand corrected. Thank you!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #138)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 06:18 PM

156. I always wondered, given the dispute between Bush and Cheney on the pardon, why Cheney

didn't pardon Libby when he was acting president during Bush's last colonoscopy in office. Bust was under anesthesia and Cheney had the authority under the 25th amendment procedures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #156)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 07:53 PM

162. It just wouldn't look right. It could lower his esteem with the public.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #162)

Mon Aug 24, 2015, 12:07 PM

194. That would require excavation. :) nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to candelista (Reply #194)

Mon Aug 24, 2015, 12:12 PM

196. I think he's still in some form of animation.

 

But I saw him in a recent video, and he doesn't look well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:36 AM

8. After the AP Iran peace deal "misreporting" debacle....you still trust the mass media...or is that trust limited?

Another speculative analysis breathlessly forwarded - complete with rhetorical outrage - on DU as something, something, to take down the Democratic Party Presidential nominee front runner?

Just another day at DU of "no one is attacking Clinton at DU" at DU.


The only thing that needs to be "indicted" are certain transparent faux outrages at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:59 AM

17. Speculation being the actual content of the released emails.

The markings that have been applied include the reason for redactions. That is what this story is talking about. They are not guessing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:17 PM

53. oh they trust it when....

it looks like it will take down someone they don't like in the short-term. They don't realize that if the GOP and the corporate media
can successfully pull this against Clinton, they can do so against Sanders as well. It's just a matter of time before they find something they can twist and blow out of proportion about his past.

I'm about as uncommitted as they come in this primary race, so I just hate to see the circular firing squad in full effect, especially when it's about something where the outrage is pretty manufactured. It doesn't do anyone on our side any good in the long run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renegade000 (Reply #53)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:29 PM

55. "Be careful what you wish for"...these folks are less pro-Sanders than anti-Clinton. They refuse

to listen to Sanders regarding the media assault on Clinton, so that is what logic tells me.

Attacking Clintin is supporting the propaganda of the mass media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #55)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:10 PM

79. So if the media says anything negative, albeit true, about HRC - that's an assault?

 

If you say so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renegade000 (Reply #53)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:08 PM

75. Really? Please post a link about where and how Bernie violated Executive Order 13526.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #75)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:30 PM

96. can you post a link proving that Bernie will never be the subject of endless investigations?

And that none of these investigations will ever turn up anything that could possibly be turned into a smear campaign?

Look, I don't have any particular attachment to Clinton. I also don't have any particular attachment to Sanders either, so I don't view sacrificing Clinton just to boost Bernie's chases to be a good trade. If you want to start a crusade to also launch mass investigations into how everyone else in the federal government (named Clinton or otherwise) handles their sensitive information and hold everyone to the same standard, then I'd say we'd have a deal (because I'd suspect there'd be a lot of high-level GOPers with mud on their faces too).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renegade000 (Reply #96)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:03 PM

116. So you don't have a link?

 

I'm not launching anything. It's a fricking news article! Hillary is the subject, not Bernie. So, you'd like to kill this investigation because you're all worried about Bernie? Sorry, I don't buy it. Nice try though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renegade000 (Reply #53)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:51 PM

109. Sanders' judgment has proven to be far better than Clinton's..

so, nah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:04 PM

68. So I see....

 

Rule #1 - Don't post bad news about Hillary
Rule #2 - If someone dares to do #1 - you can't comment on it, unless you say she is the greatest person on the planet
Rule #3 - It's A-OK to slam any Bernie Sanders supporter that DARES to criticize "she who is today and forever, the frontrunner - and how dare you think otherwise."

Have any additional rules we should follow for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:37 AM

9. Anyone else would have been indicted by now for this....

unless of course they were Republicans.

In 2007, when Congress asked the Bush administration for emails surrounding the firing of eights U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales revealed that many of the emails requested could not be produced because they were sent on a non-government email server. The officials had used the private domain gwb43.com, a server run by the Republican National Committee. Two years later, it was revealed that potentially 22 million emails were deleted, which was considered by some to be a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/web-video/missing-white-house-emails

Colin Powell also used a personal email account during his tenure as secretary of state, as questions remain whether Hillary Clinton broke the rules when she conducted State Department business using a personal email account.

“He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State,” an aide for Mr. Powell said in a statement, Politico reported.

“He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends,” the statement said.

So whats your point?????????????

They still haven't found them either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:41 AM

11. They should have been nailed, as well. But, that doesn't excuse Hillary.

I'd welcome a whole string of indictments for Bush era war crimes, and a long frog march down Pennsylvania Ave of orange jumpsuits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:45 AM

15. she never misspeaks. It depends on what your definition of

"respond" is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:41 AM

41. Weak sauce. Sounds familiar though.

 

Where does one go to hear inane comments like that? Hmmmm, I cannot put my finger on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #41)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:21 PM

54. DNC headquarters?

Hilalry's campaign office?

She has serious weaknesses as a candidate, and now that the press is taking notice of them, people bitch about us being anti-Hillary. Well, I have admitted that because of my prior dealings with her personally, I really do not care for her, but if she was the nominee, I would hold my nose and vote.

It is beginning to look like that won't be the case, now that a judge read her attorney the riot act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #54)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:11 PM

81. Poppycock.

 

Try Free Republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #81)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:20 PM

89. I don't do alerts, unless it's heinous tho Hillary people alert on me all the time and usually lose

 

But if I was this would be a prime candidate.

You Hillary or NOBODY people should be careful. If Hillary wins the nomination with all her baggage, as well as the smoke and mirrors the repubs will throw out, we could very well end up with a President tRump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #89)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:13 PM

122. Hillary or nobody? Sounds a bit like projection.

 

I am only pushing back because I know it is only helping the dickwad republicans. I support all of our candidates, Bernie too. But it seems like the attacks are coming at Hillary almost exclusively, which is pretty damn stupid thing to be doing on the Democratic Underground, being that she is the front-runner.

I don't attack any Democratic candidate. None. I do see quite a few attacks coming from the Bernie folks though, and they sound a lot like things I could hear in a number of other places, all bad.

Promote your candidate and don't dog pile with the teabaggers and everyone will be fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #122)

Mon Aug 24, 2015, 12:11 PM

195. Yes, they should be able to derail her campaign by saying that

 

Elmer S. E. Dump, a poster on Democratic Underground said.....

Not likely. If I thought that was a possibility, I'd post with my real name so I could get some personal publicity!

And it's not a damn stupid thing to say if you DON'T WANT Hillary to be the nominee. The differences between the two is stark, and I'm going to keep pointing it out. I think Bernie is our only hope, and I am serious about it. I have twenty-something children and could be a grandfather soon. I really care about their future, and if we keep the status quo, that future looks very bleak.

If Hillary is the nominee, she very likely COULD lose. It won't be little ol' Elmer's fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:05 AM

21. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:16 AM

27. BOMBSHELL!!!!! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:16 AM

28. This actually IS a pretty big deal, just because it hints at her judgement.

Not trying to be a jerk, or be snarky, but she has done a few things over time that have caused me to question her judgement just a bit.

This isn't to say I won't vote for her if she's the nominee, but when it comes to judgement, I'm supporting Bernie and hoping he is our nominee. Because I really WOULD rather vote for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #28)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:36 AM

38. Cut and paste much.

 

I won't mention from where you cut and pasted because pulling back curtains around here gets one banned.

That's weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #38)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:37 PM

101. Just another example of mean and nasty Sander's supporters can be..

oh whoops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #101)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:19 PM

125. You are so off the mark. Shoot again, just this time,

 

not at your foot.

That "trustworthy" meme is a right-wing fabricated pile of shit and that poster above was repeating it. I know a number of places that you could go to cut that horseshit from, and bring it right back here to posit your "concern".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:17 AM

29. prophetic photo - HRC on Watergate committee

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:32 AM

36. No, they wouldn't

Anyone else would have been indicted by now for this.


Look there are about 5 levels of violation in these situations and it isn't clear which one this is.

1) After the fact, it is decided that some information should have been classified.

This comes up often because information becomes classified in certain contexts. The shifting of that information to a new context that makes it classified is often not noticed or detected. It is the unfortunate reason that a very large amount of information is inappropriately classified in the first place. Because it becomes a gray area when the proper context has been achieved. So the knee jerk/easy thing to do is to just classify "everything".

You don't go to jail for this stuff. You don't get indicted. You get to go to "refresher trainings". Probably so does your staff.

2) They "should have known" category.

People should have been aware that something was classified, but because they got into bad habits, they forgot that they had moved into a classified area of information. (By the way, this is probably the bulk of what this stuff was). You deal too much in unclassified information that you stop reviewing material to ensure that you are still there. It's also common when someone else sends it to you first in an unclassified context. You're suppose to notice, you don't always.

You don't get indicted for this. You may lose your clearance if you do it too often. Losing a clearance can mean losing a job in some situations.

3) Tried to avoid.

People will try to send only some information, hoping that by excluding other information that it isn't classified. Or they'll speak in euphemisms or "coded language" that isn't all that "coded".

That's a no-no that gets you in trouble and can get you retraining, slaps on the wrist, and if you don't stop it, you'll lose a clearance and/or your job. You still won't go to jail or get indicted unless it can be traced to some serious breach. Even then jail is unlikely.

4) Intentional leak.

This is Petraeus. You knowingly transmit information to someone you know is not cleared, by means that were inappropriate. Either one is trouble, together it's serious trouble. They don't care whether "well they could have gotten a clearance" or "they wouldn't tell anyone". You're in trouble. The FBI is gonna get called. You're gonna get fired. You're gonna lose your clearance. And depending upon who ELSE found out, you may get indicted.

5) Espionage.

You stole/obtained it specifically to give it to someone whose interest was to undermine the interests of the US.

You're going to jail, and there won't be much of a trail unless you have a stupid lawyer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #36)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:46 AM

42. Look at the post above about what what happened to former CIA Director John Deutch

This is far worse than taking classified laptops home. He was pardoned by Bill on his last day in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #42)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:31 PM

57. No, it's not

Look, I think the dumbest moment was when anyone approved this arrangement with the servers, and when Hillary thought it would be a good idea. None the less, once the approval was had, everything after that falls into one of the "inadvertent" categories. Unless it is determined that she intentionally used the system to transfer classified information to unclassified systems, what you basically have is a "spill".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #57)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:39 PM

103. Intentional release is not an element for some mishandling classified materials convictions.

There's lots of recent precedent for convictions of gov't officials for loading classified materials onto private home computers and media:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-6412917.php

http://hamptonroads.com/2014/06/sailor-pleads-guilty-mishandling-documents

And, then there was Petraeus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #103)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:04 PM

118. Not the same thing

and deliberately removing them from his Navy office without the authority to do so.

He told the court that he understood the regulations and knew he wasn't supposed to take the documents. But he said they were useful for training purposes, so he kept them for his own reference, and didn't share them with anyone.


This is basically #4. This will get you in trouble. You knew you weren't supposed to, but you did it anyway. Hillary has not copped to this and no one has yet accused her of doing this (no on in the IG's office or other investigator).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #118)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:10 PM

121. Go back and read the article. Hillary acknowledged she was trained in handling classified materials

by the State Dept.

She has apparently deemed that these procedures and laws don't apply to her. She's about to find out otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #121)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:30 PM

127. No, it is not "apparent"

Yes, she was trained. Yes, she claims to have understood that training. Yet people make mistakes. I outlined many of the ways those mistakes get handled. Up until it becomes repetitive, or intentional, it won't lead to criminal prosecutions. The lone exception is when it results in a serious breach that causes damage. None of these criteria has yet been met in this situation.

She sent and received departmental emails on a server approved for that activity. It was NOT approved for classified use. As such, if classified information gets onto those servers, it is handled as a "spill". If the spill is traced back to her mistake, or if she failed to report the spill, it can lead to administrative actions. Up until it is determined to be habitual, OR intentional, it is not going to get criminal treatment.

Now, if the use of those assets had NOT been approved for departmental use, that in and of itself would have been an issue, AND it would have made the spill something that could have been considered for severe treatment because the intentional use of unapproved assets lead to the spill of information onto uncontrolled (and unmonitored) assets. THAT starts to move into the "intentional" category. Depending upon the severity of the spill, THAT could have lead to criminal treatment. So far, nothing here has reached anywhere near that level of severity, AND those assets WERE approved for departmental use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #127)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 04:39 PM

155. There was no actual damage in the cases prosecuted

Look at the links provided in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #36)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:25 PM

91. You forgot #6

 

6) Person knows about it, but just doesn't care enough to do anything about it. That is gross negligence when it come to classified data at the top 3 levels.

Any other person not named Clinton would be out on bail right about now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #91)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:42 PM

105. No, that's #2

That's #2 with a bit of #3 thrown in. You'll note, neither she nor the investigators have suggested any "intent" on her part. And I presume she's not dumb enough to announce "I just didn't care". As such, it gets put in the "I should've but didn't know" category. First time it gets you retraining. After that it gets more severe. The game can change if the info actually got out and did harm, but that hasn't been established either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #105)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:23 PM

137. But what if she did know? What would you call that?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #137)

Mon Aug 24, 2015, 11:39 AM

187. That's #4

If you get caught intentionally mishandling classified information, which can include moving it to unapproved systems, that's trouble. I'm dubious that's what happened here, and it's even more dubious that she'll either cop to it, or they'd be able to prove as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #187)

Mon Aug 24, 2015, 11:55 AM

189. I'm content to let it play out. Chances are nothing happens.

 

But you never know in Washington, DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #189)

Mon Aug 24, 2015, 11:58 AM

190. I suspect

I suspect that sometime next year the FBI or DOJ or something puts out a report explaining that there was nothing criminal here and that it was handled "administratively" or something. The GOP won't let it go though and they'll all go around about "what was deleted" or "an issue of trust" or other vague charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #190)

Mon Aug 24, 2015, 12:01 PM

191. That's why we need someone with no baggage. I wonder who that could be.... hhmmmm...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:35 AM

37. I don't know how to feel about this

 


On the face of it, it seems like it strikes at Clinton's competence, which would seem to be a big selling point in her as a candidate.

Of course attacking a strength is a GOP tactic so it's hard to determine if this is something really bad or something cooked up to LOOK bad.

Owning her own server, I would think, would be done to control her emails and prevent snooping by political enemies, however at the same time anybody who was paranoid enough to do that I'd think would be paranoid enough not to send classified info over it because if you are a Clinton the GOP IS going to try to go thru all your private stuff to try to get you or at least embarrass you anyway.

I really want Clinton to stay strong because I think she has a good chance at winning. A chance she blew last time and I hope she doesn't blow this time.

I love and am going to vote for Bernie but would be totally fine with Hillary but at this point I'd like to see a few more credible candidates jump in just in case, OR I'd like to see a way larger surge in the Polls for Bernie or O'Malley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:39 AM

39. More of the same obvioso, tired whinings.

 

When you've got more than jack squat let us know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #39)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:28 PM

93. Do you think denial was a river in Egypt?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:47 AM

43. "Presumed classified" versus "Labeled Classified". I'm sick of this whining.

 

It's depressing to hear the glee in your post when you pull at a thread that you fervently pray will lead to a fellow Democrat's destruction.

But your prayers will still go unanswered.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #43)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:31 PM

98. Maybe you don't realize that HRC and BS are in competition for the leader of the free world?

 

I don't pray, as I am an atheist. I don't depend on fantasy. But apparently some of you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #98)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:36 PM

100. By this logic, if I dropped a package of cocaine in your lap, you would be guilty of possession.

 

Is that how this goes? If something is not clearly labeled as 'Classified' when it was sent to Clinton, then why would you think she should know before she even reads it?

I honestly don't get it.

Or is it the worry that someone, somewhere might have hacked her email and read something that should have been marked classified?

It's really stretching reality to find something to tar her with.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #100)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:42 PM

132. "if I dropped a package of cocaine in your lap, you would be guilty of possession": Absolutely!

especially if I knew (and everyone knew that I knew) that you were a drug dealer and the event occurred when I invited you over to my house!

Having the private server they absolutely should have expected that classified material would be sent to them.

Don't you agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #100)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:54 PM

135. Well, keep following the story. In due time you will see...

 

But please don't blame me. I'm just a faceless internet junkie. And yes, if this was all about Bernie, I'm not sure I would want to buy into it either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:52 AM

46. Exclusive...

From AOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lamp_shade (Reply #46)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:06 PM

71. It's a Reuters wire report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:53 AM

47. It's all over, except for Celine Dion singing

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HFRN (Reply #47)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:57 AM

49. Oh the humanity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HFRN (Reply #47)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:31 PM

56. Sanders told you "Bernie supporters" to cut it out..,why not listen to him? Sad when you refuse to.

Does Bernie have to draw you a picture?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #56)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:35 PM

146. Daaaaaaaaaaad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HFRN (Reply #47)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:14 PM

84. I wouldn't wager on it. Comical post actually.

 

Most non-partisans don't buy into this kind of horseshit. It just smacks of political mudslinging and crying.

Where is the beef?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #84)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:17 PM

87. 60% of Independents have a negative view of HRC. Independents are the largest group of voters

This isn't going to help her with them, or anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #87)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:39 PM

130. 50% of all American won't vote for a socialist: Hillary is winning in all the polls,

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:55 AM

48. Her memory on this is due for an evolutionary adjustment. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:01 PM

50. Foreign government information is not the same as US classified.

So no, I don't think "anyone else would have been indicted by now for this." In fact, this just muddies the water even further about what the proper info sec. procedures are for the state department and such. As someone who has worked on US classified networks/materials but not FGI (and thankfully not had to do both at the same time), I would have been hesitant to place FGI information on US classified systems, because that's basically working at cross purposes. The purpose of a US classified system is to keep ALL foreign individuals (and all non-"need to know" US individuals) away from said information. FGI information has been shared by foreign governments sometimes for the expressed purposes of collaboration with their representatives. It doesn't strike me as being the most efficient or secure practice to have to constantly access US classified systems in the potential presence of foreign nationals. Yes, you have to protect FGI information (as in you can just leave it sitting on top of your desk and such), and perhaps the State Department has a good method of storing both FGI and US classified materials together, but it's emphatically NOT the same level of "classified" as US classified information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renegade000 (Reply #50)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:05 PM

70. Interesting post.

 

You seem to know what you are talking about, but Executive Order 12356--National security information--lists FGI as a Classification category. Has this changed?

Sec. 1.3 Classification Categories.(a) Information shall be considered for classification if it concerns: (1) military plans, weapons, or operations; (2) the vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, projects, or plans relating to the national security; (3) foreign government information; (4) intelligence activities (including special activities), or intelligence sources or methods; (5) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States; (6) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security; (7) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities; (8) cryptology; (9) a confidential source; or (10) other categories of information that are related to the national security and that require protection against unauthorized disclosure as determined by the President or by agency heads or other officials who have been delegated original classification authority by the President. Any determination made under this subsection shall be reported promptly to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12356.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renegade000 (Reply #50)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:12 PM

82. "Deemed classified" and "presumed classified" are, in effect, the same thing.

There isn't a legal distinction between the two.

There's a third purpose you don't seem to acknowledge - is to keep third-countries away from our communications with foreign gov'ts.

If you can't produce a source for your assumption, you'd better go back for a refresher on this subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:03 PM

51. I'm not so sure

 

Some of this explanation sounds like government ass-covering and double talk. I'm assigned to the State Department in Spain and the guy where I buy my morning coffee says, "My cousin tells me it's hot in Malaga this week. I wouldn't go there until it cools off." Was that told to me in confidence? By a non-US source in that country? Could it be classified? If so, at what level? If not, why not?

Without knowing the contents of the remarks, it's difficult to tell if any truly valuable information was compromised. But what about the information that came from a "spy chief?" Because this person is a spy, we assume the information is sensitive, but spies pass along far more than secret codes and weapons locations. "Watch out for Xiang Feng. He has an important position and he doesn't like you." Classified, right? Yes? No? Maybe?

I don't think anyone is much concerned whether or not US interests were compromised. That seems highly unlikely. The point of this whole exercise appears to be to create another scandal and slow-walk it in front of the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:32 PM

58. I hope she gets 35 years for this . .

 

just like her gang gave 35 years to
Chelsea Manning

Veterans For Peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:48 PM

61. Funny how a lie is now a "mispeak".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #61)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:56 PM

64. "Mischaracterize" is probably the more proper term.

Please see my P.S. in the OP. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:57 PM

65. With Hillary now polling in the 30's for

Honesty, trustworthiness, and favorbility this definitely is the opening Biden would need to jump in the race and have a shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Reply #65)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:02 PM

67. I'd rather see Michelle run.

But, she probably doesn't want to. She's seen this up-close for seven years, and knows what it does to people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:05 PM

69. Might be a big problem for her, I don't care about it much though

Seems to me this is mostly a Republican fishing expedition bearing some fruit, a few classified emails, possibly one of them was hacked by Romanians, is that right? I don't want to feed that kind of attack on a Democrat, even though I can't stand Hillary, I'll have her back against Republicans unless she's done something truly terrible.

The part of the email scandal that concerns me, is that IMO she did it to have control over any future discovery attempts. She decided what was personal and what was business, deleted the ones she wanted to and said they were personal, turned over the rest, and eventually the server but only after it was cleaned up no doubt.

Those emails are part of the historic record, and should also be available for legal discovery. There is no excuse for them to be discolsed or not based on her personal decisions. It's pretty obvious to me that's why the server was set up in the first place, to allow her to fully control what was disclosed. That's unacceptable to me.

I think historians should be able to look at Secretary of State emails to see what was going on, what our country was saying to the king of Saudi Arabia, for example, or what corporations were requesting from our government, we have a right to know what our government is up to, not just what the government is willing to tell us it is up to. I know we can't be told everything in real time, some conversations need privacy, but eventually we should be able to know, otherwise we don't know if they are acting in our interests. It also invalidates things like subpoena power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #69)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:29 PM

95. well thought out post

it was not right when bush illegally hid e mails in the us attorney scandal and it was not right for hillary either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:06 PM

73. No wonder all the Biden chatter is happening...

DWS and the entrenched DNC must be wanting a Plan B, in the event this thing becomes too much for The Annointed One.

Whether the email stuff is true or not, THEY may force her out...can you imagine the debates with the winner of the PukeBagger Party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:10 PM

77. Anyone else would be indicted by now? PLEASE TELL ME THAT IS SARCASM

NO REPUBLICAN IS EVER INDICTED FOR ANYTHING


practically speaking, that is.

Dear god

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #77)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:14 PM

85. One wrong doesn't excuse the next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:31 PM

97. If emails were marked "classified," she could be in deep doo doo.

I'd like to see a second source before taking this as fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:43 PM

106. And how is Reuters getting this info?

This has the markings of a hit piece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #106)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:59 PM

113. Very definitely a hit piece. There has been a hit piece on Hillary Clinton

even before she was first lady. So this is no surprise to me. There has been a certain type of hater ever since she first told the media she would not stay at home and bake cookies during her husband's time as president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asjr (Reply #113)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:48 PM

134. ah me - Hillary has been her own worst enemy with this "scandal". She should have

simply handed over the emails/server(s) as she was required to do when she was asked to do it.

Keep in mind she was a public servant and as such, any official correspondence - by definition - belongs to the people of the US - not to her.

With all her evasions and stone-walling she is merely providing the ammunition - which her enemies are using against her.

There is no one to blame - but Hillary...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #106)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:04 PM

117. Reuters like other news agencies has a copy of the "declassified" State Dept release of HRC emails

They ran these by the former Director of the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) identified in the article, and pursued it with other experts. This is their findings. Reuters is acting as a news reporting and analysis agency. That's their job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:16 PM

124. If she sent classified information to Blumenthal - a private citizen without a clearance, that's far

more significant than sending classified over an improper circuit.

And, as an Original Classification Authority, it was her responsibility to know what she was doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:38 PM

129. Reuters working for the GOP

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lewebley3 (Reply #129)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:37 PM

147. Reuters doing their damn job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #147)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:40 PM

148. No, they are reporting GOP right wing talking points: Same as the New York times.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lewebley3 (Reply #148)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:42 PM

149. Take it up with the former director of ISOO..

and the FBI while you're at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lewebley3 (Reply #129)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:58 PM

152. AP working for the GOP the other day. Those that refuse to see that are willfully blind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:44 PM

133. I still don't think Mrs. Clinton has done anything criminal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:19 PM

136. This is all so bizarre.

 

How can anyone think it's proper to operate their own server at home to do government business, especially handling classified messages. And of course she handled classified messages on the system, because how could she do her job without handling classified messages. Does she think she is above the law?

Now, how can she get the clearance to handle any more classified information, because there's no way she should pass the background investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:50 PM

151. K&R#27 n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 04:08 PM

154. Even the kid in the mailroom at State Department knows better.

I can only conclude there was arrogance in thinking rules didn't apply to her. Or that she was shamefully ignorant of classification requirements, and like I said, everyone at such an agency knows better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sienna86 (Reply #154)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 06:53 PM

160. She wasn't ignorant of classification requirements.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #160)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 07:09 PM

161. That's true because she served as a US senator

and deal with classified info all the time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 08:23 PM

163. The firm I work for fired a lawyer for this

 

She was keeping client data on personal devices, on her own personal dropbox account and god only knows where else, using a personal me@myname.com email address setup by her son for work and using some free third-party audio conferencing service to host conference calls. She was warned over and over again that this was inappropriate and told those who complained to mind their own fucking business.

I have a very hard time believing this went unnoticed at the time and that the issue wasn't raised, likely repeatedly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #163)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 09:50 AM

166. What you fired a lawyer in your office for: Has nothing to do with Hillary:

 



Hillary is just under political attack, buy the GOP: they
don't have any ideas so they are make up things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lewebley3 (Reply #166)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 11:53 AM

176. You are closing your eyes 'cuz it's Hillary.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lewebley3 (Reply #166)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 02:17 PM

178. There isn't a business on earth that wouldn't fire somebody for this

 

This issue demonstrates some combination of severe arrogance and severe incompetence on her part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #178)

Sun Aug 23, 2015, 01:23 PM

183. Hillary didn't do anthing related to what your empolyees did: Hillary has done no wrong

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lewebley3 (Reply #183)

Sun Aug 23, 2015, 03:37 PM

184. You mean other than the bootleg email server?

 

That she used for official business?

Morally wrong or criminally wrong, perhaps not. Wildly inappropriate anywhere in the public or private sector, absolutely.

Sorry, this one is going to stick and she has only herself to blame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #184)

Mon Aug 24, 2015, 11:47 AM

188. , Hillary did the right thing she protected the information:Inappropriate is a judgment call

 



You just don't like Hillary: She would never want to work for
you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 12:46 PM

177. "No big deal" say the same Dems who support destroying whistleblowers for doing less

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 05:19 PM

180. Like the case ofmost of these fake scandals being ginned up by the Republicans and the moronic media

NOBODY CARES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6000eliot (Reply #180)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 07:28 PM

182. If only that were so. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Aug 24, 2015, 12:04 PM

192. Hillary is not my choice, but this is a stupid way to take her down

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Aug 24, 2015, 12:06 PM

193. if Hillary were prosecuted for this, it would once again bring unwanted attention to Bush crimes

that are far, far worse and were never prosecuted.

On the other hand, corporate Democrats sort of deserve this for NOT going after those more serious Bush crimes.

Leaving GOP sins unpunished is a favor Republicans NEVER repay Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread