HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » so here's what we know fr...

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:49 PM

so here's what we know from the newest dump of HRC emails.

Hillary wanted a roaming Blackberry system akin to the one that President Obama is allowed to use. She wanted it because she was accustomed to Blackberry, and because she didn't think it convenient to use a secure PC or laptop.

Her request was repeatedly denied because setting up such a special system is (according to NSA) prohibitively expensive and difficult to implement. NSA would not advise the State Department in how to set up and implement such a system.

Eventually, she decided to not use the Department of State's own secure system. She had a private server built for herself -- a server that was not secure. Further, it was a server hidden from President Obama. She conducted State Department business on a hidden, secret server.

Further, some of the business she conducted on her secret system was with a man who was BANNED from State Department consulting by President Obama himself. Sydney Blumenthal. BANNED by Obama, secretly used by Hillary as a consultant.

Further, Blumenthal was being paid $120,000/year for this secret consulting by the Clinton Foundation.

Further, Blumenthal was also working to gin up private business for himself in Libya, just as he was advising Hillary on Libya.

Further, the intel that Blumenthal was providing to Hillary was flawed and faulty, leading her to pressure Obama into using America's military for regime change against Obama's concerns and the concerns of his own advisors.

Further, after Hillary left the State Department, her secret private server was moved to a "mom and pop" service provider in Colorado -- a company that was so out of mainstream that her server was connected in the bathroom of the loft the company was housed in.

Further, this company had no experience with classified information and the employees had no training in handling it, and the site itself was not secure. Just a loft in a building.

Further, the owner of the company has old, deep ties to Bill Clinton.

Now there are questions as to whether Hillary was running a "rogue State Department" out of sight of President Obama. Through the Clinton Foundation and her secret server and her BANNED advisor....

Drip, drip, drip.

230 replies, 8675 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 230 replies Author Time Post
Reply so here's what we know from the newest dump of HRC emails. (Original post)
grasswire Mar 2016 OP
polly7 Mar 2016 #1
grasswire Mar 2016 #7
Scootaloo Mar 2016 #17
grasswire Mar 2016 #28
Scootaloo Mar 2016 #38
grasswire Mar 2016 #60
Scootaloo Mar 2016 #62
Wilms Mar 2016 #132
grasswire Mar 2016 #136
Wilms Mar 2016 #145
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #163
Wilms Mar 2016 #173
grasswire Mar 2016 #182
ljm2002 Mar 2016 #225
snagglepuss Mar 2016 #39
grasswire Mar 2016 #44
snagglepuss Mar 2016 #100
grasswire Mar 2016 #142
AtomicKitten Mar 2016 #156
ljm2002 Mar 2016 #226
tex-wyo-dem Mar 2016 #134
grasswire Mar 2016 #135
tex-wyo-dem Mar 2016 #140
grasswire Mar 2016 #141
tex-wyo-dem Mar 2016 #144
leveymg Mar 2016 #185
grasswire Mar 2016 #192
leveymg Mar 2016 #196
grasswire Mar 2016 #198
leveymg Mar 2016 #199
leveymg Mar 2016 #203
grasswire Mar 2016 #204
leveymg Mar 2016 #206
grasswire Mar 2016 #207
leveymg Mar 2016 #211
grasswire Mar 2016 #212
shawn703 Mar 2016 #2
Live and Learn Mar 2016 #221
DanTex Mar 2016 #3
berni_mccoy Mar 2016 #11
DanTex Mar 2016 #21
berni_mccoy Mar 2016 #25
DanTex Mar 2016 #37
Beowulf Mar 2016 #103
DanTex Mar 2016 #105
Beowulf Mar 2016 #114
DanTex Mar 2016 #116
Beowulf Mar 2016 #117
tex-wyo-dem Mar 2016 #133
Live and Learn Mar 2016 #222
cannabis_flower Mar 2016 #177
asuhornets Mar 2016 #205
ChairmanAgnostic Mar 2016 #12
DanTex Mar 2016 #20
ChairmanAgnostic Mar 2016 #23
DanTex Mar 2016 #34
ChairmanAgnostic Mar 2016 #47
leveymg Mar 2016 #190
DanTex Mar 2016 #193
leveymg Mar 2016 #195
leveymg Mar 2016 #197
Politicalboi Mar 2016 #14
DanTex Mar 2016 #19
NCTraveler Mar 2016 #26
grasswire Mar 2016 #32
2pooped2pop Mar 2016 #224
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #50
DanTex Mar 2016 #54
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #101
DanTex Mar 2016 #102
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #104
DanTex Mar 2016 #107
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #110
DanTex Mar 2016 #111
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #115
polly7 Mar 2016 #143
tex-wyo-dem Mar 2016 #139
72DejaVu Mar 2016 #4
NCTraveler Mar 2016 #29
orpupilofnature57 Mar 2016 #5
21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #152
bobbobbins01 Mar 2016 #6
grasswire Mar 2016 #10
AtomicKitten Mar 2016 #146
orpupilofnature57 Mar 2016 #13
orpupilofnature57 Mar 2016 #18
JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #121
840high Mar 2016 #55
Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #113
GreenPartyVoter Mar 2016 #150
21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #154
bvar22 Mar 2016 #216
peacebird Mar 2016 #8
Politicalboi Mar 2016 #9
marions ghost Mar 2016 #15
grasswire Mar 2016 #16
840high Mar 2016 #59
grasswire Mar 2016 #22
Tarc Mar 2016 #24
grasswire Mar 2016 #40
Tarc Mar 2016 #112
druidity33 Mar 2016 #155
Tarc Mar 2016 #161
druidity33 Mar 2016 #172
Tarc Mar 2016 #175
grasswire Mar 2016 #180
Tarc Mar 2016 #183
grasswire Mar 2016 #186
Tarc Mar 2016 #214
grasswire Mar 2016 #220
Tarc Mar 2016 #223
druidity33 Mar 2016 #213
Rilgin Mar 2016 #200
grasswire Mar 2016 #208
840high Mar 2016 #66
eggman67 Mar 2016 #131
DarthDem Mar 2016 #27
desmiller Mar 2016 #69
AtomicKitten Mar 2016 #158
WillyT Mar 2016 #30
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #31
RobertEarl Mar 2016 #33
amborin Mar 2016 #35
grasswire Mar 2016 #43
Starry Messenger Mar 2016 #36
grasswire Mar 2016 #41
Starry Messenger Mar 2016 #42
grasswire Mar 2016 #48
Starry Messenger Mar 2016 #52
NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #45
grasswire Mar 2016 #46
NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #75
Else You Are Mad Mar 2016 #90
grasswire Mar 2016 #94
Else You Are Mad Mar 2016 #97
Kentonio Mar 2016 #149
840high Mar 2016 #68
NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #86
840high Mar 2016 #122
NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #124
Land of Enchantment Mar 2016 #108
NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #118
Land of Enchantment Mar 2016 #125
NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #126
cheapdate Mar 2016 #49
grasswire Mar 2016 #51
cheapdate Mar 2016 #78
cosmicone Mar 2016 #53
grasswire Mar 2016 #56
cosmicone Mar 2016 #63
wyldwolf Mar 2016 #57
Hydra Mar 2016 #58
grasswire Mar 2016 #65
Hydra Mar 2016 #73
grasswire Mar 2016 #76
redstateblues Mar 2016 #109
MisterP Mar 2016 #162
Jarqui Mar 2016 #61
grasswire Mar 2016 #67
Jarqui Mar 2016 #80
grasswire Mar 2016 #83
Jarqui Mar 2016 #96
grasswire Mar 2016 #130
Jarqui Mar 2016 #151
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #64
840high Mar 2016 #72
grasswire Mar 2016 #77
840high Mar 2016 #123
grasswire Mar 2016 #74
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #87
grasswire Mar 2016 #92
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #202
upaloopa Mar 2016 #70
grasswire Mar 2016 #79
upaloopa Mar 2016 #81
grasswire Mar 2016 #88
upaloopa Mar 2016 #91
grasswire Mar 2016 #93
upaloopa Mar 2016 #95
grasswire Mar 2016 #98
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #164
BlindTiresias Mar 2016 #219
deathrind Mar 2016 #71
bkkyosemite Mar 2016 #82
Kalidurga Mar 2016 #129
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #167
grasswire Mar 2016 #181
Else You Are Mad Mar 2016 #84
RedCappedBandit Mar 2016 #85
grasswire Mar 2016 #89
HassleCat Mar 2016 #99
thereismore Mar 2016 #106
grasswire Mar 2016 #119
rjsquirrel Mar 2016 #120
ALBliberal Mar 2016 #127
grasswire Mar 2016 #128
BreakfastClub Mar 2016 #137
grasswire Mar 2016 #138
Art_from_Ark Mar 2016 #147
senz Mar 2016 #148
sufrommich Mar 2016 #153
PonyUp Mar 2016 #157
Vinca Mar 2016 #159
mmonk Mar 2016 #171
Vinca Mar 2016 #179
spooky3 Mar 2016 #160
FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #170
spooky3 Mar 2016 #174
rgbecker Mar 2016 #165
JoePhilly Mar 2016 #166
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #168
JoePhilly Mar 2016 #169
grasswire Mar 2016 #184
arcane1 Mar 2016 #176
fredamae Mar 2016 #178
jalan48 Mar 2016 #187
grasswire Mar 2016 #188
jalan48 Mar 2016 #189
Tarc Mar 2016 #191
grasswire Mar 2016 #194
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #201
Prism Mar 2016 #209
Lazy Daisy Mar 2016 #210
polly7 Mar 2016 #217
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #215
lostnfound Mar 2016 #218
Rosa Luxemburg Mar 2016 #227
pacalo Mar 2016 #228
Uncle Joe Mar 2016 #229
grasswire Mar 2016 #230

Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:51 PM

1. Libya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:55 PM

7. Is it treason for a Secretary of State to do what she reportedly did?

Pay an advisor who was banned by the POTUS, take that foreign policy advice and use it to convince POTUS to attack Libya against the concerns of POTUS and his advisors? And communicate about it on a private, secret UNSECURED server?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:00 PM

17. No. Treason has a very specific definition

 

It is knowingly and intentionally providing aid and comfort (that is, material or direct service) to an enemy of the United States. An "enemy" of the united states is defined as any nation or enetity whim we exist in a state of war against.

Being a dumbfuck and oops, Daesh has a forward base in Libya isn't treason. it's just being a dumbfuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:05 PM

28. well, what is the punishment for betraying POTUS?

Knowingly giving him bad advice from a BANNED advisor, in order to implement foreign policy that resulted in disaster -- and keeping it all secret from POTUS.

That's gotta be a crime. More than malfeasance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #28)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:08 PM

38. Apparently, being replaced by John kerry

 

What's a banned advisor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #38)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:25 PM

60. He shoots, he scores!!

Banned advisor: Sidney Blumenthal. Banned from providing advice by Obama. Hired by Clinton at the Foundation. Continued to provide advice to Clinton via secret emails on an unsecured server.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #60)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:27 PM

62. So like, there was a memo, "Don't take advice from this motherfucker"?

 

I'm seriously asking, I don't know how this goes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Wilms (Reply #132)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:01 AM

136. hmm Rich Lowry might be considered a bannable source.

Dunno. You might want to delete that link. I read it, and thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #136)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:17 AM

145. It's a minefield!

 

Here's the NY Times. Not a particularly trustworthy source, itself, on a given day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/politics/16emanuel.html

I'm not sure that there is controversy about the basics of the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #145)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:39 AM

163. So, let's untangle some threads, because influence is interesting.

 

Hillary gets Rahm demoted in her husband's administration.

Rahm supports Obama in 2008.

Blumenthal supported Hillary in 2008.

Obama's team perceived Blumenthal as an untrustworthy asshole, but Hillary knows he is on "her team".

Obama wins, and Hillary becomes his Secretary of State, thus joining the Obama team/building her resume.

Rahm tells Hillary that Blumenthal is NOT WELCOME.

Bill pays Blumenthal $120k.

Hillary continues to talk to him, but only RECEIVES advice; presumably Bill passes on pillow talk about her concerns thus giving her plausible deniability about him knowing FROM HER about her concerns. (Seriously, it's a big world and he knew she only needed one country - wait! It was from the folks he was getting paid by, so possibly no pillow talk - just her husband paying him.)

Blumenthal maintains his ability to influence policy through this channel while waiting for primary hostility to disapate.

Rahm ends up Mayor of Chicago as reward for Obama loyalty.

He is publicly viewed as a Clintonista based on the Bill connection.

Bernie publicly criticizes him/Rahm supports Hillary.

What a convoluted mess!

Do I have it down?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #163)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:43 AM

173. That's what I got...so far.

 

Her entourage does not encourage me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #163)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:55 PM

182. oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive

I think that's why Hillary lies; it's just impossible to keep all the spinning plates in the air at the same time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #62)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:53 PM

225. Here's the NYT story on it in 2009...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:09 PM

39. I'm no lawyer so can't comment on whether its treason but what seems criminal is

the conflict-of-interest that was not disclosed to Obama. I imagine Clinton was aware of Sidney's financial interest but Obama wouldn't have since he didn't know Sidney was involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snagglepuss (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:14 PM

44. yeah and the Clinton Foundation had him on the payroll. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #44)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:37 PM

100. As I think about it, Hillary's acceptance of his advice when he had a financial

interest in the outcome is arguably the most egregious example of either her appalling lack of judgment or her utter acceptance that corruption is simply a given.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snagglepuss (Reply #100)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:12 AM

142. yeah!

tip of the iceberg, I fear

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snagglepuss (Reply #100)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:44 AM

156. it's crony capitalism at its worst.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snagglepuss (Reply #100)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:55 PM

226. I'll take door #2...

..."her utter acceptance that corruption is simply a given".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:57 AM

134. Something else about this whole thing that...

Never seems to be discussed is that all that official SoS communication is supposed to be part of the public record. With all that data stored on a private un- secure server, it was completely out of the public control and would never have seen the light of day if it hadn't been for a FOIA and FBI investigation. Who knows what was lost when the server was "wiped with a cloth".

At best this is a violation of the public trust, at worst, illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #134)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:59 AM

135. that's true, too

good point

but she was apparently also hiding it from Obama, who did not know about the private server.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #135)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:10 AM

140. If you distill this all down, the corruption,..

disseption and violation of trust is stunning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #140)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:11 AM

141. I agree.

And think how much we have yet to learn about the intersection of the Foundation and donors being given favors through the state department.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #141)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:17 AM

144. Yes, pay to play...

Cronyism at its most egregious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #134)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:59 PM

185. I'll speak up here: you are right that the avoidance of FOIA/subpoena is probably the prime motive,

but, her operation of a private server upon which she, herself, placed classified information in at least 104 emails, and those with whom she communicated did the same on at least two thousand occasions, makes what she did an open and shut case of felony violation of 18 USC Sec. 793 (e) and (f) and other laws. Please, see, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653 That is far worse than a violation of the public trust, and far, far worse than Petraeus's violation of his classified information agreement, which only involved two people - himself and his paramour, in unauthorized sharing of TS/SAP information. Hillary's uncertified server involved her entire staff and hundreds of others who may not have been aware that it was an illegal system. This makes this one of the largest classified information breeches in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #185)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:07 PM

192. !!!!

I am not convinced that avoidance of FOIA is the prime motive, although it certainly was A motive most likely.

I think we are seeing a pattern that indicates she had set up a rogue operation to circumvent President Obama's oversight. Financed by the Clinton Foundation donors.

And that is some serious perfidy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #192)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:25 PM

196. Not sure that any Fed official can avoid the oversight of the President, unless he agrees to that

The only way that setting up a private server -- especially one on which classified materials were being exchanged internationally -- would have actually evaded detection and consequences would be if the President had ordered NSA to immediately "minimize" the intercepts that netted her communications. The only way such an order would have been issued would be if the President was party to setting up the system. On 60 Minutes in December, he was asked about that, and he replied he did not authorize the server.

If Obama "misspoke" there, it could only be that it was authorized, and the only reason that would make any sense for that would be that the server was a lure in a giant disinformation/counterespionage program. Possible, but I think very unlikely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #196)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:30 PM

198. we are really in the weeds now

Must we assume that the NSA would report Hillary's off-system communications to Obama?

Considering the rogue nature of the NSA elites themselves...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #198)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:40 PM

199. By binding Presidential Order and the UCMJ, they are required to send any evidence of espionage up

the chain of command. The trading of classified information over a private server is an on its face violation of the Espionage Act. I find it more likely the head of the NSA would be acting with Gen. Petraeus than the Secretary of State. But, as we know, Petraeus was working with Hillary to pressure Obama into a wider covert program in Libya and Syria.

