Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:34 PM
hoosierlib (710 posts)
Clinton's emails labeled 'top secret'
Source: The Hill
The Obama administration will entirely withhold seven email chains found on Hillary Clinton’s private server because they have been classified as “top secret,” according to The Associated Press. The former secretary of State’s presidential campaign quickly dismissed the news, which spokesman Brian Fallon called “overclassification run amok.” “We adamently [sic] oppose the complete blocking of the release of these emails,” the campaign aide said on Twitter. The revelation comes days before Iowa holds the first-in-the-nation nominating contest and on top of mounting scrutiny of Clinton's use of the private email server. Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/267549-clintons-emails-labeled-top-secret# The noose tightens...
|
248 replies, 28582 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
hoosierlib | Jan 2016 | OP |
retrowire | Jan 2016 | #1 | |
villager | Jan 2016 | #2 | |
Elmer S. E. Dump | Jan 2016 | #19 | |
John Poet | Jan 2016 | #172 | |
ram2008 | Jan 2016 | #3 | |
Angel Martin | Jan 2016 | #22 | |
cali | Jan 2016 | #55 | |
IamTheNoodle | Jan 2016 | #67 | |
LynneSin | Jan 2016 | #73 | |
roguevalley | Jan 2016 | #76 | |
IamTheNoodle | Jan 2016 | #84 | |
LynneSin | Jan 2016 | #85 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #194 | |
LynneSin | Jan 2016 | #236 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #237 | |
7962 | Jan 2016 | #113 | |
AngryOldDem | Jan 2016 | #229 | |
randys1 | Jan 2016 | #79 | |
IamTheNoodle | Jan 2016 | #100 | |
Ed Suspicious | Jan 2016 | #101 | |
karynnj | Jan 2016 | #121 | |
AZ Progressive | Jan 2016 | #155 | |
grasswire | Jan 2016 | #213 | |
Mojorabbit | Jan 2016 | #215 | |
backtomn | Feb 2016 | #244 | |
LiberalFighter | Jan 2016 | #116 | |
jeff47 | Jan 2016 | #177 | |
GeorgeGist | Jan 2016 | #157 | |
Travis_0004 | Jan 2016 | #169 | |
BlueStreak | Jan 2016 | #210 | |
LeFleur1 | Jan 2016 | #235 | |
TipTok | Jan 2016 | #120 | |
notadmblnd | Jan 2016 | #126 | |
SusanCalvin | Jan 2016 | #114 | |
cheapdate | Jan 2016 | #129 | |
ram2008 | Jan 2016 | #130 | |
cheapdate | Jan 2016 | #135 | |
frylock | Jan 2016 | #132 | |
cheapdate | Jan 2016 | #133 | |
frylock | Jan 2016 | #136 | |
cheapdate | Jan 2016 | #137 | |
frylock | Jan 2016 | #150 | |
cheapdate | Jan 2016 | #154 | |
frylock | Jan 2016 | #158 | |
cheapdate | Jan 2016 | #160 | |
frylock | Jan 2016 | #161 | |
cheapdate | Jan 2016 | #165 | |
frylock | Jan 2016 | #168 | |
InAbLuEsTaTe | Jan 2016 | #227 | |
uhnope | Jan 2016 | #4 | |
TryLogic | Jan 2016 | #102 | |
bowens43 | Jan 2016 | #5 | |
OrwellwasRight | Jan 2016 | #65 | |
frylock | Jan 2016 | #131 | |
LiberalFighter | Jan 2016 | #118 | |
AZ Progressive | Jan 2016 | #156 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #198 | |
Vinca | Jan 2016 | #6 | |
JudyM | Jan 2016 | #10 | |
leveymg | Jan 2016 | #7 | |
OrwellwasRight | Jan 2016 | #72 | |
roguevalley | Jan 2016 | #78 | |
OrwellwasRight | Jan 2016 | #87 | |
Le Taz Hot | Jan 2016 | #144 | |
24601 | Jan 2016 | #171 | |
jeff47 | Jan 2016 | #178 | |
JudyM | Jan 2016 | #8 | |
Angel Martin | Jan 2016 | #9 | |
JudyM | Jan 2016 | #11 | |
murielm99 | Jan 2016 | #43 | |
JudyM | Jan 2016 | #46 | |
frylock | Jan 2016 | #134 | |
7962 | Jan 2016 | #115 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #199 | |
24601 | Jan 2016 | #217 | |
Arazi | Jan 2016 | #12 | |
Elmer S. E. Dump | Jan 2016 | #28 | |
jeff47 | Jan 2016 | #179 | |
GummyBearz | Jan 2016 | #13 | |
JudyM | Jan 2016 | #48 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #200 | |
pscot | Jan 2016 | #14 | |
OKNancy | Jan 2016 | #18 | |
Hangingon | Jan 2016 | #53 | |
TryLogic | Jan 2016 | #107 | |
dlwickham | Jan 2016 | #138 | |
Hangingon | Jan 2016 | #170 | |
dlwickham | Jan 2016 | #173 | |
Hangingon | Jan 2016 | #176 | |
dlwickham | Jan 2016 | #219 | |
Hangingon | Jan 2016 | #223 | |
dlwickham | Jan 2016 | #224 | |
Hangingon | Jan 2016 | #231 | |
dlwickham | Jan 2016 | #233 | |
Hangingon | Jan 2016 | #238 | |
jeff47 | Jan 2016 | #181 | |
dlwickham | Jan 2016 | #220 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #201 | |
Erich Bloodaxe BSN | Jan 2016 | #97 | |
7962 | Jan 2016 | #117 | |
asuhornets | Jan 2016 | #15 | |
LynneSin | Jan 2016 | #68 | |
asuhornets | Jan 2016 | #88 | |
TipTok | Jan 2016 | #142 | |
OKNancy | Jan 2016 | #16 | |
karynnj | Jan 2016 | #29 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #37 | |
karynnj | Jan 2016 | #52 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #59 | |
7962 | Jan 2016 | #119 | |
JudyM | Jan 2016 | #32 | |
Akicita | Jan 2016 | #47 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #63 | |
Akicita | Jan 2016 | #74 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #77 | |
Akicita | Jan 2016 | #90 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #92 | |
Akicita | Jan 2016 | #148 | |
jeff47 | Jan 2016 | #184 | |
OrwellwasRight | Jan 2016 | #75 | |
Pathwalker | Jan 2016 | #91 | |
jeff47 | Jan 2016 | #182 | |
daybranch | Jan 2016 | #17 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #21 | |
Akicita | Jan 2016 | #149 | |
Reter | Jan 2016 | #20 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #23 | |
Reter | Jan 2016 | #58 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #60 | |
Metric System | Jan 2016 | #104 | |
Reter | Jan 2016 | #152 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #159 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #202 | |
Ana Hauhet | Jan 2016 | #239 | |
7962 | Jan 2016 | #122 | |
Yupster | Jan 2016 | #140 | |
7962 | Jan 2016 | #143 | |
pnwmom | Jan 2016 | #25 | |
karynnj | Jan 2016 | #33 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #39 | |
karynnj | Jan 2016 | #49 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #51 | |
karynnj | Jan 2016 | #54 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #71 | |
jeff47 | Jan 2016 | #186 | |
JudyM | Jan 2016 | #35 | |
AzDar | Jan 2016 | #24 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #27 | |
LynneSin | Jan 2016 | #80 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #86 | |
7962 | Jan 2016 | #123 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #124 | |
7962 | Jan 2016 | #127 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #139 | |
7962 | Jan 2016 | #145 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #222 | |
7962 | Jan 2016 | #240 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #241 | |
7962 | Feb 2016 | #242 | |
geek tragedy | Feb 2016 | #243 | |
7962 | Feb 2016 | #245 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #204 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #203 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #221 | |
left lowrider | Jan 2016 | #40 | |
mvd | Jan 2016 | #26 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #31 | |
karynnj | Jan 2016 | #42 | |
mvd | Jan 2016 | #45 | |
Akicita | Jan 2016 | #56 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #205 | |
yallerdawg | Jan 2016 | #30 | |
rtracey | Jan 2016 | #34 | |
awake | Jan 2016 | #36 | |
Roland99 | Jan 2016 | #38 | |
lobodons | Jan 2016 | #41 | |
nyabingi | Jan 2016 | #44 | |
yallerdawg | Jan 2016 | #50 | |
OrwellwasRight | Jan 2016 | #82 | |
yallerdawg | Jan 2016 | #103 | |
OrwellwasRight | Jan 2016 | #108 | |
yallerdawg | Jan 2016 | #110 | |
OrwellwasRight | Jan 2016 | #112 | |
7962 | Jan 2016 | #125 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #206 | |
Molusko | Jan 2016 | #57 | |
Akicita | Jan 2016 | #66 | |
Yupster | Jan 2016 | #141 | |
Akicita | Jan 2016 | #147 | |
Name removed | Jan 2016 | #216 | |
yallerdawg | Jan 2016 | #70 | |
HereSince1628 | Jan 2016 | #61 | |
Kingofalldems | Jan 2016 | #62 | |
thereismore | Jan 2016 | #64 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #81 | |
thereismore | Jan 2016 | #83 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #89 | |
thereismore | Jan 2016 | #93 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #94 | |
thereismore | Jan 2016 | #95 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #96 | |
thereismore | Jan 2016 | #98 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2016 | #109 | |
John Poet | Jan 2016 | #174 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #196 | |
Angel Martin | Jan 2016 | #214 | |
MondoCane | Jan 2016 | #69 | |
Ed Suspicious | Jan 2016 | #99 | |
IamTheNoodle | Jan 2016 | #106 | |
Arazi | Jan 2016 | #105 | |
AngryAmish | Jan 2016 | #111 | |
JudyM | Jan 2016 | #146 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #207 | |
SoapBox | Jan 2016 | #128 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #208 | |
6000eliot | Jan 2016 | #151 | |
Reter | Jan 2016 | #153 | |
6000eliot | Jan 2016 | #162 | |
frylock | Jan 2016 | #167 | |
6000eliot | Jan 2016 | #191 | |
frylock | Jan 2016 | #163 | |
6000eliot | Jan 2016 | #164 | |
frylock | Jan 2016 | #166 | |
John Poet | Jan 2016 | #175 | |
6000eliot | Jan 2016 | #190 | |
frylock | Jan 2016 | #197 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #211 | |
still_one | Jan 2016 | #183 | |
leveymg | Jan 2016 | #226 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #209 | |
still_one | Jan 2016 | #180 | |
MrWendel | Jan 2016 | #185 | |
still_one | Jan 2016 | #188 | |
jeff47 | Jan 2016 | #187 | |
still_one | Jan 2016 | #189 | |
jeff47 | Jan 2016 | #192 | |
still_one | Jan 2016 | #193 | |
jeff47 | Jan 2016 | #195 | |
840high | Jan 2016 | #212 | |
24601 | Jan 2016 | #218 | |
Calista241 | Jan 2016 | #225 | |
AngryOldDem | Jan 2016 | #228 | |
Calista241 | Jan 2016 | #234 | |
Darb | Feb 2016 | #247 | |
Odin2005 | Jan 2016 | #230 | |
CharlotteVale | Jan 2016 | #232 | |
Darb | Feb 2016 | #246 | |
creon | Mar 2016 | #248 |
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:35 PM
retrowire (10,345 posts)
1. sigh* nt
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:37 PM
villager (26,001 posts)
2. Just got an AP bulletin on my phone about the same thing. It's definitely informing/infecting
...the news cycles.
If she's to be the nominee, she has to make sure this doesn't hand the White House to the crypto-fascists... |
Response to villager (Reply #2)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:57 PM
Elmer S. E. Dump (5,751 posts)
19. I bet it will be "mum's the word" on the major networks.
Response to villager (Reply #2)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:53 PM
John Poet (2,510 posts)
172. SHE SHOULD NOT be the nominee. Too risky with this,
not to mention what may be lurking in her husband's whole
"pants-down department"... Living through the first Clinton administration was enough, but I don't see how she can win a general election. |
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:40 PM
ram2008 (1,238 posts)
3. If she's the nominee Trump will crush her
Not even kidding. This whole fiasco is caused by her stunning lack of judgment and tendency to go right up to the line without crossing it. She should step aside and let Biden take her place as the establishment candidate.
|
Response to ram2008 (Reply #3)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:59 PM
Angel Martin (942 posts)
22. She should step aside and let Biden take her place
agree completely !
Sanders has peoples respect for standing up against big finance, big pharma and big insurance. But he is not the man to lead against Putin, ISIS and al Qaeda |
Response to Angel Martin (Reply #22)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:46 PM
cali (114,904 posts)
55. Nonsense. Based on what?
And if you want to hand the WH to the republicans, parachuting Biden in is a sure way to do it.
|
Response to cali (Reply #55)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:09 PM
IamTheNoodle (98 posts)
67. She broke the law buy sending highly classified information over unsecured servers
She removed classified information to unauthorized locations, is against the law, that's what this is all based on. It's unacceptable.
|
Response to IamTheNoodle (Reply #67)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:14 PM
LynneSin (95,337 posts)
73. You realize that Colin Powell and Condi Rice did the same thing
It's like Benghazi. There were 13 Embassies/Consulates bombed during the Bush years that resulted in around 100 deaths. Not ONE of them were investigated. Yet Benghazi has been investigated to pieces and yet no one can find anything to pin on Clinton and/or Obama.
It's the same thing with the email 'scandal'. If there was a real issue she would have been jailed ages ago. It was a known fact that both Powell and Rice did the same thing yet no one cares. The fact that people are still trying to get Hillary jailed for this is nothing more that people drinking the right-wing kool-aid being served them. |
Response to LynneSin (Reply #73)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:16 PM
roguevalley (40,656 posts)
76. then prosecute them too. just because others do it doesn't change a thing
I still got in trouble with my mom using that excuse. The search is expanding because of this, not contracting.
|
Response to roguevalley (Reply #76)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:20 PM
IamTheNoodle (98 posts)
84. If the precedent has been set (of not doing anything)then it should be seen as political targeting .
I'd like to hear more about Rice and Powell doing it though.
Regardless the Republicans will use this email situation very effectively by saying she doesn't have good judgement, clearly in this situation she did not! |
Response to roguevalley (Reply #76)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:20 PM
LynneSin (95,337 posts)
85. Jail her for what?
This has been going on for 4-5 years and if they had something real on it she'd be in jail by now and Obama booted from the White House.
Just because you don't like her means that the right-wing bullshit investigations are real. This has been 20+ years of finding some criminal activity to jail Hillary or Bill. I get it - you don't like Hillary. But find a real reason and not bullshit stuff perpetuated by the right-wing. Even Bernie Sanders has dismissed the investigations as bullshit. |
Response to LynneSin (Reply #85)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:02 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
194. FBI is not right wing.
Response to 840high (Reply #194)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 08:31 PM
LynneSin (95,337 posts)
236. FBI also said the emails were not classified when they were sent
So again right-wing conspiracy kook-aid we are drinking.
|
Response to LynneSin (Reply #236)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 08:58 PM
840high (17,196 posts)
237. There were 16-18 emails between
Obama and Hillary. I would imagine they were classified.
|
Response to roguevalley (Reply #76)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:23 PM
AngryOldDem (11,128 posts)
229. It's called "what-abouttery" and is a poor logical fallacy.
Indict anyone who has stuff like this on their private servers. No matter who.
|
Response to LynneSin (Reply #73)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:18 PM
randys1 (16,286 posts)
79. Facts be damned some folks here just hate Hillary...if you close your eyes you might
think you are on a board with the initials FR
|
Response to randys1 (Reply #79)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:32 PM
IamTheNoodle (98 posts)
100. No, just worried
Worried that this could sink her chances of being elected and ended of with one of nuts on the right.
That said, Colin Powell and Condi Rice did the same thing I'd like to hear more about it. |
Response to randys1 (Reply #79)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:32 PM
Ed Suspicious (8,879 posts)
101. No shit, comrade.
Response to LynneSin (Reply #73)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:14 PM
karynnj (58,346 posts)
121. Neither had a personal server and neither are said to have sent classified info
on their private accounts.
|
Response to LynneSin (Reply #73)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:12 PM
AZ Progressive (3,411 posts)
155. Last that I know, Colin Powell and Condi Rice are not running for president n/t
Response to LynneSin (Reply #73)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:18 AM
grasswire (50,130 posts)
213. Powell and Rice had aides transcribe top secret memo info to...
.....other message without the classification and then send on their private servers?
Because that's what she did, for her convenience. Willful circumvention of the law. And it's why she could always say "no message marked classified was sent" |
Response to LynneSin (Reply #73)
Mon Feb 1, 2016, 01:52 PM
backtomn (482 posts)
244. NOT the same
Powell and Rice might have used their personal email at work or sent personal messages over the State Dept. server. Clinton did ALL of her State business on her own server at home, received above top secret/SAP messages on that server, backed up the server with people that didn't have clearance, only gave the documents to State because of congressional hearings and a FOIA lawsuit. One of these things is not like the others. I don't know if this will mean an indictment, but what she did was WAY beyond what was acceptable.
|
Response to IamTheNoodle (Reply #67)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:06 PM
LiberalFighter (41,330 posts)
116. She didn't do the sending.
Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #116)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:21 AM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
177. Doesn't matter if she didn't do the sending.
She stored the information on her unclassified server.
Wanna give someone with a security clearance a bad week? Email them something Snowden or Manning leaked. They'll have all sorts of fun dealing with the security folks. Even though they did not send anything. |
Response to IamTheNoodle (Reply #67)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:40 PM
GeorgeGist (23,880 posts)
157. According to my sources ...
all the classified emails were sent to her not sent by her.
|
Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #157)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:47 PM
Travis_0004 (5,417 posts)
169. Maybe she shouldn't have set up a private email server for work emails
Response to IamTheNoodle (Reply #67)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:40 AM
BlueStreak (8,377 posts)
210. Let's get the story straight.
I would rather see Bernie as the nominee, but not because of the emails. You said "SENDING" emails. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not heard of any evidence or even any allegations that Hillary sent any classified information using that server. It seems to me everything that has been mentioned are cases where others sent emails to Hillary and might have mentioned a classified matter.
If so, then why aren't people going after the ones who SENT the messages. They are the ones, after all, who broke the law, if there were actually any laws broken. Having said that, it was really lousy judgment to even have such a server, and given that this had come up before, she really should have known better. |
Response to IamTheNoodle (Reply #67)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 08:02 PM
LeFleur1 (1,197 posts)
235. Not Classifed
Classified AFTER received. Sigh.
|
Response to Angel Martin (Reply #22)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:14 PM
TipTok (2,474 posts)
120. I could see myself voting for Hillary but Biden would be very reasonable...
Response to Angel Martin (Reply #22)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:22 PM
notadmblnd (23,719 posts)
126. They said almost the same thing about Obama.
He was a one term Senator. He lacked experience. He was not the man to lead.
So, do you feel Obama f*&ked everything up or do you feel even though he was not the man to lead- he has done an ok job? |
Response to ram2008 (Reply #3)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:04 PM
SusanCalvin (6,592 posts)
114. No. Just no.
Biden (and anyone else), STAY OUT. No, we do not need a replacement establishment candidate.
|
Response to ram2008 (Reply #3)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:35 PM
cheapdate (3,811 posts)
129. Bull. Secretaries Powell and Rice before her did the same thing.
It's only an issue because of Republican relentlessness in attacking all things Clinton. Not a "judgement" issue at all.
|
Response to cheapdate (Reply #129)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:38 PM
ram2008 (1,238 posts)
130. Secretary Powell had a private server? nt
Response to ram2008 (Reply #130)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:45 PM
cheapdate (3,811 posts)
135. Well, he said he used his personal email for Department business,
and it's reported he didn't have a private server, so I guess I'd conclude he used a public, commercial server.
|
Response to cheapdate (Reply #129)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:40 PM
frylock (34,825 posts)
132. No, they didn't.
If you can prove otherwise, then please do.
|
Response to frylock (Reply #132)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:43 PM
cheapdate (3,811 posts)
133. Give you Rice. Powell said he used private email for State Department business.
Said so in writing in response to an inquiry from the State Department.
|
Response to cheapdate (Reply #133)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:46 PM
frylock (34,825 posts)
136. No, he didn't.
Powell had two computers in his office. One for private email, and one for government business.
|
Response to frylock (Reply #136)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:02 PM
cheapdate (3,811 posts)
137. I'm being told something different.
"As we wrote in July, the State Department in October 2014 sent letters to three other previous secretaries: Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Only Powell used personal email for official business. None of them had their own servers."
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/clintons-email-brag/ |
Response to cheapdate (Reply #137)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:24 PM
frylock (34,825 posts)
150. I was mistaken when I said that Powell had one system for private email, and one for govt business..
I believe that Rice had a similar setup.
Colin Powell said he had two computers for sending emails as secretary of state WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 (UPI) -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said he kept two computers to send and receive emails while he was in the position. During on an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, Powell said he used one computer for sending sensitive material and a second for less important communications. "I had a secure State Department machine for secure material and I had a laptop that I could use for email. I would email relatives, friends, but I would also email in the department," he said. <more> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/09/07/Colin-Powell-said-he-had-two-computers-for-sending-emails-as-secretary-of-state/2481441631695/ |
Response to frylock (Reply #150)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:03 PM
cheapdate (3,811 posts)
154. Bottom line for me - I'm not concerned over
how she communicated with her staff, advisers, aides, etc. when she was Secretary of State. I think this matter will resolve itself through normal processes and result in another Inspector General's report containing recommendations for improving State Department communication practices. Pretty much how all of the other blown-up "scandals" in her career have resolved themselves.
But what I am concerned about is her outlook on U.S. foreign policy. As I see it, she has a "traditional" outlook on "American exceptionalism" that creates in her mind a belief that America has a moral duty to spread American-style capitalism and to impose it upon "less developed" states. I don't "hate" Hillary Clinton. I rather like her as a person. I love her boisterous laugh. I disagree with her view on the proper relationship between government and private business, especially big businesses and corporations, and banks and financial firms. Her environmental ethics might not be as deep as mine, but she does believe in the need for environmental regulations enforced by functioning regulatory agencies. She might very well become the Democratic nominee for president. I'll do anything I can to keep the White House out of Republican hands. |
Response to cheapdate (Reply #154)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:41 PM
frylock (34,825 posts)
158. I think it speaks to her incredible lack of judgment and absolute hubris..
It would be one fuck up after the next with her in the WH.
|
Response to frylock (Reply #158)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:16 PM
cheapdate (3,811 posts)
160. A Republican White House
would be a far more consequential fuck-up than any possible foibles of Hillary Clintons'.
Holy crap, Noam Chomsky says that barring a Sanders nomination he would support Hillary Clinton's bid without hesitation to avoid the unthinkable prospect of a Republican win. Noam fucking Chomsky. Anyway, the prospect of a Republican president at this time even more so than at others, is a ghastly scenario. That's my take. |
Response to cheapdate (Reply #160)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:27 PM
frylock (34,825 posts)
161. Then vote for Sanders.
Response to frylock (Reply #161)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:31 PM
cheapdate (3,811 posts)
165. Plan to.
He might win the nomination. He might not.
|
Response to cheapdate (Reply #165)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:44 PM
frylock (34,825 posts)
168. It's not going to be easy, but I feel more confident with every passing day
Response to ram2008 (Reply #3)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:17 PM
InAbLuEsTaTe (23,141 posts)
227. I hafta agree Hillary should step aside... but only to let President Sanders assume his rightful place as leader of the progressive movement in this country.
Biden is a nice enough guy... but would not be an effective leader like Bernie.
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!! ![]() |
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:43 PM
uhnope (6,419 posts)
4. sad that this, instead of her support of the Iraq War, is what might be her downfall
Response to uhnope (Reply #4)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:34 PM
TryLogic (1,528 posts)
102. In both cases it is her bad judgment. Wisdom and good judgment are extremely serious
qualities needed by the President of the United States!!!
This is the DU member formerly known as TryLogic.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:45 PM
bowens43 (16,064 posts)
5. she knew what she was doing was illegal but figured she's a clinton, she can do as she pleases
arrogance is another of her endearing qualities.....
|
Response to bowens43 (Reply #5)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:01 PM
OrwellwasRight (5,170 posts)
65. It's also bad staffing.
Staff should have said no way, no how, especially given that they knew she had ambitions to run again. This is one of those stupid things (Monica Lewinsky anyone?) where the actual "scandal" is stupid and dumb, but that raises questions of judgment --- as in, "Why in the hell would anyone think this was a good idea?"
![]() |
Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #65)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:38 PM
frylock (34,825 posts)
131. She surrounded herself with sycophants and yes men..
nobody in that circle was about jump in and suggest that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to set up a private, unsecure mail server.
|
Response to bowens43 (Reply #5)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:11 PM
LiberalFighter (41,330 posts)
118. Really? None of the emails were classified or marked top secret at the time.
They were reclassified after the fact.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:46 PM
Vinca (45,760 posts)
6. This morning on one of the news shows I heard a commentator musing about whether the FBI
could clear her of all wrongdoing before the election so we wouldn't have to worry about a sitting president being indicted. That's what we'll be facing if she's the nominee. Trump will have a field day.
|
Response to Vinca (Reply #6)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:51 PM
JudyM (20,148 posts)
10. She can't defend against this and be focused on running an effective campaign at the same time.
It is good that this came out this early in the process; that is Obama putting the public good before personal alliances, IMO
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:46 PM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
7. HRC (7/25/15) - "I did not send or get classified emails in private account"
Clinton: I didn't have a computer in my State Dept. office
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-no-computer-state-department-benghazi-hearing-215053 Politico Oct 22, 2015 - Hillary Clinton said at the Benghazi hearing that she did not conduct most of her official business as secretary of state via email ... Clinton: I did not send or get classified emails on private ...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0PZ0S920150726 Reuters Jul 25, 2015 - U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Saturday that she did not use a private email account to send or receive classified ... |
Response to leveymg (Reply #7)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:12 PM
OrwellwasRight (5,170 posts)
72. The second statement makes no sense whatsoever.
She was Secretary of State, FFS. She didn't use an official government email account. She only used her gmail account with her private server. So if she never sent or received classified emails, then how did she do her job? Is she claiming that the only time she ever discussed classified information for four years, it was in person or over the phone? I call bullshit on that. That is not how people work these days. Maybe in 1994, she could have said that truthfully, but not in 2016.
Or is she claiming not to have ever dealt with classified information? I also call bullshit on that. What am I missing here? |
Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #72)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:18 PM
roguevalley (40,656 posts)
78. I can't remember which crazy repub rep said they will impeach her the moment she
gets there if she does. expect it.
|
Response to roguevalley (Reply #78)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:21 PM
OrwellwasRight (5,170 posts)
87. I don't think any of this is impeachable.
It just seems like poor judgment in the age of the internet and the vast, right-wing conspiracy that has hated her for 20+ years. Why would she do something so dumb?
|
Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #87)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:35 PM
Le Taz Hot (22,271 posts)
144. They impeached her husband for lying
about oral sex. You REALLY think they wouldn't act on that threat? Do you want to take that chance?
|
Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #87)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:16 PM
24601 (3,847 posts)
171. Anything is impeachable. All it takes is a majority vote in the House. Expecting the Senate to
convict is another matter.
It's not like a court where the judge states the law and jurors vote guilty or not based on the evidence and judges instructions. Instead, Senators are triors and determine not only of the official did what the House charged, but also if it rises to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. If 2/3 vote that it does, the the official is removed from office. It is undecided if a second vote must e takes to bar the individual from any future office or if that is automatic with the conviction, or if it refers only to Executive Branch and Judiciary positions. For example, Congressman Hastings is a sitting Representative despite his impeachment conviction as a Federal Judge. (Both House & Senate were Democratic majorities) Because impeachment is a political process rather than a judicial one, anything is impeachable & can result in conviction, in theory. |
Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #87)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:23 AM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
178. Everything is impeachable. Doesn't even have to be a crime.
"You wore a blue tie" is impeachable. If the House votes for it, and the Senate convicts, the president is thrown out of office for wearing a blue tie.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:47 PM
JudyM (20,148 posts)
8. Meaning Hillary is going to be too mired in congressional inquiry for the next year or more to
be able to effectively focus on running for office. She will be greatly distracted and based on past inquiries, this will significantly distract her and ruin her credibility if she is elected.
Most of us remember that she and Bill were stuck in inquiries for years. And this time we have active terrorist cells to contend with along with other, more serious problems that demand a full-time, undistracted president. Not to mention a far more vitriolic, bloodthirsty tea party contingent to render her ineffective with hearings and demands for more records, on and on endlessly. That's how they roll. The good of the party should be her first concern. |
Response to JudyM (Reply #8)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:50 PM
Angel Martin (942 posts)
9. The good of the party should be her first concern.
LOL !
... this is the Clintons we are talking about... |
Response to Angel Martin (Reply #9)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:52 PM
JudyM (20,148 posts)
11. It was part wishful thinking and part tongue-in-cheek. We shall see.
Response to Angel Martin (Reply #9)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:22 PM
murielm99 (27,539 posts)
43. That is pretty comical,
coming from a supporter whose cronies do nothing but tear down the Democratic Party on a Democratic website, and whose candidate has spent his political career disdaining the Democrats and joined the party recently, for the sake of expediency.
|
Response to murielm99 (Reply #43)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:32 PM
JudyM (20,148 posts)
46. It's about progressive values, which used to be the heart of the party.
I suspect that FDR would think Bernie's more of a Democrat in spirit than HRC is. Post-Reagan and Newt, etc etc, there has been a seismic shift to the right.
|
Response to murielm99 (Reply #43)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:44 PM
frylock (34,825 posts)
134. Some people care about policy. Others care about the level of respect being shown to the Party.
There's a reason that only 30% of voters are registered as Democrats. This is one of them.
|
Response to Angel Martin (Reply #9)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:05 PM
7962 (11,841 posts)
115. I was thinking "LOLOLOL" before I clicked your post!! Good one.
Response to Angel Martin (Reply #9)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:09 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
199. Hillary's concern is Hillary.
Response to Angel Martin (Reply #9)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 09:52 AM
24601 (3,847 posts)
217. Mais oiu, la parti c'est moi. n/t
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:53 PM
Arazi (4,381 posts)
12. This isn't ever going to go away
God help us if she manages to keep the lid on this until after the GE. It's not going to blow,over, it's going to simmer until it explodes all over the place.
![]() |
Response to Arazi (Reply #12)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:04 PM
Elmer S. E. Dump (5,751 posts)
28. It would be worse if the lid popped off right before the general.
Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #28)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:25 AM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
179. Why do you think the Republicans aren't talking much about it?
They're waiting until September.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:53 PM
GummyBearz (2,931 posts)
13. I like how her spokesman "adamently opposes the complete blocking of the release of these emails"
It's so easy to claim it is over classification, and the emails contain no real secrets, when no one will ever be able to read the emails.
|
Response to GummyBearz (Reply #13)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:33 PM
JudyM (20,148 posts)
48. Not only that, but if it's questionable how can disclosure be good for national security?
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:54 PM
pscot (20,953 posts)
14. Question is
is this material being classified after the fact. The article suggests that.
|
Response to pscot (Reply #14)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:56 PM
OKNancy (41,827 posts)
18. I just wrote in post #16
It was classified after the fact. The Hill is a right-wing rag and they aren't going to emphasize that fact.
This is the DU member formerly known as OKNancy.
|
Response to OKNancy (Reply #18)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:45 PM
Hangingon (2,842 posts)
53. Even if it was classified after the fact...
we have Sec. Of State that can't recognize classified material. Does not speak well of her.
|
Response to Hangingon (Reply #53)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:40 PM
TryLogic (1,528 posts)
107. Good judgment is not one of her strong points. Quite the opposite.
This is the DU member formerly known as TryLogic.
|
Response to Hangingon (Reply #53)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:05 PM
dlwickham (3,316 posts)
138. Huh?
she couldn't recognize classified material before it became classified?
Hillary is a lot of things but I don't think she's psychic so she wouldn't know necessarily what would become classified and what wouldn't, no? |
Response to dlwickham (Reply #138)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:04 PM
Hangingon (2,842 posts)
170. So, all the. Years of experience she tells us she has and she cannot recognize sensitive subject mat
A large volume of records contain sensitive subject matter and have no markings. I think that is very hard to believe that a former First Lady, a Senator and a Secretary of State of sources and methods that yield information. No psychic powers needed.
|
Response to Hangingon (Reply #170)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:59 PM
dlwickham (3,316 posts)
173. What's considered sensitive today
What's considered sensitive today may not be considered sensitive tomorrow.
For example it may have been considered sensitive about the number of Russian troops on the Ukraine border until one in the news organizations decided to broadcast that information from independent sources. |
Response to dlwickham (Reply #173)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:13 AM
Hangingon (2,842 posts)
176. News organizations do not determine classification.
In your example, you say that they publish using "independent sources". That may be the difference. The newspaper publication does not declassify the information from government sources.
|
Response to Hangingon (Reply #176)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:27 AM
dlwickham (3,316 posts)
219. But they can publish information that might be considered sensitive
But they can publish information that might be considered sensitive and after publishing that it's no longer sensitive so who knows what might be considered sensitive tomorrow
|
Response to dlwickham (Reply #219)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:45 PM
Hangingon (2,842 posts)
223. Wrong!
Publication doe NOT change the classification of the published material. NYT published the Pentagon Papers. SCOTUS said they could. The papers remained classified and were treated accordingly.
|
Response to Hangingon (Reply #223)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:36 PM
dlwickham (3,316 posts)
224. The Pentagon papers were eventually declared unclassified
It appears that the method across find information and defining classified information varies from administration to administration
The US government is currently under executive order in regards what is considered classified and what isn't considered classified Now I'm sure that the government has a basic guideline for what should be considered classified. The question is whether or not the government went back and classified information that wasn't previously considered classified as now classified. The emails that the government has now marked classified weren't marked classified originally. |
Response to dlwickham (Reply #224)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 05:09 PM
Hangingon (2,842 posts)
231. You seemingly took my poor example as an unfortunate ray of hope.
Yes the Pentagon Papers were eventually declassified over the last 40 years. There is constant pressure to declassify.
"It appears that the method across find information and defining classified information varies from administration to administration" No idea what the first part of this means. In my experience, defining classification has been consistent from administration to administration. Classification is basically defined in 18 USC. Classifying agencies do not specifically discuss what they classify. I did not know that Executive Order defined what is "considered" classified. Could you provide the EO number? The President can certainly declassify the emails and he can certainly pardon the former Secretary of State. It is extreme unlikely that the emails were "classified" after the fact for no reason. The information in the emails may have had their markings removed or, more likely, the information is derivative. Unmarked classified material is found in files frequently. Where I have worked, employees have been trained to recognize it and deal with it appropriately. |
Response to Hangingon (Reply #231)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:06 PM
dlwickham (3,316 posts)
233. Ray of hope?
not from you and yours
Using the Pentagon Papers for an example, information is classified one day and then it isn't. In this case, it was classified for forty years but that really doesn't matter because the information was out there. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information that is the current EO in regards to classifying information, I believe EO 13526 restated the authorized list of designees who can originate classification, in effect rescinding any previous designations made by officials or agency heads to subordinates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13292 this is Bush's EO from that Clinton's order set declassification deadlines for classified material and made it harder for politicians to classify information. Bush's order appears to allow much more information to be classified and for longer periods; the wording is hard to decipher in some areas[specify]. It also appears to give more power over classification to the Offices of the President and Vice President, but the wording used was not properly defined in the listing of relevant definitions now consolidated into their own section in Part 6 of the Executive Order. it appears that the process of declaring information as classified does change from administration to administration |
Response to dlwickham (Reply #233)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:19 PM
Hangingon (2,842 posts)
238. Late at night to read turgid EOs but I did see this at first glance.
PART 1 -- ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION
Section 1.1. (c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information. So the information could be out there but it is still classified. And yes, when classified information is declassified, one day it is classified and the next it isn't. I don't quite get the other part of your response. The other referenced EOs make mechanical changes but basically leave the system intact. If you wish to say there is significant this is okay with me. In any case, I don't believe these changes have much impact on the present problem faced by the former Secretary. |
Response to dlwickham (Reply #173)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:27 AM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
181. Nope.
For example it may have been considered sensitive about the number of Russian troops on the Ukraine border until one in the news organizations decided to broadcast that information from independent sources.
Nope. Still classified. Everything that Manning and Snowden leaked is still classified. Someone with a clearance can lose it if they go read the documents on Wikileaks from an unclassified computer. Leaking is not declassification. Which is explicitly explained to everyone who gets a clearance during their initial training. |
Response to jeff47 (Reply #181)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:28 AM
dlwickham (3,316 posts)
220. Would leaked information be reclassified
As more sensitive after-the-fact
|
Response to dlwickham (Reply #173)
840high This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to pscot (Reply #14)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:27 PM
Erich Bloodaxe BSN (14,733 posts)
97. Does it matter?
The subject content of some of them was apparently about programs about which information is ALWAYS top secret. She shouldn't have needed someone to stamp the email with a digital rubber stamp, unless she was so clueless about her job that she didn't know that those programs were automatically top secret.
|
Response to pscot (Reply #14)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:09 PM
7962 (11,841 posts)
117. You're trained to recognize sensitive material whether marked or not.
Everyone in government & military knows this. She knows it. When she continually says "I never sent nor received any emails marked classified" she IS telling the truth, because thats not the way classified documents are labeled. Thats why she constantly says the same sentence over & over.
Whats been released already shows that emails containing classified information WERE sent and received by her, her associates, using her unsecured server. But nothing will happen to her; its just a question of who will take the fall FOR her. |
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:54 PM
asuhornets (2,405 posts)
15. Same ol bullshit..
And yet she is still standing..
|
Response to asuhornets (Reply #15)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:11 PM
LynneSin (95,337 posts)
68. I was just thinking the same exact thing
This whole Email/Benghazi bullshit is nothing more than decades of right-wing propaganda and it's tiresome. Time and time again very notable publications have come out and said there were no classified details in the emails (even though Clinton did the same thing that Powell and Rice did before her) and that she was not at fault at Benghazi.
Yet I come here to DU and see people buy into that shit. |
Response to LynneSin (Reply #68)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:21 PM
asuhornets (2,405 posts)
88. Unbelievable n/t
Response to asuhornets (Reply #15)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:31 PM
TipTok (2,474 posts)
142. Exactly...
Anyone else would have to answer for it but she is special somehow...
Wonder why that is... |
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:55 PM
OKNancy (41,827 posts)
16. The Hill doesn't state it specifically, but other more reputable sites point out that
THEY WERE NOT CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME THEY WERE SENT.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-clinton-emails-withhold-idUSKCN0V72JB "The State Department will be denying in full seven email chains, found in 22 documents representing 37 pages," said State Department spokesman John Kirby. "The documents are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain a category of Top Secret information ... These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent." --------- But you guys keep dreaming that something will keep Hillary down. This is the DU member formerly known as OKNancy.
|
Response to OKNancy (Reply #16)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:05 PM
karynnj (58,346 posts)
29. Kirby said the emails were not MARKED classified
that does not mean the content was not classified at that time.
Tell me how something at least 3 years after it happens can be TOP SECRET ... if it was not even classified as confidential back when it happened. This is NOT good news for HRC. |
Response to karynnj (Reply #29)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:13 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
37. do you realize that discussing a news story about a drone strike makes an email
classified and potentially top secret?
That anything about wikileaks-driven stories are considered classified? |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #37)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:43 PM
karynnj (58,346 posts)
52. Sure - it would be the information included in the discussion that would be more or less significant
based on who said things. That discussion would be informed by everything the people discussing it know because of their positions and briefing.
To take this out of the arcane world of FP or national security imagine a discussion here on DU about some NYT article on say - Clinton's strategy in Iowa .... now imagine that there was a transcript of HRC, BC, Podesta, Palmieri etc commenting on that article ---- if you were a NYT reporter and you were accidentally included in either -- is it the same thing? One is essentially the same value as the NYT article itself the other is a gold mine! |
Response to karynnj (Reply #52)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:57 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
59. depends on what they say.
if they say "did you see this?" no rational person would consider that classified or top secret, but our intelligence services do.
|
Response to karynnj (Reply #29)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:11 PM
7962 (11,841 posts)
119. Thats exactly right. Yet everyone says "nothing to see here...."
Response to OKNancy (Reply #16)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:08 PM
JudyM (20,148 posts)
32. That doesn't matter, or it shouldn't. As Sec of State she should know the info is top secret.
Apparently these were email strings, not just random emails sent to her.
|
Response to OKNancy (Reply #16)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:32 PM
Akicita (1,196 posts)
47. They were not MARKED classified when they were sent. That's a far cry
from not containing classified information.
Two points: 1) It is legal Clintonese or Clinton legalese to use the term "not marked classified". No secret documents are marked "classified". They are marked Secret, Top Secret, etc. 2) There is no way to email documents marked Secret, Top Secret, etc. to a private server. Classified info is kept on an entirely different secure email system or systems and can only be accessed by going to a secure, guarded, room and producing an ID showing you are cleared to see the classified info. The only way this secret information could find its way to Clinton's private email is if the information was transcribed, copied, or summarized into an emai written on a non-classified email system, with the Secret or Top Secret markings removed(That's What Hillary referred to as turning into non-paper in one of her emails) and then sent to Hillary's private server. If that was done it is highly illegal. |
Response to Akicita (Reply #47)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:00 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
63. Classified information appears in the press on a regular basis.
So, if they email a NY Times story about drone strikes, the government considers that classified/top secret.
|
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #63)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:16 PM
Akicita (1,196 posts)
74. Ok. That may explain one. What about the other 1,300?
Response to Akicita (Reply #74)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:17 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
77. every discussion of the drone program would be considered classified.
as would anything about documents in a wikileaks story.
where are you getting the 1300 figure? |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #77)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:21 PM
Akicita (1,196 posts)
90. Its been widely reported that there are over 1,300 classified emails found so far.
Response to Akicita (Reply #90)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:23 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
92. to be precise, FOIA bureaucrats have labeled 1300 documents 'classified'
during the FOIA review.
|
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #92)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:10 PM
Akicita (1,196 posts)
148. 1600 now.
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #63)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:31 AM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
184. And it's still classified.
Know someone with a clearance and want to ruin their day? Email them something Snowden leaked.
They'll have all sorts of fun reporting it, filling out paperwork, and dealing with the security folks. |
Response to OKNancy (Reply #16)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:16 PM
OrwellwasRight (5,170 posts)
75. I'm not sure that gmail
has an option to mark an email "classified". But emails that you receive from State Department accounts do. They say right across the bottom "The information in this email is unclassified." So I think this may be a trickier issue than you are implying?
|
Response to OKNancy (Reply #16)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:23 PM
Pathwalker (6,363 posts)
91. DIRTY TRICKS WEEKENDS HAVE BEGUN!!!
The time honored dirty tricks weekends start in earnest, as the primaries are upon us. Who will be the next targetS, I wonder - both this weekend and next, then before South Carolina?
|
Response to OKNancy (Reply #16)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:30 AM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
182. "Not marked" is not the same as "Not classified".
Information is classified whether or not it is properly marked.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:55 PM
daybranch (1,309 posts)
17. Overclassification?
Are you alleging someone involved in the classification area is out to get her? Obama has already said he is certain there was no security violations in her use of a private server to send emails. It is beginning to look like he cannot protect her any more. She needs to get out now before she embarrasses us further.
|
Response to daybranch (Reply #17)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:58 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
21. no, it's that the government doesn't like to provide the public access to how it does business
a lot of stuff that's already in the public record due to Wikileaks or Snowden is still considered top secret. Ditto discussions of the drone program
|
Response to daybranch (Reply #17)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:22 PM
Akicita (1,196 posts)
149. It's obvious the CIA classfied Hilliary's secret yoga moves and some top secret
Photos from Chelsea's wedding. That's all. Nothing else. Move along now. Move along.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:57 PM
Reter (2,188 posts)
20. When will she be indicted?
What's taking so long? Better now than late October.
|
Response to Reter (Reply #20)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:59 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
23. Stop watching Fox News. nt
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #23)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:57 PM
Reter (2,188 posts)
58. It's on every news channel
She broke the law. She will likely be indicated. I don't want it to happen in October, do you?
|
Response to Reter (Reply #58)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:58 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
60. Stop watching Fox News.
Fox News has filled your head with the notion that she broke criminal law and will be going to jail.
Turn the TV off when Hannity comes on. |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #60)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:37 PM
Metric System (6,048 posts)
104. Thank you, geek tragedy. You represent your candidate well.
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #60)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:45 PM
Reter (2,188 posts)
152. Don't watch Fox
I don't think she's going to jail either, but she committed a massive federal crime.
|
Response to Reter (Reply #152)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:48 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
159. "Massive federal crime" lol sure you don't watch Fox nt
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #159)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:24 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
202. Yes - federal crime. I don't even have cable TV.
Response to Reter (Reply #152)
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 11:05 AM
Ana Hauhet (67 posts)
239. no-hillary-did-not-commit-a-crime-
"Even before 2014, however, it seems quite clear that the 2009 language and follow up cables from the State Department indicate she did not adhere to proper protocol. But there is a colossal difference between “wrong,” “improper” or even a regulation violation, and a federal crime."
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/no-hillary-did-not-commit-a-crime-at-least-based-on-what-we-know-today/2/ http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/no-hillary-did-not-commit-a-crime-at-least-based-on-what-we-know-today/ "Hillary bashing is good clean political sport but a federal criminal indictment is serious business, saved for serious crimes and hopefully based on serious evidence, which as of yet, has not materialized." |
Response to Reter (Reply #58)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:14 PM
7962 (11,841 posts)
122. No, she wont. You forget who we're talking about. Someone else will take the fall.
Thats probably already been decided. The whole "i dont know anything about tech stuff" allows her to plead ignorance whenever the shit finally hits the fan. And then 1 or 2 minions will be charged and she can say "I had no IDEA this was happening!"
She's NOT going to be indicted |
Response to 7962 (Reply #122)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:21 PM
Yupster (14,308 posts)
140. And then the minions will get jobs
with the Clinton Foundation.
It's the Circle of Life. |
Response to Yupster (Reply #140)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:31 PM
7962 (11,841 posts)
143. There you have it.
Response to Reter (Reply #20)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:00 PM
pnwmom (104,130 posts)
25. Who do you know who's been indicted for documents retroactively classified?
All DUers should be shocked and outraged at the practice; that they can take info from the public domain -- even news articles and pages on government websites -- and retroactively decide it is classified.
|
Response to pnwmom (Reply #25)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:09 PM
karynnj (58,346 posts)
33. It is completely unlikely that these top secret threads were discussing things in the public domain
If they were, the entire thing would not have to be redacted. Anything from the public domain could be left intact -- the comments etc which made some earlier things more classified than the public info was are what made some things more secret. Note in that case we know what the public domain part was.
|
Response to karynnj (Reply #33)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:14 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
39. it's actually highly unlikely the top secret designation has anything to do with national security
http://www.nationaljournal.com/twentysixteen/2015/08/19/other-top-secret-problem-hurting-hillary-clinton
“The odds are good that any classified information in the Clinton emails should not have been classified,” said Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning law and policy think tank. Her reasoning? Estimates show that 50 percent to 90 percent of classified documents could be made public without risking national security.
“It is so rare that I have seen leaked or subsequently disclosed classified information where I think, ‘Yeah, I would expect some national security harm from releasing this information,’” Goitein said. |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #39)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:33 PM
karynnj (58,346 posts)
49. Disingenuous estimate - even accepting the premise
It seems intuitive that the higher the designation, the more likely it could be something that impacts national security. So, she says that 50 to 90 percent of CLASSIFIED documents would not. First of all, that is a pretty broad estimate. You would react differently if the sentence just included 50% or just included 90%. Then consider that there are things labeled "confidential" , "secret" and "top secret".
Not to mention, there are things that might not raise to the level of "risking national security" whatever that means. What if it identifies and gives a confidential assessment by a national of some allied or enemy country of the situation in a troubled county. That might not impact our national security, but even 4 years later it could harm someone who we got information from. |
Response to karynnj (Reply #49)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:37 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
51. do you consider the existence of the CIA's drone program to be "top secret?"
the federal government--including the bureaucrats responsible for reviewing FOIA requests, does.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985 The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.
The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan. The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times. “Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.” The State Department is likely to persist in its contention that some information the intelligence community claimed was “top secret” because it related to North Korean nuclear tests was actually the product of “parallel reporting” that did not rely on classified intelligence products and so should not be treated as highly classified, the official said. Overclassification is a real thing. |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #51)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:46 PM
karynnj (58,346 posts)
54. I agree there is over classification - but these are not confidential, but top secret nt
Response to karynnj (Reply #54)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:12 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
71. they certainly do overclassify stuff as top secret too. nt
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #71)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:34 AM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
186. TS/SCI and SAPs require tons of paperwork to justify.
If it's just for burying something embarrassing, you don't use TS/SCI or SAP. Because (ironically) you'd have to tell a lot of people the embarrassing thing to justify the classification.
|
Response to pnwmom (Reply #25)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:10 PM
JudyM (20,148 posts)
35. Are you serious? This isn't a procedural issue. The *content* is top secret regardless.
If not worthy of official sanction, it blares terrible judgment, negligent handling of top secret information.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:00 PM
AzDar (14,023 posts)
24. Same question regarding her IWR vote: Criminal or Incompetent? Either way, she should be
NOWHERE near the Oval Office.
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to AzDar (Reply #24)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:04 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
27. so you believe the Fox News spin on this.
Note that I am not stating that as a question.
|
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #27)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:18 PM
LynneSin (95,337 posts)
80. After two decades of villifying Hillary Clinton we have plenty of right-wing kool-aid drinkers here
And I appreciate that you made this post seeing that you are a Bernie Sanders supporter.
If the Clintons were to be jailed they would have found a legitimate reason ages ago. The Right-Wing has made it a career of villifying Hillary Clinton since she first stepped into the White House as First Lady back in 1993. (her husband too). Yet not once have they found ANYTHING even remotely close to sentencing her or her husband for jail time. Bad choices made, sure, but criminal activity - not a thing. This is why I haven't picked sides for the primaries. I like all the Democratic Candidates equally (would have supported Biden but he's not running). And it's annoying with this petty bullshit. Just as much as it is annoying when Clinton Supporters say things like 'Bernie couldn't win in the general election'. Why? Have these people seen the village idiots running for the GOP? |
Response to LynneSin (Reply #80)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:20 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
86. seriously, embracing the security state's hatred of transparency in an effort to score
points on Clinton is not a very progressive move.
People treat Sanders v Clinton as if it's a football game where extreme fans cheer their own side no matter what and boo the other side and hope their star player gets injured. |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #27)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:17 PM
7962 (11,841 posts)
123. If all the news reports are talking about this, why keep insisting its just Fox?
Its on every news broadcast I see or hear whenever the Friday dump occurs.
Fox isnt the only one talking about this But i still say nothing will happen to her |
Response to 7962 (Reply #123)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:19 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
124. every news story has stated as a factual matter
that Clinton is either a criminal or grossly incompetent?
|
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #124)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:22 PM
7962 (11,841 posts)
127. Many reporters have said as much, yes. Especially incompetent.
And it is ridiculous that this has happened at all. But the clintons have always been used to doing what they wanted
|
Response to 7962 (Reply #127)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:12 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
139. which beacons of journalistic credibility have stated
that the only two possible explanations are Clinton being a criminal or Clinton being hopelessly incompetent?
|
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #139)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:43 PM
7962 (11,841 posts)
145. I saw it on Chris Cuomo's show; one of his reporters,
Dont know her name. I'm sure you could google it. The NYT had a story not too long ago referring to it. More people have commented about it being incompetent than criminal, because its not as harsh. And it WAS at least incompetent, wouldnt you say?
I've seen stories of people being punished for a lot less; such as a navy guy punished for taking a selfie with a radar screen in the backround. The whole existence of SAP documents points to incompetence at the very least. There's no excuse for it. Especially when using my "Bush filter"; what would I think if Bush had done the same thing? But as I said, it really doesnt matter because NOTHING will happen to her regardless of the outcome of the investigation |
Response to 7962 (Reply #145)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:38 AM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
222. That the email server was a mistake has already been conceded.
Even competent people make mistakes.
|
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #222)
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 10:47 PM
7962 (11,841 posts)
240. Except that it wasnt just a "mistake". There's also this:
http://nypost.com/2016/01/31/this-was-all-planned-former-ig-says-hillary-state-dept-are-lying/
There are a lot of points in this article that need answering. |
Response to 7962 (Reply #240)
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 10:59 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
241. Lol, Murdoch Post. Very revealing. nt
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #241)
Mon Feb 1, 2016, 07:10 AM
7962 (11,841 posts)
242. Shooting the messenger again.
The story is there. The interview is real. I didnt know we went the entire Clinton SoS term without an Inspector General. Why? If that wasnt true, its easily proven wrong. If this guy is lying about all he points he made, then refute them, dont fall for the "its from murdoch," or "Its _______". I remember when the John Edwards story was dismissed by so many because "Its the ENQUIRER, for God's sake"
Most of this just furthers the things we've already known; the rules have been different for her than the rest of us. |
Response to 7962 (Reply #242)
Mon Feb 1, 2016, 09:47 AM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
243. Yes, it's there, in the NY Post. nt
|
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #243)
Mon Feb 1, 2016, 02:46 PM
7962 (11,841 posts)
245. Its not an op-ed, its an interview. There's a difference
But obviously its your right to ignore it simply because of where its printed.
If this former IG didnt say the things quoted, I'm sure he'd be letting everyone know. |
Response to 7962 (Reply #123)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:29 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
204. ABC opened with this tonight.
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #27)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:26 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
203. You must watch Fox. You seem
to know what's on it.
|
Response to 840high (Reply #203)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:37 AM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
221. I know the "throw Hillary in jail" cries come from the bowels
of the rightwing noise machine.
Repeated by extremists purporting to be anonymous Bernie supporters. |
Response to AzDar (Reply #24)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:18 PM
left lowrider (97 posts)
40. perfect summation
yes- criminal or incompetent
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:02 PM
mvd (63,226 posts)
26. Why is the administration doing this?
If not classified then, why now? I don't think there is anything to hide if Hillary's campaign wants them released. I hope Bernie wins, but because of the issues - not the e-mails.
|
Response to mvd (Reply #26)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:06 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
31. it's career bureaucrats doing it.
the government has had a "classify everything" mindset for decades now.
|
Response to mvd (Reply #26)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:22 PM
karynnj (58,346 posts)
42. This is correctly being done by career professionals in the state department
It would be wrong if this were led by non foreign service people in the position because of their relationship with Kerry or Obama. That would be a formula that would lead to Kerry and Obama having their reputations tarnished. It has been clear for a long time that Kerry has been extremely hands off from this - other than demanding it be done seriously vetting what is put out to avoid putting stuff out that should be redacted.
As soon as a State Department IG was nominated and installed (after none existed for 5 years including all of Clinton's term) Kerry asked them to critique what was done and to recommend changes on that and on how the SD handles email. Kirby has commented that they have implemented every recommendation. One recommendation was to hire someone to head the process and to hire or transfer 50 people to this to add to the (I think) 12. Per Kirby, they have had trouble finding enough people trained on FOIA and classifications. Incidentally the Republicans expressed anger that the retired SD employee hired to head this operation - during the time she was retired - maxed out her contribution to HRC. It is infuriating to see HRC people suggest that this was done to hurt Clinton. These are professionals doing a tough job, under intense pressure having agreed to take on what is obviously a lose/lose job with no possible upside and lots of potential trouble - starting with being the one to miss something that should have been redacted. |
Response to karynnj (Reply #42)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:31 PM
mvd (63,226 posts)
45. Ok thanks for the explanation
It would be nice though to know what was going on with the e-mails since she could possibly be President. I wouldn't let them influence my vote, but it will be a clear issue during the election cycle.
|
Response to mvd (Reply #26)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:48 PM
Akicita (1,196 posts)
56. See post #47 for the answer to your question.
Response to mvd (Reply #26)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:31 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
205. Hillary's campaign wants them
released because they know it cannot happen. Top secret.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:05 PM
yallerdawg (16,104 posts)
30. This is standard with Freedom of Information Act releases.
"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby told the AP, describing the decision to withhold documents in full as "not unusual." That means they won't be published online with the rest of the documents, even with blacked-out boxes.
It wouldn't matter what 'server' she used, public or private. Another 'higher standard' for Hillary. Guilty before charged! |
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:10 PM
rtracey (2,062 posts)
34. Wow
Well, hey I have an Idea, instead of assuming, let's see if these were e-mails that were actually classified when they were sent/arrived... or are you all on board with just putting her in handcuffs and walking her into federal prison.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:10 PM
awake (3,226 posts)
36. I Remember hearing that in a earlier email Hillary was giving instructions on
How to send info from a restrictive server by changing the heading does anyone hear have a link to that story. The question that will soon be asked is how did "Top Secret " info get into 22 emails if this info came from the same employe who "changed" the other headers on Hillary's instructions then her goose is cooked and we can not risk having her as our candidate.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:13 PM
Roland99 (52,135 posts)
38. Bug-man said an indictment was coming
Not that I believe a word out of his treacherous mouth but this sure doesn't look good.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:20 PM
lobodons (1,290 posts)
41. All they have is 22 retroactively Re-classified emails out of 30,000 total..??
Eyes Roll
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:26 PM
nyabingi (1,145 posts)
44. The only time Hillary tells the truth is if she tells a double lie (nt)
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:35 PM
yallerdawg (16,104 posts)
50. What's the problem with classified emails anyway?
Assange and Manning are heroes of 'the left'.
I thought that was one of the reasons Democrats don't even pay attention to this stuff. The issue is with the government entities feeling it necessary to classify endlessly! |
Response to yallerdawg (Reply #50)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:19 PM
OrwellwasRight (5,170 posts)
82. The problem is electability.
Not support for over-classification. Or, at least that's why I think people are concerned.
|
Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #82)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:37 PM
yallerdawg (16,104 posts)
103. You understand this is all more Benghazi Republican mischief?
What alternative, backup, Plan B Democrat will the Republicans show the love?
Their goal is to take out the presumptive nominee by any means necessary. They said so. I'm not fallin' for this BS. Seen it before. |
Response to yallerdawg (Reply #103)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:42 PM
OrwellwasRight (5,170 posts)
108. No, I don't understand it that way.
I understand it as poor judgment and bad staffing. Just use the damn state.gov email you were given and be done with it. "Don't get your own personal server in your living room and a gmail account because it is going to look bad years from now when you run for President again." That is what someone should have said, and that is what should have happened. Now we are in a clusterfuck of scandal because of arrogance and poor judgment. Why does this even need to be a thing? It shouldn't be because it should not have happened.
|
Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #108)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:56 PM
yallerdawg (16,104 posts)
110. That's your interpretation.
Guess what? The Republican goal worked perfectly!
I trust Hillary a hell of a lot more than any Republican dissemination, spin, propaganda, character assassination, BS of 'anonymous sources,' same old ginned-up crap, same old back-stabbing Machiavellian political think-tank machinations! You are welcome to your opinion. ![]() |
Response to yallerdawg (Reply #110)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:01 PM
OrwellwasRight (5,170 posts)
112. Yes I am.
And the private email server is not a rumour from an anonymous source. The server exists. The decision not to use the state.gov email system was made. These things really and truly happened. Avoiding the reality-based community won't be a great campaign strategy for her.
![]() |
Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #112)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:19 PM
7962 (11,841 posts)
125. The "covered eyes & ears" syndrome IS amazing isnt it? nt
Response to yallerdawg (Reply #103)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:34 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
206. No I don't.
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:53 PM
Molusko (26 posts)
57. Was it classified when it was received/sent?
or afterward?
|
Response to Molusko (Reply #57)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:04 PM
Akicita (1,196 posts)
66. All we've been told is that they were not "marked Classified" which means nothing because no secret
documents are marked "Classified. They are marked Secret, Top Secret, etc.
|
Response to Akicita (Reply #66)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:25 PM
Yupster (14,308 posts)
141. What happens if Huma sends classified info to Hillary
or vice-versa.
It would not be marked classified since neither Huma or Hillary marked it classified. No one else would even know it was sent. So is something not classified unless Hillary or Huma marks it classified? That doesn't seem to make any sense. |
Response to Akicita (Reply #66)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Molusko (Reply #57)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:12 PM
yallerdawg (16,104 posts)
70. All the emails are being reviewed for release to the public.
They are being classified now.
Since we won't see what is being classified, anonymous sources can drop all kinds of speculation and innuendo. Right before the Iowa caucus. And they are conveniently saving some more emails for the last Friday of February. Right before the SEC Primary (formerly Super Tuesday). The plot thickens... |
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:59 PM
HereSince1628 (36,063 posts)
61. I don't know about over-classification, but for sure there's some over exceptionalism
going on. Rules just don't apply to her like they do to everyone else.
I'm sure the administration is in a bad spot on this. I'm sure the campaign donor class would rather have HRC fighting socialism than defending herself in court. |
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:59 PM
Kingofalldems (33,530 posts)
62. As with all the Clinton email stories--this will be debunked quickly.
And then we'll see another one next week.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:00 PM
thereismore (13,326 posts)
64. So they are spinning it as overclassification. Clever, but not good enough. Now they are impugning
Obama's own people. Seems like they are firing everywhere. |
Response to thereismore (Reply #64)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:18 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
81. so you've reviewed these documents and can verify that the Fox News spin on this
story is accurate?
|
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #81)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:19 PM
thereismore (13,326 posts)
83. Don't drag Fox into this. It's Obama's people saying this. nt
Response to thereismore (Reply #83)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:21 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
89. really? Which Obama people are saying Clinton broke the law and is going to get
indicted, etc etc?
|
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #89)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:23 PM
thereismore (13,326 posts)
93. Obama's people are saying her emails contained information of the highest sensitivity.
That is all. |
Response to thereismore (Reply #93)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:24 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
94. state department FOIA bureaucrats are saying that, not Obama's inner circle
at the White House.
|
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #94)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:26 PM
thereismore (13,326 posts)
95. It's the Obama administration. He is the top executive and they are his people. Got it? nt
|
Response to thereismore (Reply #95)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:27 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
96. career civil servants are not Obama's people any more than they were
Bush's people.
|
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #96)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:27 PM
thereismore (13,326 posts)
98. Don't insult me and take your bone somewhere else. nt
Response to thereismore (Reply #98)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:45 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
109. that post was not insulting and none of my bones are out of place nt
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #96)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:08 AM
John Poet (2,510 posts)
174. Either way, they are not 'Fox News'
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #81)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:05 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
196. Not Fox.
Response to thereismore (Reply #64)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:47 AM
Angel Martin (942 posts)
214. yeah, it's "overclassification"...
like emails too sensitive to ever be released
and 37 pages of emails on Special Access programs (naming intelligence sources etc) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35446455 |
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:12 PM
MondoCane (12 posts)
69. facebook
Is anyone else not seeing any news articles about this in their Facebook newsfeed? I was when it first broke and now... nothing.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:31 PM
Ed Suspicious (8,879 posts)
99. Thank god it's Friday, where stories go to die.
Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #99)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:40 PM
IamTheNoodle (98 posts)
106. You forgot /Sarc tag
This story is no where close to being killed off.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:39 PM
Arazi (4,381 posts)
105. Just reported on NPR
![]() |
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:00 PM
AngryAmish (25,704 posts)
111. I just find these accusations very sexist.
She is being attacked because she is a woman.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:30 PM
SoapBox (18,791 posts)
128. No...More...Clintons.
I've had enough of them.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:32 PM
6000eliot (5,643 posts)
151. Thanks again, Sanders supporters!
NOBODY ELSE CARES!
|
Response to 6000eliot (Reply #151)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:47 PM
Reter (2,188 posts)
153. The FBI cares
You should too.
|
Response to Reter (Reply #153)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:28 PM
6000eliot (5,643 posts)
162. According to liars like Issa and Delay,
but thank you for carrying their water for them.
|
Response to 6000eliot (Reply #162)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:42 PM
frylock (34,825 posts)
167. The FBI doesn't serve under Issa or Delay.
Take a guess as to who they do take direction from.
|
Response to frylock (Reply #167)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:50 AM
6000eliot (5,643 posts)
191. Whatever. Ho hum.
Response to 6000eliot (Reply #151)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:29 PM
frylock (34,825 posts)
163. We're a year into this shit, but..
NOBODY ELSE CARES!
|
Response to frylock (Reply #163)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:31 PM
6000eliot (5,643 posts)
164. True, if by "shit" you mean "right-wing smears against Hillary Clinton."
Response to 6000eliot (Reply #164)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:40 PM
frylock (34,825 posts)
166. No, I mean Hillary's shit show..
written, produced, and directed. She owns this colossal fuck up.
|
Response to frylock (Reply #166)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:12 AM
John Poet (2,510 posts)
175. This "colassal fuck up" is evidence of Hillary's superior
"foreign policy experience", and don't you dare forget that!
![]() |
Response to frylock (Reply #166)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:49 AM
6000eliot (5,643 posts)
190. How boring.
Response to 6000eliot (Reply #190)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:06 AM
frylock (34,825 posts)
197. Utterly droll
Response to frylock (Reply #166)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:41 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
211. You bet she does.
Response to 6000eliot (Reply #151)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:31 AM
still_one (77,026 posts)
183. None of Those 22 New Hillary Emails Were Classified When They Were Sent
I guess some here think right wing talking points will help their client.
It won't, and just the opposite will occur because of their disingenuous half truths This is the DU member formerly known as still_one.
|
Response to still_one (Reply #183)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:07 PM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
226. They were all stripped out of other agency classified documents
"Retroactively classified" isn't a legal term. It's certainly not a legal defense.
|
Response to 6000eliot (Reply #151)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:39 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
209. The Administration cares.
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:27 AM
still_one (77,026 posts)
180. why leave out that NONE of those emails were classified when they were sent?
No noose is tightening, and those who keep jumping onto the republican talking points with enthusiasm will look like fools
again This is the DU member formerly known as still_one.
|
Response to still_one (Reply #180)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:32 AM
MrWendel (1,881 posts)
185. Hey!
don't confuse the issue with facts!
|
Response to MrWendel (Reply #185)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:40 AM
still_one (77,026 posts)
188. In fact here is the real story that Sanders' supporters want to ignore
"since the email “scandal” began, it has become a mainstream media pastime not to ever mention this, but these 22 emails, and every other email that journalists mainstream and conservative have gotten all sweaty over, were not marked classified when they were sent or received. If only some sort of talk-guy from the government thingy that Hillary worked for would just come out and say that, so people could prominently report that highly relevant fact that means Hillary won’t be going anywhere near a courtroom:
I can confirm that as part of this monthly production of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, the State Department will be denying in full seven e-mail chains found in 22 documents representing 37 pages. The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information. These documents were not marked classified at the time that they were sent.” That was U.S. State Department Spokesman John Kirby, for those of you playing along at home. Watch below, via MSNBC" http://www.mediaite.com/online/hold-your-benghazm-none-of-those-22-new-emails-were-classified-when-they-were-sent/ Sanders is supposed to be very honest and trustworthy. Makes me wonder if the Sanders' supporters that post such things as in this OP believe in those traits? This is the DU member formerly known as still_one.
|
Response to still_one (Reply #180)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:40 AM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
187. Because that isn't true.
None of the emails were marked classified. The information is classified, whether or not it is marked.
Also, keep in mind this entire thing is going on because Clinton broke FOIA rules - she didn't turn over her work emails when she stepped down, which has lead to a FOIA lawsuit that found her server. Hand over the emails, no lawsuit. No lawsuit, no finding the server and the classified messages. |
Response to jeff47 (Reply #187)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:49 AM
still_one (77,026 posts)
189. The state department John Kirby came out and said they were NOT classified at the time
"since the email “scandal” began, it has become a mainstream media pastime not to ever mention this, but these 22 emails, and every other email that journalists mainstream and conservative have gotten all sweaty over, were not marked classified when they were sent or received. If only some sort of talk-guy from the government thingy that Hillary worked for would just come out and say that, so people could prominently report that highly relevant fact that means Hillary won’t be going anywhere near a courtroom: I can confirm that as part of this monthly production of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, the State Department will be denying in full seven e-mail chains found in 22 documents representing 37 pages. The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information. These documents were not marked classified at the time that they were sent.” That was U.S. State Department Spokesman John Kirby, for those of you playing along at home. Watch below, via MSNBC" http://www.mediaite.com/online/hold-your-benghazm-none-of-those-22-new-emails-were-classified-when-they-were-sent/ Keep it up. Hillary will come out of this just fine. This is the DU member formerly known as still_one.
|
Response to still_one (Reply #189)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:55 AM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
192. Once again, not marked is different than not being classified.
but these 22 emails, and every other email that journalists mainstream and conservative have gotten all sweaty over, were not marked classified when they were sent or received
The information is classified, whether or not it is marked classified. Also, that still doesn't change that Clinton broke FOIA rules, causing this entire thing to blow up. If she had done what FOIA required and turned over her work emails, the FOIA lawsuit wouldn't have found "@clintonemail.com" messages that did not have the "Clinton" side. Those missing emails turned a very minor issue into a giant one. |
Response to jeff47 (Reply #192)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:00 AM
still_one (77,026 posts)
193. Nothing is going to happen. The only ones who are making this an issue are republicans and Sanders
supporters.
enjoy it while it lasts, because nothing is going to happen http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1091962 " Here's what you need to know about the 7 Clinton emails ... [View all] Last edited Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:55 PM - Edit history (2) ...which the State Department is withholding due to classification issues. 1) There was no government rule which prevented Hillary from setting up and using a private email server to handle her government emails. 2) Other State Departments heads including Colon Powell used the exact same set up. I don't hear the Republicans complaining about him. 3) Hillary's server was used to send and receive messages to and from other government employees in the State Department and her personal emails as well. 4) Any official State Department emails set to or received from Hillary's server were also maintained the State Department's government servers - therefore there is a government record of each and every one. 5) Investigations determined that Hillary's server had the exact same security protections required on all State Department government servers. 6) Investigation have also concluded that that there was no security breaches of Hillary's server - yes IT security experts can determine if such a breach occurred. 7) Because an email server is most vulnerable to security breaches cause by user error - such as opening a document on a fake email which releases a virus which allows 0the server to be hacked - the less people having access to a server, the more secure it is. So Hillary's server was probably more secure than the State Department's email machines. (Note: There have been several reports of government servers being hacked and very sensitive data being lost. This did not happen on Hillary's server.) 9) The 7 emails in question were not classified when they were sent and received. 9) The State Department is not withholding the 7 emails because they believe they that the emails should be classified; it is another government agency that is claiming that they should be classified. It is a well known fact that there is a propensity in many government agencies to over classify data - often because the information in question may make the the agency look bad if it was ever publicized. It is their way of making sure that the public never knows that they screwed up. I am not saying that is what is going on here, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised me if it were the case because that is often a prime reason why different agencies disagree on information classification. 10) The State Department is not saying that they will never distribute the emails. They are saying that they are withholding them for now until they can do their own investigation as to whether the emails should be classified. Bottom line: The entire affair was totally blown out of proportion by Republican seeking political advantage." This is the DU member formerly known as still_one.
|
Response to still_one (Reply #193)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:02 AM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
195. Just rock back and forth, telling yourself that.
Nothing's gonna happen....Nothing's gonna happen. Hey look, it's October and the Republicans just turned this into a firestorm right before the election.
|
Response to still_one (Reply #193)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:43 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
212. You're living in De Nile.
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 09:55 AM
24601 (3,847 posts)
218. Easy way to settle it. Even if classified, the President has authority to declassify material
regardless of any objections from any Department or Agency.
Mr. President, if they are not too damaging to our nation, declassify them. If they are, admit it. As the 1st line supervisor of the SoS, he needs to look and decide. |
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:43 PM
Calista241 (4,168 posts)
225. Worst case senario is if she defeats Bernie in the primary
And is indicted in August or September.
The FBI had an investigation open on Patraeus for nearly 2 years before the indictment came down. They've only been investigating Hillary for 6 months. This is going to go in throughout the election year even if she isn't ultimately indicted. |
Response to Calista241 (Reply #225)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:22 PM
AngryOldDem (11,128 posts)
228. Worst case scenario...
...she somehow wins the election and her presidency is DOA from the time she takes the oath. You know damned good and well articles of impeachment will be brought on Jan. 21, 2017, and will hound her and the nation into oblivion.
I agree with posters above who say she should do the right thing for the good of the party and for the nation and step aside in favor of Biden or whoever else the establishment picks to run. Because as of right now I think it's unlikely she will beat Trump in the general, and the longer this drags on, the more unlikely it will be. And do we want an entire campaign from Labor Day to November dominated by nothing but e-mails? I, for one, do NOT want to be held hostage by her arrogance, sense of entitlement, and just flat-out poor judgment. The stakes this year are just too high, especially considering the GOP's nuttiness. |
Response to AngryOldDem (Reply #228)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 07:28 PM
Calista241 (4,168 posts)
234. No, if she wins and has to vacate, her VP would take over.
Before the election would be way worse.
|
Response to Calista241 (Reply #225)
Mon Feb 1, 2016, 03:00 PM
Darb (2,807 posts)
247. Patreus gave secrets to his mistress, who was a reporter,
Hillary did her goddamned job.
|
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:27 PM
Odin2005 (53,521 posts)
230. Hillary is a fucking anvil that will sink the Democratic Party...
...if she is the nominee.
|
Response to Odin2005 (Reply #230)
Mon Feb 1, 2016, 02:58 PM
Darb (2,807 posts)
246. More than slightly hyperbolic.
But I think that you knew that. Hillary is exactly the SECOND Secretary of State to even use email. There is very little precedence to look at with regard to servers, etc. The Bush Admin used the RNC email to run around the law and that is a fact. This whole thing will amount to exactly jack shit, except to teabaggers and, for now, Bernie supporters, who I don't truly believe really give a shit.
If she is the nominee it will be landslide of epic proportions, in our favor. |
Response to hoosierlib (Original post)
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 09:36 AM
creon (1,183 posts)
248. legally not guilty
The investigation is on going and the final result is unknown.
I strongly suspect that she did not violate the law. She came very close to breaking the law; but, I think that she managed not to break the law. I think that she knows how to read a statute. I think that it is unfortunate that the Clintons are still in public life; I would have liked to see someone else run. But, we have what we have. |