I have long concluded that Petraeus was under very close surveillance, and that long predated the Paula Broadwell emails that we are told set off the FBI investigation. All that seems to be a Seven Days in May sort of pretext.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #199)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:04 PM

203. As for the head of the NSA at the time, that was Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander

Wiki:

He attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, and in his class were three other future four-star generals, David Petraeus, Martin Dempsey and Walter L. Sharp
(. . .)
Alexander headed the Army Intelligence and Security Command, where in 2001 he was in charge of 10,700 spies and eavesdroppers worldwide. In the words of James Bamford who wrote his biography for Wired, "Alexander and the rest of the American intelligence community suffered a devastating defeat when they were surprised by the attacks on 9/11." Alexander's reaction was to order his intercept operators to begin to monitor the email and phone calls of American citizens who were unrelated to terrorist threats, including the personal calls of journalists.[1]

In 2003, he was named deputy chief of staff for intelligence for the U.S. Army. Under his command were the units responsible for Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse in Baghdad, Iraq. Testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Alexander called the abuse "totally reprehensible" and described the perpetrators as a "group of undisciplined MP soldiers".[8] Mary Louise Kelly, who interviewed him later for NPR, said that because he was "outside the chain of command that oversaw interrogations in Iraq", Alexander was able to survive with his "reputation intact".[9]

In 2004, along with Alberto Gonzales and others in the Bush 43 administration, Alexander presented a memorandum that sought to justify the treatment of those who were deemed "unlawful enemy combatants".[10]

In June 2013, the National Security Agency was revealed by whistle-blower Edward Snowden to be secretly spying on the American people with FISA approved surveillance programs such as PRISM and XKeyscore.

On 16 October 2013, it was publicly announced that Keith Alexander and his Deputy, Chris Inglis were leaving the NSA.[4]


NSA appointment

Alexander became a three-star general. In 2005, Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense, named him Director of the National Security Agency. There, according to Bamford, Alexander deceived the House Intelligence Committee when his agency was involved in NSA warrantless wiretapping.[1] Also during this period, Alexander oversaw the implementation of the Real Time Regional Gateway in Iraq, an NSA data collection program that consisted of gathering all electronic communication, storing it, and then searching and otherwise analyzing it. A former senior U.S. intelligence agent described Alexander's program: "Rather than look for a single needle in the haystack, his approach was, ‘Let’s collect the whole haystack. Collect it all, tag it, store it. . . . And whatever it is you want, you go searching for it.”[11]

By 2008, the Regional Gateway was effective in providing information about Iraqi insurgents who had eluded less comprehensive techniques.[11] This "collect it all" strategy introduced by Keith Alexander is believed by Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian to be the model for the comprehensive world-wide mass archiving of communications which NSA had become engaged in by 2013.[12]

According to Siobhan Gorman of The Wall Street Journal, a government official stated that Alexander offered to resign after the 2013 global surveillance disclosures first broke out in June 2013 but that the Obama Administration asked him not to resign.[13]


Cyber command

Alexander was confirmed by the U.S. Senate for appointment to the rank of general on May 7, 2010[14] and was officially promoted to that rank in a ceremony on May 21, 2010. General Alexander assumed command of United States Cyber Command in the same ceremony that made him a four-star general.[15]

He delivered the keynote address at Black Hat USA in July 2013. The organizers describe Alexander as an advocate of "battlefield visualization and 'data fusion' for more useful intelligence". He provided them with this quote:

As our dependence on information networks increases, it will take a team to eliminate vulnerabilities and counter the ever-growing threats to the network. We can succeed in securing it by building strong partnerships between and within the private and public sectors, encouraging information sharing and collaboration, and creating and leveraging the technology that affords us the opportunity to secure cyberspace...[16]

Statements to the public regarding NSA operations

Alexander gave the most comprehensive interview of his career, which spanned some 17,000 words, on 8 May 2014 to the Australian Financial Review journalist Christopher Joye, which was subsequently cited by Edward Snowden.[17] The full transcript, which covers NSA operations, Snowden, the metadata debates, encryption controversies, and Chinese and Russian spying, has been published online. On Snowden, Alexander told Joye: "I suspect Russian intelligence are driving what he does. Understand as well that they’re only going to let him do those things that benefit Russia, or stand to help improve Snowden’s credibility".[18] Wired Magazine said the AFR interview with Alexander showed he was defending the stock-piling of zero-days (retention of data intercepted that includes US person communications that are supposed to be retained by NSA for "zero days." while the Wall Street Journal and other media focussed on Alexander's claims about Snowden working for Russian intelligence.[19][20] In July 2012, in response to a question from DEF CON founder Jeff Moss asking “does the NSA really keep a file on everyone?,” Alexander replied, “No, we don’t. Absolutely no. And anybody who would tell you that we’re keeping files or dossiers on the American people knows that’s not true.”[21]

In March 2012, in response to questions during a U.S. congressional hearing from Representative Hank Johnson about allegations made by former NSA officials that the NSA engages in collection of voice and digital information of U.S. citizens Alexander was asked in a number of ways, and replied that, despite the allegations of "James Bashford" [sic] in Wired, the NSA does not collect that data.[22]

On July 9, 2012, when asked by a member of the press if a large data center in Utah was used to store data on American citizens, Alexander stated, "No. While I can't go into all the details on the Utah data center, we don't hold data on U.S. citizens."[23]

At DEF CON 2012, Alexander was the keynote speaker; during the question and answers session, in response to the question "Does the NSA really keep a file on everyone, and if so, how can I see mine?" Alexander replied "Our job is foreign intelligence" and that "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false...From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense."[22]

On June 6, 2013, the day after Snowden's revelations, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper released a statement admitting the NSA collects telephony metadata on millions of Americans telephone calls.[24] This metadata information included originating and terminating telephone number, telephone calling card number, IMEI number, time and duration of phone calls.[25]

Andy Greenberg of Forbes said that NSA officials, including Alexander, in the years 2012 and 2013 "publicly denied–often with carefully hedged words–participating in the kind of snooping on Americans that has since become nearly undeniable."[22] In September 2013, Alexander was asked by Senator Mark Udall if it is the goal of the NSA to "collect the phone records of all Americans", to which Alexander replied:

"Yes, I believe it is in the nation's best interest to put all the phone records into a lockbox that we could search."
— Keith B. Alexander, September 2013[26]

Retirement

General Alexander announced his retirement on October 16, 2013.[27] His retirement date was March 28, 2014, and his replacement was U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Michael S. Rogers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #203)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:09 PM

204. yes

that's precisely who I was seeing in my mind's eye when discussing whether the NSA would be obligated to warn Obama of Hillary's end run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #204)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:18 PM

206. What, exactly, do you mean by 'Hillary's end run"? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #206)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:19 PM

207. going against Obama's instructions to ban Blumenthal. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #207)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:29 PM

211. Was that Obama's instruction, or Rahm Emanuel's?

All high gov't officials have networks of confidantes and secret informers who do business deals on the side with a bit of help from their friends upstairs. Hillary is no exception, and it seems on its face that Sid Blumenthal and Tyler Drumheller were doing the same thing for Hillary in Libya what Ed Wilson was doing in Libya for Vice President H.W. Bush. Some black op arms dealing/war profiteering and off-the-books intelligence collection.

Was this entirely unknown to Obama through his channels? Not entirely. I wouldn't bet on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #211)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:42 PM

212. good point nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:51 PM

2. If I did this as a government employee, I'd be in prison

It's interesting to see "Democrats" argue for a different set of rules for the rich and powerful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shawn703 (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:14 PM

221. Yep, me too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:52 PM

3. LOL. Can't win with the voters, so try the courts!

Sorry, it's not going to work either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:58 PM

11. Last I heard no one has won yet, including Hillary

And based on recent revelations, there is a good chance she's not going to be worthy of any citizens vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berni_mccoy (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:01 PM

21. I guess you're not paying attention then. Hillary sealed it yesterday with a 5-0.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:05 PM

25. Oh does that mean she won ALL the delegates? Or some of them?

Did Bernie suspend his campaign, or commit to continuing to the end (with his millions of donors)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berni_mccoy (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:08 PM

37. She's up by 300+. Insurmountable. Game over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #37)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:45 PM

103. I take your responses to mean you see no problems with

what she was doing at State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beowulf (Reply #103)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:48 PM

105. We need to beat Trump. The email nonsense is a distraction.

I couldn't care less about it, except to the degree that it helps Trump win, which seems to be what a lot of Hillary-haters here are trying to accomplish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #105)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:03 PM

114. That's such a simplistic response.

It's true I loathe the kind of politics she represents. One part of that is the cavalier attitude towards the law and the reckless way she treated classified material.

To imply this makes me a default Trump supporter is in keeping with the bankrupt rationales the DNC has been peddling for years - vote for our candidates or you'll get someone who is much worse and scary. Sorry, that logic is meaningless to me. As I told the young man from the DNC who called me after I cancelled my membership, you have to give me a reason to vote FOR a candidate. Instead it's just doubling down on the same old, same old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beowulf (Reply #114)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:05 PM

116. It's accurate. And Bernie said the same thing in the first debate.

Who cares about the damn emails? Nobody except for die-hard Hillary haters.

What matters is the future of the country, not some email server. And, yes, if you don't vote for the Democratic nominee, then you are a default Trump supporter. It's not complicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #116)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:12 PM

117. I guess in your uncomplicated world it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #116)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:27 AM

133. Man, that is some serious simplistic rational you're peddling...

In case you haven't noticed, this is a Democratic/progressive/liberal sight...most of us can see through more than one layer of bullshit.

If you think Trumpf won't hammer on the email controversy mercilessly, and doesn't already have all the goods on Hillary, well I've got some prime Kansas beachfront property to sell you. Trumpf has already brought the issue up several times in campaign speeches and press conferences...saying stuff like "I don't even know if Hillary will even be able to run if she's dealing with a federal indictment, which she very well could be"....paraphrasing, but pretty damn close to what he actually said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:17 PM

222. Guess math isn't your forte. Neither is sportsmanship. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:25 PM

177. Yeah and

this comes out the next day. If she isn't charged with something, it does become an issue. It shows her to be even more untrustworthy than anyone thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:15 PM

205. BOOYAH BABY GO HILLARY!!!!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:58 PM

12. Seriously? Huh?

Horses who are easily distracted wear blinders. Humans are the opposite. Some put on blinders on purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:01 PM

20. I know, it's weird that Bernie fans are so blind to the vote totals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #20)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:04 PM

23. I am so sorry for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #23)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:07 PM

34. Thank you! I did cut myself shaving yesterday, I appreciate your concern!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #34)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:16 PM

47. Ig

Nore

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:05 PM

190. No. It's HRC who wants us to ignore that GOP primaries turned out 4 million more than Dems

in the same primary states to date. That's about 17 million (R) to 13 million (D) primary voters. That is a virtual 180 degree skid from the numbers in 2008. With Hillary at the head of the ticket in November, we'll have a serious GOTV problem.

Of the combined 30 million who showed up at caususes and primaries so far, only seven million voted for Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #190)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:09 PM

193. LOL. So you think we'd be better of with the candidate who got even less votes than Hillary?

The one who lost by large margins in the key swing states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia?

I haven't seen much evidence that primary turnout has much predictive value in the GE, but even if you believe that, it is utterly illogical that you think the guy who has gotten less primary votes, both overall and in key swing states, is somehow a better bet for November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #193)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:13 PM

195. In the General, where Independents determine the outcome, Bernie is a far better candidate.

All comes down to comparative negatives, which is a major factor in both party GOTV turnout, and more importantly, the all-important Independent vote.

Stop laughing. It's not at all funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #195)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:28 PM

197. Notice that you didn't respond DanTex. Would like to hear your response, unless you concede that

Particularly, the not at all funny part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:59 PM

14. Yeah right

 

Drip Drip Drip

We CAN win with the votes and WILL win with the votes. As soon as she drops out it will be smooth sailing with or without you. This is not our doing. So you blame us for this. LOL! Typical coming from who you support. She created this mess all by HERSELF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:00 PM

19. I hope your conspiracy theories work out well for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:05 PM

26. +1 Going Gowdy

 

This crap needs to stop. It's right wing deception being drafted for the left. An overwhelming majority see right through it but some will happily disseminate it for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #26)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:07 PM

32. So you dispute the information from Hillary's own emails?

They were hacked. They have been ordered released through FOIA. They are what they are.

She did this to herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #26)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:00 PM

224. Hillary's history of poor decisions have nothing to do with right wing

 

More like wrong wrong Hillary. She is dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:21 PM

50. Sad that you side with the Ruling Class. But it makes sense.

 

Sooner or later we will take down the corrupt culture of Big Money in politics that you seem to revere. By the way Goldman-Sachs isn't interested helping the 50,000,000 American living in poverty. Are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #50)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:22 PM

54. I side with Hillary, and with the Democratic electorate.

It's sad that you want the courts to override the will of the people.

Fortunately, hoping for an indictment is every bit as delusional as thinking that Bernie was going to beat Hillary in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #54)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:38 PM

101. LOL. The will of the people. Goldman-Sachs uber alles, right? nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #101)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:44 PM

102. You know, the whole voting thing that happened. You do believe in Democracy, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #102)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:47 PM

104. And you believe the rich and super-rich should rule, right? Goldman-Sachs will make higher and

 

higher profits and the poverty rates will skyrocket. Right? Death to the middle and working classes and all hail the rich and powerful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #104)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:52 PM

107. No. That's why I support Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #107)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:56 PM

110. You do know that her and Bill have amassed $150 million dollars in a short time, all from

 

billionaires and corporations? They are going for $300 million and maybe more. They are in the top 1% of the top 1%.

The Ruling Class doesn't care about the 50,000,000 living in poverty. Clinton will never ask her friends that have made her super wealthy to help with poverty. She hasn't even made it a priority. Best she could do is say she'd work to close some loopholes. Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #110)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:59 PM

111. LOL. Same old Hillary-bashing. Don't you get bored with it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #111)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:04 PM

115. That's your response? I won't stop fighting the domination of the Ruling Class.

 

We have 16,000,000 children living in poverty and another 16,000,000 living in low income homes. I won't stop fighting until that changes and Clinton with her priority of amassing millions and millions and her sponsor Goldmans-Sachs will not save a single child. In fact the poverty rate will continue to climb. They view poverty as collateral to their quest for more money and power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #115)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:13 AM

143. Some people are ok with little children going hungry while those at the top get fatter.

They've got theirs, why do they have to care?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:06 AM

139. Give it a rest....

If you can't see that this whole issue could blow up and seriously harm the whole Democratic Party with Hillary at the helm, I just don't know what to say. get your head out of the sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:52 PM

4. Here ya go, drop your boy a line

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 72DejaVu (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:06 PM

29. Yup. Going Gowdy. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:55 PM

5. Entitlement, Cheating, Lying, soliciting sympathy, soliciting personal gains from her position,,,

 

TRUST .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orpupilofnature57 (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:42 AM

152. Entitlement indeed.

Even if Mrs Clinton did nothing wrong, the sense of entitlement displayed by everything she did is staggering.

I can never imagine Mr Sanders acting in such a shamelessly entitled manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:55 PM

6. Regardless of whether or not she gets indicted...

This will follow her as far as she goes. If she if the nominee, she'll get slammed with it. If she becomes president, we'll have hearings every other day about it. She'll be impeached almost immediately. It will never end, the republicans will use it until they run her out of office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:56 PM

10. Impeachment papers will be served on Inauguration Day.

It will never end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:21 AM

146. so true

 

endless

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:58 PM

13. Once you drink the water from the well .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:00 PM

18. Two Clinton's Impeached back to back ,how historic .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orpupilofnature57 (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:35 PM

121. Well, she can't claim sexism in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:24 PM

55. Imagine the debates.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:03 PM

113. And her acolytes won't give a single, solitary fuck.

 

It's all about winning for the team, for the brand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:24 AM

150. Maybe Bernie should accept the Veep spot after all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenPartyVoter (Reply #150)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:51 AM

154. I can't imagine Mrs Clinton choosing Mr Sanders as Vice President.

Mrs Clinton has been planning for this moment for a long time. One can be assured that she has had old friends and cronies lined up for every public position available for a long time. They are all gagging to get in and take their place at the trough by now.

And I think she views Mr Sanders as a nuisance. The only reason she won't attack him by saying that he's a Communist is that she's running on the Democratic ticket and not the Republican one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 21st Century Poet (Reply #154)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:19 PM

216. I can't imagine Bernie accepting a VP spot from Hillary.

He is far more influential serving in The Senate.
I can't see Bernie agreeing to participate in the BIG MONEY corruption that follows Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:56 PM

8. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:56 PM

9. Delicious!!!!!!!!

 

She is going to be in some trouble. THIS is why we need Bernie to stay in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:59 PM

15. Just one of many

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:00 PM

16. absolutely

It seems to be the fallback position for the GOP if they can't rid themselves of Trump. Impeachment papers are filed on the day Hillary is inaugurated.

That's a three fer for them.

Hillary gets rid of Trump. Bernie's vanquished. And they get to beat Hillary over the head like she's never been beaten up before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:25 PM

59. She's had baggage following her

 

for far too many years. Seems sh3e just can't be honest and on the up and up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:03 PM

22. Note: all of this information except for the speculation about what WILL happen to her..

...comes directly from the reported content of her emails and reports of her actions.

It isn't made up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:05 PM

24. The right-wing water is still being carried in this forum

Sanders himself proved his character with the "sick and tired" line at that debate. I dearly wish his followers could live up to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:10 PM

40. Sanders did not know then what we know now.

The release of the emails is ongoing, you know. More is revealed with each dump.

Most people think the fracas is just whether or not some emails were classified at some time.

That is a limited hangout. Meant to simply distract further inquiry. A rovian trick.

Drip, drip, drip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #40)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:01 PM

112. Nothing new had been revealed

We knew then that no classified materials were mishandled by Clinton.

We know now that no classified materials were mishandled by Clinton.

Keep trying though, if you think this is a valid line of attack on your opponent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #112)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:25 AM

155. Some materials are BORN Classified...

The head of the State Dept should have had staff that could've figured these out. The whole line that they weren't labeled Classified is TOTAL bullshit and anyone with a smidgeon of honesty knows that. Also, given that she used an UNsecure server... everything she had was "mishandled", Classified or no.

Fact is, this was a serious screw-up on her part. The more we all hear about the details, the shadier it seems...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to druidity33 (Reply #155)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:19 AM

161. "Some materials are BORN Classified"

Er, no, that's not how the system works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #161)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:12 AM

172. Er, yes. Yes it is...

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-exclusive-dozens-of-clinton-emails-were-classified-from-the-start-us-rules-suggest-2015-8

Suppose someone sent the name and contact info of an informant to the SoS? Or maybe confidential testimony about a World leader?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to druidity33 (Reply #172)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:12 PM

175. Analysis from right-wing sources on classification is not gonna cut it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #161)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:51 PM

180. yes it is, and it's a real term.

shows what YOU know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #180)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:57 PM

183. More than you, apparently

And others still trying to nitpick to death a right-wing talking point.

What's sad is that you actually think this line of attack will carry Sanders to the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #183)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:00 PM

186. sorry....you revealed your level of knowledge about the matter. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #186)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:07 PM

214. Hillary Clinton, at no time, sent classified material

All the Fox News-esque talking points sitll can't get you over that hump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #214)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:39 PM

220. did you look up the term "born classified" yet? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #220)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:52 PM

223. does that come before "grasping at straws"

or after "doing the Free Republic's legwork" ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #183)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:05 PM

213. Ask someone with "Clearance" sometime

whether they would've been prosecuted for what she did. Maybe do some research on who has already been prosecuted (and served time) for doing what she did. You are showing a remarkable level of callous ignorance here. Fitting that you dismiss this concern with the Right-Wing "talking point" canard.

"What's sad is that you actually think this line of attack will carry Sanders to the nomination." Where the hell did that come from? She was wrong. Period. The continual obfuscation and dismissal of this issue is hurting her chances for a win in the General. Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #161)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:53 PM

200. Information is classified, not the medium of communication.

Cheney's Chief of Staff called a reporter and leaked that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. No where in the conversation was there a stamp hanging in the air in front of him with a classification mark.

It is not the medium of communication, it is the information that is classified or not. A stamp on a document tells the reader that the document (email, memo, photo etc) has been reviewed by someone (could be the originator of the document or it could be someone reviewing it) who has determined that the document contains confidential information. However, that does not mean that the stamp is what makes it confidential. Unstamped documents also contain confidential/classified information.

Your argument seems to be that its not illegal to tell an enemy the most highly classified information if you make sure when you write the memo or letter that you do not stamp it yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rilgin (Reply #200)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:20 PM

208. that's what "born classified" info is. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:29 PM

66. FBI and 2 judges - all right wing?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #66)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:57 AM

131. Let us not forget

The two Obama appointed Inspectors General. Totally right wing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:05 PM

27. Thanks for the Summary, But . . .


. . . this is going nowhere. Except in the minds of right-wing spin doctors.

And if Mrs. Clinton wins in November as I hope and expect, and the House of Representatives is still controlled by the Goopers in January (which is not a lock), any impeachment will fail in the Senate, bore the country to tears, and make Mrs. Clinton more popular, probably resulting in better results for Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DarthDem (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:32 PM

69. Always a "but." Typical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DarthDem (Reply #27)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:50 AM

158. She can buy more Facebook likes & Twitter followers.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:07 PM

30. HUGE K & R !!!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:07 PM

31. As what I've read, that's a good summary.

 

Day 1 on the job, and she went rogue. Obvious ignored orders from the boss, and thinks rules don't apply to her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:07 PM

33. FUBAR

 

[FONT SIZE=20][CENTER]FUBAR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:08 PM

35. the whole thing reeks! going behind Obama's back! Blumenthal had smeared Obama during '08

and that was one reason Obama had him BANNED from the WH and from ANY State Dept biz.

and here Blumenthal is providing Hiillary continual input on St Dept biz in Libya

and: HIllary lied during the testimony: read the verbatim testimony and notice her prevaricating:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511468802

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #35)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:13 PM

43. Apparently, the last time there was a rogue State Department...

...was during the Nixon administration, under Allen Dulles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:08 PM

36. Keep ******* that chicken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #36)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:11 PM

41. I'm sorry, I can't read your mind.

Please spell out what you have hidden there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #41)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:12 PM

42. Can't.

It's classified material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #42)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:17 PM

48. Do you have anything to say about the facts of the matter...

...as exposed in Clinton's emails?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #48)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:22 PM

52. Yes. See my first post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:15 PM

45. Bernie loses five states in one night ...

... and we're back to emails, imminent indictments, unreleased transcripts, photos with Kissinger, attendance at Trump's wedding reception, "running a rogue State department", "old deep ties", "secret private servers", etc., in a desperate attempt to turn the tide.

That drip, drip, drip sound you hear is Bernie losing his bid for the nomination. And a million anti-HRC posts on DU aren't going to change that FACT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #45)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:16 PM

46. why do you care? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #46)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:37 PM

75. Actually, I don't.

I am merely making an observation.

All of the anti-HRC/anti-Dem Party rhetoric that gets posted here is of no consequence in the real world. I simply find it amusing that some people here still believe it is.

If Bernie was the be-all and end-all candidate, there would be no need to post But what about HER!?! OPs. He would be winning on his own merits, instead of having to rely on making his opponent look bad.

Apparently, Bernie doesn't have enough positives to tout - so his supporters are left with posting negatives about Hillary.

It's been interesting to watch that dynamic unfold. When your support of one candidate is premised on demonizing the other candidate - often with reliance on innuendo, rumours, and RW gossip - you've pretty well admitted that you've already lost the argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #75)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:51 PM

90. Being...

Anti-Clinton regarding her emails is not tantamount to being anti-Democratic party. Sorry to say, but if she gets indicted or if this is used to defeat HRC in the GE it hurts all of the Democratic party. Putting one's head in the sand about this does not mean that those in the Democratic party that are worried about this are RW or Bernie Bros or anything else except legitimately worried about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Else You Are Mad (Reply #90)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:00 PM

94. You are a replying to someone who lives in Canada.

That's why I asked why she cares enough to comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #94)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:02 PM

97. Sorry

...I misunderstood what you said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #75)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:09 AM

149. That's pretty rich considering that 'demonizing the other candidate'

 

Has been half of Hillary's campaign strategy. The other half being pretending to hold exactly the same positions despite having repeatedly said the exact opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #45)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:31 PM

68. This has nothing to do

 

with Bernie. Clinton brought this on herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #68)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:48 PM

86. And she's still winning.

Apparently what you think "she's brought upon herself" is of no interest to those who are voting FOR her in larger numbers than those voting for Bernie.

Looks like that massive number of "revolutionists" Bernie was counting on never existed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #86)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:38 PM

122. It's of interest to many

 

who want an honest candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #122)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:41 PM

124. Apparently the majority of Dem voters ...

... think she is an honest candidate. That's why she's in the lead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #45)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:56 PM

108. Lost? If you call .2% in Missouri and a 1.8% in Illinois wins,,,,well, I guess you could not get a

good education. Sad. And Don't Call Me NANCY. (Inside joke on all the Nancys who have been cruel.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land of Enchantment (Reply #108)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:18 PM

118. The "wins" are based on delegates earned ...

... and HRC has far more of them then Bernie. She's also far ahead in actual votes cast.

If you think the nomination is earned any other way, it's you who needs the education as to how this process works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #118)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:31 AM

125. You (like your candidate) evaded my questions. I guess you will have to google all those candidates

so the next time someone asks you can provide a semi reasonable answer. She is ahead in votes cast because the DNC front loaded the primaries to serve their purpose of electing her. duh. She has about 300 more delegates for that very reason. Now it's Bernie's turn coming up and it will be a different game. How dare you--oh wait. I've learned that trying to reason with your kind is like trying to nail jello to the ceiling.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land of Enchantment (Reply #125)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:36 AM

126. Ah, yes, of course.

Hillary is only in the lead because the DNC has manipulated everything in her favour.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:20 PM

49. More of the same old bullshit. Nothing new. Hot air without substance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheapdate (Reply #49)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:21 PM

51. apparently you didn't read.

Keep on dreaming. Unfortunately HRC will drag all of us through hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #51)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:42 PM

78. I read. Same old shit. She used her personal email server. We know.

She was influential in the decision to attack Muammar Gaddafi. Right. We've known that since 2011. The Clinton Foundation received substantial donations from influential people, some of whom had relationships with Secretary Clinton. Yeah. The GOP did a whole big "thing" about this a year ago, with hearings and everything.

Nothing new here at all.

Your "drip, drip, drip" is a transparent right-wing tactic that's been used against Democrats for the past many years.

I'm not calling you a right-winger, but it is what it is.

I'm not interested in "drip, drip, drip." I have enough patience to wait for the full story to come out and I don't need minute, incremental updates.

I strongly suspect, for a variety of reasons, that nothing will come of this. The Secretary was not required by law to use government servers at the time. None of the emails yet revealed were unequivocally and indisputably classified at the time they were sent. The US Secretary of State by necessity communicates with her staff and advisers over matters of diplomacy and foreign policy. These communications by their nature are going to often be very sensitive. I find it hard to believe that -- short of sending troop positions to North Korea -- that a US Secretary of State is going to be charged with crimes over their communication practices.

Some "former intelligence official" might write a piece for Rupert Murdoch that claims the illegality is crystal clear, but the fact is that it's far from clear. There's way too much ambiguity all around.

Much ado over nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:22 PM

53. Those emails again? Meh

 

Everyone has moved on from that.

What is next for you? Vince Foster?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #53)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:24 PM

56. keep dreaming

wouldn't it be great if the American public had a little peace and quiet in the WH by electing an honest man with no baggage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #56)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:27 PM

63. Like ... Dalai Lama? He can't run. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:24 PM

57. President Hillary Clinton

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:24 PM

58. Obama must be furious

I'm assuming he knew all of this after it happened, but having all of this come out now make it look like he invited a monster that he couldn't control into his Administration.

His "legacy" is everything to him, and she threatens it at every turn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #58)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:28 PM

65. it could be seen that way, yes.

If I were going to be even more cynical, I would say that she totally dissed him, totally betrayed him by running this secret Libya intel op that turned into a debacle.

And she crows about preserving his legacy. The irony is boggling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #65)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:35 PM

73. She's not interested in his legacy

It's just a convenient way to tap into his positive PR. They both have at least a professional dislike of each other, but they are running things out of the same corporation and need each other at times.

Obama's supporters often talk about how he outmaneuvered the Clintons and turned them into useful pawns of his own. This makes it look more like Obama got pawned by the Bush Admin and the Clintons and is now stuck having to go all in supporting them all or lose his legacy and his new spot in the 1%.

Ugly business all around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #73)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:38 PM

76. hmmmm

Yes. Ugly business. But we know how the close the Bushes and Clintons are, and how Obama is NOT part of that club.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #76)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:56 PM

109. Yet Bernie wanted to primary Obama

but didn't have the cajones

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #73)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:33 AM

162. yeah, once a campaigning theme is played out it's dropped like an old shoe

Lanny Davis was Clinton's weasel in the henhouse on Honduras, like Blumenthal for Libya

for her, war is a particularly clever trick, getting rid of a regional enemy (this could include Brazil, mind you) AND "inoculating" her against those 3 am attack ads

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:26 PM

61. I haven't read all the responses but none said bathroom so ..

This is not true from what I've read:
"Further, after Hillary left the State Department, her secret private server was moved to a "mom and pop" service provider in Colorado -- a company that was so out of mainstream that her server was connected in the bathroom of the loft the company was housed in."

- particularly "mom and pop" and this "was connected in the bathroom of the loft the company was housed in."

The company was in Colorado. But they arranged for the server to be stored with a company in New Jersey (geographically closer). It was a professional outfit but not security cleared. Both companies cooperated with the FBI and reports say they turned over everything that had. There was some controversy over whether a cloud backup existed and Clinton's instructions to purge emails off the server which they suspected so they demanded instructions in writing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #61)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:30 PM

67. do you have cite for what you say?

because it contradicts what I have read. I agree about the controversy over the cloud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #67)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:42 PM

80. I read it in a few places ..

Platte River Networks: Clinton e-mail server was never in Denver
"There never was, at any time, data belonging to the Clintons stored in Denver. Ever," said Dovetail Solutions CEO Andy Boian, who added that Clinton's server was always in a New Jersey data center. "We do not store data in any bathrooms."


FBI Said to Recover Personal E-Mails From Hillary Clinton Server

In 2013, the Clintons turned the private server over to a Colorado-based technology company to manage. The firm, Platte River Networks, installed the device in a New Jersey data center and managed and maintained it.

Andy Boian, a spokesman for the Platte River, said the FBI last month asked the company to hand over the server. Platte River asked the Clintons what it should do, and within 24 hours a representative for the Clintons told the company to provide the device to agents, Boian said.
...



Unbeknownst to Clinton, IT firm had emails stored on cloud; now in FBI’s hands
A Connecticut company, which backed up Hillary Clinton‘s emails at the request of a Colorado firm, apparently surprised her aides by storing the emails on a “cloud” storage system designed to optimize data recovery.

The firm, Datto Inc., said Wednesday that it turned over the contents of its storage to the FBI on Tuesday.

A Republican Senate committee chairman, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, also has asked the firm to provide the committee copies of any data from Clinton’s account still in its possession.

There were conflicting accounts as to whether the developments could lead to retrieval of any of Clinton’s more than 31,000 personal emails, which she said she deleted from her private server upon turning over her work-related emails to the State Department, at its request, in December 2014.
....
Despite Boian’s statement that Platte River set up a 30-day revolving retention policy for Clinton’s emails, Johnson’s letter noted that Platte River employees were directed to reduce the amount of email data being stored with each backup. Late this summer, Johnson wrote, a Platte River employee took note of this change and inquired whether the company could search its archives for an email from Clinton Executive Service Corp. directing such a reduction in October or November 2014 and then again around February, advising Platte River to save only emails sent during the most recent 30 days.

Those reductions would have occurred after the State Department requested that Clinton turn over her emails.

It was here that a Platte River employee voiced suspicions about a cover-up and sought to protect the company. “If we have it in writing that they told us to cut the backups,” the employee wrote, “and that we can go public with our statement saying we have had backups since day one, then we were told to trim to 30 days, it would make us look a WHOLE LOT better,” according to the email cited by Johnson.

In the letter to Austin McChord, Datto’s CEO, Johnson asked the firm to produce copies of all communications it had relating to Clinton’s server, including those with Platte River and the Clinton firm.” He also asked whether Datto and its employees were authorized to store and view classified information and for details of any cyberattacks on the backup server.


There's many more articles - Google it - but that should suffice. Some disputed the cloud backup

EDIT: here's a couple of others that had lots to say on it
For IT firm, Clinton server gives rough introduction to presidential politics

Data firm gives FBI all backed-up Clinton emails

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #80)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:45 PM

83. correct me if I am wrong...

..but these three articles are all sourced to one person, Andy Boian.

I'll do some more digging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #83)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:01 PM

96. In the actual quotes I made, they reveal what the CEO of the firm said

as the spokesman for the firm in two of my quotes but there's more folks in the articles

But the key guy is that CEO as he's the top dog of the firm the Clintons passed control of their server to. Who else are you going to ask beyond him and whoever he allows to speak with the media.

But a number of fairly reputable newspapers speak with him and it all lines up. It's not one article making it up.

Some of the others where they have letters or quotes:
Senator Johnson letter
Quotes of another employee in the letter
"DeCamillis, now its vice president of sales and marketing" (referred to in WaPa article by Denver Post)
"Jim Zimmerman, who worked as a field engineer at Platte River"
"partnered with Datto, the Connecticut-based data protection business, to ensure Clinton’s emails were properly backed up."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #61)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:53 AM

130. consider this October article from Politico

Data firm gives FBI all backed-up Clinton emails
By RACHAEL BADE 10/07/15 03:14 PM EDT Updated 10/07/15 03:50 PM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
A Connecticut-based tech company that backed-up Hillary Clinton’s personal email account turned over a “hardware device” to the FBI Tuesday, the company said in a statement, adding that the FBI now has all of the Clinton emails the company had in its possession.
Colorado-based tech company Platte River Networks — which maintained Clinton’s server from the time she left office until it was turned over to the FBI in August — had partnered with Datto, the Connecticut-based data protection business, to ensure Clinton’s emails were properly backed up.
Story Continued Below

But while Clinton’s representatives and Platte River only asked Datto to provide an on-site back-up of her messages, they discovered in August that Datto had also been backing up her emails off-site in a cloud.
The news, first reported by McClatchy Tuesday, heightened the possibility that copies of Clinton’s messages — including roughly 30,000 “personal” messages she said she deleted — exist somewhere and could be recovered by the FBI.
151007_louise_slaughter_AP_1160.jpg

“With the consent of our client and their end user, and consistent with our policies regarding data privacy, yesterday, Tuesday, October 6, Datto delivered a hardware device to the FBI containing all backed up data related to Platte Rivers Networks' client known to be in its possession,” Datto said in a statement.
It’s unclear if the cloud back-up includes messages from Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. The company says it had “no role in monitoring the content or source of data stored by Managed Service Providers clients such as Platte River Networks.”
Meanwhile, Platte River, at the FBI’s request, is turning over the Datto device it used for on-site back-up of Clinton’s system, the Daily Caller reported Wednesday.
Platte River has already turned over Clinton’s server to the FBI after the intelligence community inspector general expressed concern about the number of classified emails on the unsecured system, including two messages the intelligence community said were “top secret.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-email-server-fbi-platte-river-214521#ixzz438EmBKTw

That sounds like three devices plus the cloud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #130)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:27 AM

151. I've seen so much reporting on at least some of the delete emails being

recovered, I wouldn't be surprised if they got a bunch of them. It's also popped up in the lawsuits.

I've also seen reports that some emails they found from the deleted emails were turned over to the investigators. Those investigators in receipt did not need to gawk at Chelsea's wedding plans or her mother's funeral plans - must have been something of substance in those deleted emails.

Again though, the FBI hasn't confirmed any of this publicly (they can't).

I had seen the stuff on the Datto device - it was in one of my links.

I did look at the bathroom allegation a little more. The earliest article I saw was in the UK's Daily Mail written by someone in Denver. (I didn't try to find the earliest). The only ones to carry the bathroom story were the right wing usuals.

Platte River were at the condo address not that long ago. BUT in 2012, they won a Denver or Colorado small business award and had 25 employees. The Daily Mail said they had just moved into the 12,000 sq ft facility. I think they moved in 2014/early 2015 into the new premises. But you're not going to have 25 people working in a condo. Nor are they likely to win a small business award from the city for working out of their little condo. I expect as they grew, they may have used the condo for servers and they may have torn out the upper bathroom for server use. But there's no evidence Clinton's server was ever out there. They probably had other office locations. And the "lofts" came from the name of the building they were at - it wasn't from a musty old attic loft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:27 PM

64. Ok. Let us assume she royally screwed up from "banned advisors" to

 

Mom-and-pop shop server storage with a big huge "HACK ME FOR GOVERNMENT SECRETS" sign pasted on the restroom wall.

Issue #1: Intent. I don't see this as an "on purpose treasonous" activity - more just general stupidity from a non-techie person whose subordinates can't say no and/or try to make the boss happy. I have seen execs simply not get technology issues/want to keep to systems they are familiar with or download "free stuff" until mean old corporate security says no. Her attitude when dealing with these issues seems similar.

Issue #2: Perception of Partisanship. Without a deeper understanding of just how borderline criminally stupid this stuff is, the charge of "bad email storage" seems partisan and stupid. Remember Iran-Contra? Actual criminal acts involving innocent lives destroyed and the safety of our nation endangered - and near hero status for the miscreants involved. Sorting 30,000 emails just seems like she was working her ass off.

Issue #3: Why didn't Obama fire her ass when he found out she was pulling this crap? And if it really was bad, why didn't he take care of making sure her political career and the Clinton Foundation was muzzled? He isn't a political lightweight - why is he even letting her play?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #64)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:35 PM

72. Because his legacy is at stake.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #72)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:39 PM

77. ...and she is claiming to preserve his legacy.

Actually, she is TRADING on it. Using it for her own purposes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #77)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:38 PM

123. yep

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #64)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:36 PM

74. thank you for good questions

#3: this information was just recently made known when a hacker revealed Sidney Blumenthal's emails to and from HRC. That hacker has been extradited to the U.S. and will be deposed. Stay tuned. Obama would not have known about this backstabbing until that hack.

#2: There is no notion that the charges will be "bad email storage" when she willfully knew that she was evading the laws and procedures regarding born classified information. As to running a rogue State Department foreign policy op, that's something else again and we are just beginning to learn about that.

#1: Intent will become more clear. Just today from the latest dump, we have learned of her KNOWING that the materials on her private secret server contained born classified into.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #74)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:50 PM

87. I am sceptical of Obama not knowing SOME of the issues -

 

White House IT had to have noticed she wasn't using email storage systems similar to previous people, right?

And people with this level of "oops - secret Blumenthal emails hacked" don't get extradition unless he is comfortable with them being prosecuted versus ignoring it. And he isn't stupid - keeping an eye on donations to the Clinton Foundation versus Hillary's budget is financial analysis 101, especially when former Presidents and cronyism charges are at risk to reinforce the importance of ethical behavior.

If he wants her taken down, she will go down. He plays Chicago style...so the fact she still has a career means either he likes her, or she has something to keep her safe.

I have frequently wondered if she is bait. The longer the Republicans think Hillary is it, the less prepared they are for Bernie. A constitutional scholar is not ignorant of the dangers of this type of dual residency, and Barack has access to all of the records from their previous terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #87)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:57 PM

92. "or she has something to keep her safe"

That is a worry, yes.

I appreciate your analysis.

Obama himself could be in a bad situation. If the FBI were to issue a criminal referral Obama would have to decide whether or not to let Lynch prosecute. Former AGs have said that if there is a referral, the AG would take the evidence to Hillary's lawyers and ask her how she wishes to plead. If Obama should choose to quash the FBI referral, Comey will likely resign. He is a straight arrow. And then we are in Watergate type territory.

Ugly stuff. Tough situation for Obama, potentially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #92)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:03 PM

202. Here is an interesting story...

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511515923

I go back to "if Obama doesn't want the Clintons in power, why isn't he saying so?"

Missing some key information....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:33 PM

70. Throughout Hillary's career there have been many attempts to bring her down by folks with scandals

to promote.

From Rose Law Firm records to Benghazi to emails. All of them by highly visible figures like Ken Starr and Trey Gowdy.

All have failed just like you will. Difference being is that you are never going to be a Ken Starr or a Trey Gowdy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #70)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:42 PM

79. I defended the Clintons for years.

I worked my tail off defending Bill Clinton.

Now I wonder if perhaps we Democrats were taken for a ride back then. When I see the level of corruption being revealed now and couple it with her attacks on Barack Obama in 2008, I see a whole new side of things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #79)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:43 PM

81. You don't know the Clintons.

Hillary will be our 45th President. No thanks to you. We have a election to work on. Why not help out or get out of the way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #81)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:50 PM

88. Because I believe the American people deserve a president...

...who will not be served with impeachment papers on Inauguration Day.

WHY should Americans have to fight this fight for Hillary every freaking day, when there are candidates who do NOT have this baggage, this history -- candidates who do not stir the animus on the right or on the left.

Martin O'Malley, for one. There are no FBI investigations of Martin O'Malley. His hands do not drip blood from failed foreign policy interventions. He has no ties to Wall Street or to fossil fuels.

And yet he was pushed aside by a flawed, flawed candidate for whom a possible majority of Americans will crawl over broken glass to vote against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #88)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:57 PM

91. Nobody agrees with you. You are part of some tiny group with an axe to grind.

You don't represent the American people. You represent you.

Like I said Hillary has taken a hell of a lot more from people a hell of a lot more powerful than you and she will be the most powerful person on earth and you will be not even a footnote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #91)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:58 PM

93. sure

Keep thinking that. I merely ask questions and look for answers.

You think that Hillary supporters represent the American people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #93)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:00 PM

95. Look at the votes she has gotten in the primary for your self. You don't ask questions you try to

destroy her. What kind of person comes here to do that? I mean what else motivates you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #95)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:02 PM

98. I did the same FOR the Clintons when they were under attack by the GOP.

I don't want to destroy her, even though I now consider her fully corrupted.

I just want her to step aside and let someone with no baggage be the candidate. Someone with high honesty and trustworthiness polling. Someone with traditional Democratic values, not corporatist shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #91)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:55 AM

164. I agree with him. Millions of other Americans agree, too.

 

Otherwise she would have 100% approval.

So basically, you have to lie to make your case - not that there isn't a case, but that no one cares.

The more I learn, the more I find myself disliking her.

I am already a footnote in history, and she is already powerful.

But my country has taken out kings before, so corrupt politicians can be removed, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #91)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:24 PM

219. ...

The Sanders form is dead, insect. Are you afraid? What is it that you fear? The end of your trivial existence? When the history of my glory is written, your species shall only be a footnote to my magnificence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:34 PM

71. Wow...

"a company that was so out of mainstream that her server was connected in the bathroom of the loft the company was housed in."

Classified information kept on a unsecured server hooked up in the bathroom of a small "mom and pop" company with "deep ties" to Bill Clinton

If this is true Hillary Clinton should be in jail not the in the position of front runner as the Democratic nominee for President.

Just wow...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:43 PM

82. Bill Clinton had to be involved in this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #82)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:47 AM

129. Sounds about right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #82)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:57 AM

167. He was paying Blumenthal $120k a year.

 

The foundation appears to exist to pay people, hence its donations.

It is almost like a Mafia protection thing - countries donate, then the influence peddlers make sure things happen the way they want - or not.

As a former President with ties to the current administration, it's a god damn goldmine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #167)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:53 PM

181. yep pay to play

It's a racket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:46 PM

84. Nope nothinh to see here...

Nothing to see here, just move along and remember math beats Sanders so this isn't anything to worry about!



This is a HUGE liability to Clinton in the GE!!!!! If any other candidate had this problem, Clinton and her supporters would be calling for that candidate's resignation!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:47 PM

85. Paid for through the foundation. Rofl.

Oh but there's no way a donation to the foundation could be used to gain leverage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #85)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:51 PM

89. LOL

You got it, brotha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:12 PM

99. Doesn't matter.

 

All that counts is winning. Winning means never having to say you're sorry. Because winners have nothing to be sorry for. Only losers apologize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:52 PM

106. Blumenthal is the new Chalabi. What does it make Clinton? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thereismore (Reply #106)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:20 PM

119. Damn. Damn.

The parallel lies in the using of faulty intel for regime change.

Damn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:33 PM

120. The derp is strong captain!

 

Making a mountain out of a molehill with breathless prose and tortured metaphors..lol whut?

Losing is hard, but lashing out is childish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:39 AM

127. I remember how cool it was that Obama got to keep using his

BlackBerry! Maybe a little envy there!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ALBliberal (Reply #127)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:46 AM

128. yes, I remember. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:02 AM

137. If Bernie's supporters had put this much effort into supporting

their candidate rather than tearing down Hillary, Bernie might have stood a chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BreakfastClub (Reply #137)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:03 AM

138. way to win support for your side...........not nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BreakfastClub (Reply #137)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:22 AM

147. Sounds like you just fell off the turnip truck

and landed in the cabbage patch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:00 AM

148. What on earth is the matter with that woman?

 

How can Obama not be pissed at her?

Sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:51 AM

153. Fake republican scandal is fake.

Sad to see it brought here because it harms the candidate you want to see harmed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:49 AM

157. Drip, drip, drip, drip....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:54 AM

159. They need to either clear her or charge her and get it over with ASAP.

We can't go into a general election with a candidate who has this hanging over her head. If she should be charged, that's the ball game. President Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #159)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:30 AM

171. The FBI most likely is not concerned about the timing.

Guess I'll have to stay nervous about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #171)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:38 PM

179. The fact they aren't rushing to end it is making me fear the worst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:01 AM

160. And your sources for these comments are...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #160)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:22 AM

170. news

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Reply #170)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:00 AM

174. Why are there no links to the "news"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:55 AM

165. If Clinton wins Presidency, it will be endless crap and probably

war with Iran, as she is pushed by Israel and their lobby.


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

But that's just me. We'll get to hear about her plans next week.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/aipac-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

Can't wait.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:56 AM

166. And a few more pro-Bernie OPs gets pushed a little deeper down the GDP stack.

Thanks to the email scandal.

Well done!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #166)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:11 AM

168. Framing is important. Email scandal makes people roll their eyes.

 

As I said in an earlier post, 30k emails just sounds like someone is working hard. I even posted about how I didn't care - if Obama was happy with her job as SoS, who am I to bother?

This isn't email - this is mafia level games.

Bill pays Blumenthal. Blumenthal is *also* paid by a client in Libya. Blumenthal gives "free" WRONG advice BECAUSE HE HAS ACCESS to Bill's wife who has been told by her boss to not listen to Blumenthal because they don't trust him. Bill's wife presents false information to her boss WITHOUT SOURCING IT and Libya debacle results.

This is a former President of the United States interfering in current affairs because he could WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CURRENT PRESIDENT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #168)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:13 AM

169. Oh brother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #168)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:59 PM

184. true dat -- it's not an "email scandal"

That's the framing of it. Very very Rovian framing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:17 PM

176. Sounds trustworthy and reliable to me!

 








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:30 PM

178. Does Anyone have Credible

Absolute Proof HRC did Not do Anything Wrong, to support your dismissal of this?

I'd really love to see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:01 PM

187. This is beginning to look like the "House of Cards". It's all about power and money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #187)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:03 PM

188. yes

it's a mess.

When will the American people have some peace in government?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #188)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:04 PM

189. Maybe it's always been this way-it's just so blatant with the Clintons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:06 PM

191. I present to you, the Indictment Fairy





This is not an issue that people outside of Fox News actually care about, folks. Let's move on...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #191)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:09 PM

194. to quote astute DU-er leveymg

Move on at your "mortal peril".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #191)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:58 PM

201. I think what you are missing is that the email is the paper trail

 

for some pretty egregious behavior, if I am finally understanding it correctly.

Bill was paying people. Those people were working "for free" for his wife. Obama said he didn't want Blumenthal to have access, so Bill's wife just didn't tell him the source, and cluster in Libya results.

Clinton Foundation pays people thus maintaining power. It isn't even a SECRET CRIMINAL organization; it is a non-profit influence peddling scheme. The Republicans have been pulling this crap for years, so now the Clintons Come Lately are doing it, too.

Anyone who donated to Bill (if Hillary wins) gets a dinner invite to the White House. It is renting out the Lincoln Bedroom - it's skeezier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:21 PM

209. She's super qualified!

 

In the way I'd be an experienced driver because I rammed into a lot of trees.

A good driver? No. An experienced one? Absolutely!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:25 PM

210. This is how she does business

 

And will continue to do so if elected. Is this what we really want?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lazy Daisy (Reply #210)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:06 PM

217. It makes me ill to think of what will happen to millions more around the world who've suffered

in large part because of her hawkish decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:08 PM

215. Rich and powerful people set their own rules.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:14 PM

218. This should not be in "primaries" but in GD, perhaps. Or foreign affairs

Because this isn't about Bernie vs Hillary. This is about US foreign policy. I think the question that you and I care about is what kind of foreign policy the U.S. should have. The DemocracyNow story on Berta Caceres and the Hillary emails indicating that Hillary endorsed the coup against the democratically elected Honduran President Zelaya is tragic and upsetting.

Some of us don't like the policies of Deterring Democracy in favor of capitalism or right wing ideology or resource positions etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:48 PM

227. With all the trouble with terrorists why did she have a private server

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #227)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 11:12 PM

228. That's what I'd like to know.

And why did she need Sid Blumenthal's guidance?

Plus, I found this after looking for answers:

To cite another striking example, Mr. Blumenthal sent then-Secretary of State Ms. Clinton reports on the political situation in Libya written by a former senior CIA officer, the recently deceased Tyler Drumheller. Those reports, which Mr. Blumenthal emailed to her in 2011 and 2012, apparently were intended to influence American policy toward Libya in a way favorable to a business project with which Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Drumheller were involved.

Mr. Drumheller, who retired in 2005, was an incompetent head of the CIA’s European division during the cold war and as Al Qaeda rose to prominence. And Europe was his primary area of expertise; he had no useful knowledge about Libya, multiple sources have told me. “Tyler was probably just using information he got from his old retired friends in Italian intelligence, and all of those guys put their business interests ahead of everything else,” one former senior CIA officer who knew Mr. Drumheller well said. “Blumenthal’s the same way; there’s something wrong with him morally.”

http://observer.com/2015/11/just-who-is-sidney-blumenthal-the-clintons-closest-advisor/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 11:21 PM

229. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, grasswire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #229)

Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:00 AM

230. you are welcome, Uncle Joe.

As sad as it is to comprehend this betrayal of Obama and the American people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread