HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Hillary People - Trash th...

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:58 PM

 

Hillary People - Trash this Thread; Others - Consider it FYI

Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 03:08 PM - Edit history (2)

FOX News has a (totally justified) reputation of being a right wing propaganda machine, and that means most reasonable lefties don't pay attention to what they say.

HOWEVER, they are currently running reports from two reporters that are actually (*gasp*) ACTUAL VERIFIABLE NEWS. The two have been getting scoops left and right about this email business. I am going to share some of their stories which can be VERIFIED and briefly explain why anyone actually paying attention to this email business is thinking things aren't looking good for Hillary Clinton. If even the thought of FOX being right about anything makes you vomit a little, just trash the thread now.

1) She lied about her (first 30,000) emails not containing classified information. The PDF from the (independent) Inspector General letter to Congress is available below (so you can decide whether to believe Hillary, or your lying eyes).

Inspector General: Clinton emails had intel from most secretive, classified programs, January 19, 2016
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/inspector-general-clinton-emails-had-intel-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton's emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government's most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.

Fox News exclusively obtained the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP).

That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets.

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

(more at link)

2) The FBI is already working with the DOJ on a *criminal* investigation into the email situation. The Attorney General of the United States testified about this to Congress in February.

Lynch confirms career Justice Department attorneys involved in Clinton email probe, February 25, 2016
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/25/lynch-confirms-career-justice-department-attorneys-involved-in-clinton-email-probe.html

Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed to Congress Wednesday that career Justice Department attorneys are working with FBI agents on the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email practices and the handling of classified material.
(snip)
Lynch replied, "...that matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents as well as the career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law and they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate," She confirmed that the FBI criminal investigation is ongoing, and no recommendation or referral on possible charges had been made to her.
(more at link)

The AG's testimony can be viewed here: http://www.c-span.org/video/?405232-1/attorney-general-loretta-lynch-testimony-fiscal-year-2017-budget but I don't see the word "criminal" in it, so bear that in mind.

3) One of the issues is HOW things that didn't belong on email got there - these two got a mini-scoop there, too.

FBI investigating if Clinton aides shared passwords to access classified info, March 3, 2016
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/03/fbi-investigating-if-clinton-aides-shared-passwords-to-access-classified-info.html

EXCLUSIVE: The FBI is investigating whether computer passwords were shared among Hillary Clinton's close aides to determine how sensitive intelligence "jumped the gap" between the classified systems and Clinton's unsecured personal server, according to an intelligence source familiar with the probe.

The source emphasized to Fox News that “if (Clinton) was allowing other people to use her passwords, that is a big problem.” The Foreign Service Officers Manual prohibits the sharing of passwords.
(snip)
Most of these scenarios would require a password. And all of these practices would be strictly prohibited under non-disclosure agreements signed by Clinton and others, and federal law.
(more at link)

4) But have no fear - the guy who might have the answers has already been given immunity (which usually doesn't happen unless a grand jury has been convened).

Source: Clinton IT specialist revealing server details to FBI, 'devastating witness', March 11, 2016
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/11/source-clinton-it-specialist-revealing-server-details-to-fbi-devastating-witness.html

Former Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, a key witness in the email probe who struck an immunity deal with the Justice Department, has told the FBI a range of details about how her personal email system was set up, according to an intelligence source close to the case who called him a “devastating witness.”

The source said Pagliano told the FBI who had access to the former secretary of state’s system – as well as when – and what devices were used, amounting to a roadmap for investigators.

"Bryan Pagliano is a devastating witness and, as the webmaster, knows exactly who had access to [Clinton's] computer and devices at specific times. His importance to this case cannot be over-emphasized," the intelligence source said.

The source, who is not authorized to speak on the record due to the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said Pagliano has provided information allowing investigators to knit together the emails with other evidence, including images of Clinton on the road as secretary of state.
(more at link)

Let that sink in - they are using PICTURES OF HER USING HER BLACKBERRY WHILE ON TRIPS TO GET EMAIL as evidence she wasn't "being cautious" about classified stuff. (That's what a date-and-time stamp will do to you - yikes!)

5) Reporters have to build relationships, and these ladies have been doing it for a while. I actually trust the FBI about this stuff, and this story from January (which I missed because I wasn't paying attention back then) details out why that seems like a good idea:

FBI going 'right to the source' in Clinton email probe, interviewing intel agencies, January 26, 2016
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/26/fbi-going-right-to-source-in-clinton-email-probe-interviewing-intel-agencies.html

The FBI is going straight to the source in its investigation of classified emails that crossed Hillary Clinton’s personal server, speaking with the intelligence agencies – and in some cases, the individuals – that generated the information, two intelligence sources familiar with the probe told Fox News.

Investigators are meeting with the agencies and individuals to determine the classification level in the emails. The step speaks to the diligence with which the bureau is handling the investigation, despite the former secretary of state’s claims that the matter boils down to a mere interagency dispute.

"This is not merely a difference of opinion between the State Department and the Department of Justice," one intelligence source, who is not authorized to speak on the record, told Fox News, referring to comments on the Sunday talk shows and by the Clinton campaign downplaying the FBI's investigation. "The bureau will go directly to depose specific individuals in agencies who generated the highly classified materials."

The source added, "At the end of the day it will be a paper case. Emails never disappear because computers never forget.”
(more at link)

The way I understand it, there are actually THREE issues with "Hillary's Email" (and none of them are good):
1) improper handling of government records, including those classified (keeping them in your personal basement is basically "criminally stupid";

2) FOIA issues and possible perjury/attempted destruction of government records (she deleted half of them claiming they were "personal" but turned out they were backed up "on the cloud"/the FBI has them and shockingly she didn't just delete personal stuff); and

3) the CONTENT which includes not reporting lobbying by a foreign interest (Blumenthal), not reporting security "breaches" by Blumenthal and communication between Clinton Foundation "donors" that looks like "pay to play" for some of their clients -- which is probably where the "public corruption" stuff is coming from.

But I am *totally* willing to wait for the FBI summary of their YEAR LONG INVESTIGATION.

Most people don't know this, but the FBI usually doesn't spend time investigating "things that aren't crimes". The DOJ has stated they don't want to release any of the "newly discovered" emails because

Judge Rejects DoJ's Classified Court Filing on Clinton E-mails, April 20, 2016
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-rejects-dojs-classified-court-filing-on-clinton-emails/article/2589096

The agency has maintained that releasing any new information could harm its investigation.

and they (the lawyers from the DOJ) have until April 26, 2016 to either "start releasing" or convince a judge with a "better" brief, so hopefully this whole episode will be resolved soon.

Yeah, I know: FOX News. "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy". Etc. Whatever. Sometimes "news" is actually that - NEWS.

But it seems VERY STRANGE to be using that term with "FOX!"

339 replies, 18909 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 339 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary People - Trash this Thread; Others - Consider it FYI (Original post)
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 OP
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #1
angrychair Apr 2016 #186
CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #2
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #3
angrychair Apr 2016 #188
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #140
CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #4
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #11
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #77
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #93
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #100
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #106
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #108
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #110
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #126
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #135
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #160
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #162
Buddyblazon Apr 2016 #168
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #179
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #185
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #189
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #197
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #211
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #214
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #219
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #220
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #221
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #224
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #262
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #266
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #271
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #273
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #291
cui bono Apr 2016 #299
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #311
cui bono Apr 2016 #323
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #324
SwampG8r Apr 2016 #312
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #319
cui bono Apr 2016 #296
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #307
cui bono Apr 2016 #322
cui bono Apr 2016 #295
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #318
Buddyblazon Apr 2016 #167
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #213
BigBearJohn Apr 2016 #292
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #317
Marr Apr 2016 #223
NCTraveler Apr 2016 #5
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #7
NCTraveler Apr 2016 #10
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #23
NCTraveler Apr 2016 #29
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #39
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #139
grasswire Apr 2016 #155
HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #43
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #69
angrychair Apr 2016 #190
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #195
angrychair Apr 2016 #203
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #204
angrychair Apr 2016 #218
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #222
angrychair Apr 2016 #237
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #265
amborin Apr 2016 #31
HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #50
Sheepshank Apr 2016 #6
amborin Apr 2016 #35
Sheepshank Apr 2016 #54
amborin Apr 2016 #183
dinkytron Apr 2016 #283
Major Hogwash Apr 2016 #232
cui bono Apr 2016 #301
Sheepshank Apr 2016 #315
cui bono Apr 2016 #325
randome Apr 2016 #8
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #13
grasswire Apr 2016 #17
randome Apr 2016 #20
grasswire Apr 2016 #22
randome Apr 2016 #24
All in it together Apr 2016 #136
artislife Apr 2016 #280
cui bono Apr 2016 #300
Gothmog Apr 2016 #101
northernsouthern Apr 2016 #149
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #245
northernsouthern Apr 2016 #246
Hiraeth Apr 2016 #247
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #248
Hiraeth Apr 2016 #251
grasswire Apr 2016 #252
grasswire Apr 2016 #151
angrychair Apr 2016 #193
emulatorloo Apr 2016 #142
randome Apr 2016 #21
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #26
randome Apr 2016 #30
-none Apr 2016 #120
mythology Apr 2016 #143
-none Apr 2016 #177
druidity33 Apr 2016 #244
ebayfool Apr 2016 #270
ReRe Apr 2016 #194
cui bono Apr 2016 #302
sheshe2 Apr 2016 #289
angrychair Apr 2016 #196
frylock Apr 2016 #231
angrychair Apr 2016 #238
Merryland Apr 2016 #180
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #16
randome Apr 2016 #33
Tarc Apr 2016 #9
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #12
bkkyosemite Apr 2016 #80
pinebox Apr 2016 #85
haikugal Apr 2016 #141
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #114
ReRe Apr 2016 #202
wendylaroux Apr 2016 #169
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #14
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #48
wendylaroux Apr 2016 #165
Demsrule86 Apr 2016 #207
wendylaroux Apr 2016 #216
wendylaroux Apr 2016 #170
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #250
grasswire Apr 2016 #253
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #258
Oilwellian Apr 2016 #333
grasswire Apr 2016 #334
wendylaroux Apr 2016 #308
frylock Apr 2016 #234
SwampG8r Apr 2016 #313
artislife Apr 2016 #282
grasswire Apr 2016 #15
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #18
Gwhittey Apr 2016 #27
Kalidurga Apr 2016 #256
840high Apr 2016 #134
haikugal Apr 2016 #144
KoKo Apr 2016 #200
CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #28
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #34
grasswire Apr 2016 #82
anigbrowl Apr 2016 #174
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #96
KoKo Apr 2016 #172
winter is coming Apr 2016 #198
CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #201
Kalidurga Apr 2016 #257
frylock Apr 2016 #236
grasswire Apr 2016 #243
KoKo Apr 2016 #249
winter is coming Apr 2016 #281
amborin Apr 2016 #19
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #32
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #37
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #42
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #59
Post removed Apr 2016 #68
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #81
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #113
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #117
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #123
newthinking Apr 2016 #158
anigbrowl Apr 2016 #176
artislife Apr 2016 #284
amborin Apr 2016 #40
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #44
amborin Apr 2016 #52
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #58
amborin Apr 2016 #61
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #83
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #118
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #121
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #125
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #131
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #137
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #116
snagglepuss Apr 2016 #215
Demsrule86 Apr 2016 #206
snowy owl Apr 2016 #45
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #55
snowy owl Apr 2016 #124
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #128
Demsrule86 Apr 2016 #210
snowy owl Apr 2016 #264
panader0 Apr 2016 #56
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #60
panader0 Apr 2016 #63
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #71
LadyHawkAZ Apr 2016 #173
Gothmog Apr 2016 #104
ReRe Apr 2016 #192
felix_numinous Apr 2016 #25
Punkingal Apr 2016 #36
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #41
snowy owl Apr 2016 #49
bkkyosemite Apr 2016 #88
angrychair Apr 2016 #212
Gothmog Apr 2016 #105
Demsrule86 Apr 2016 #209
snowy owl Apr 2016 #38
Punkingal Apr 2016 #51
CoffeeCat Apr 2016 #91
snowy owl Apr 2016 #129
haikugal Apr 2016 #157
Punkingal Apr 2016 #171
pnwmom Apr 2016 #46
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #53
snowy owl Apr 2016 #57
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #66
snowy owl Apr 2016 #130
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #138
snowy owl Apr 2016 #159
emulatorloo Apr 2016 #145
snowy owl Apr 2016 #161
Demsrule86 Apr 2016 #208
snowy owl Apr 2016 #285
emulatorloo Apr 2016 #263
snowy owl Apr 2016 #286
emulatorloo Apr 2016 #335
snowy owl Apr 2016 #338
emulatorloo Apr 2016 #339
MineralMan Apr 2016 #47
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #65
MineralMan Apr 2016 #67
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #72
MineralMan Apr 2016 #79
GreenPartyVoter Apr 2016 #62
SheenaR Apr 2016 #64
Joob Apr 2016 #70
creeksneakers2 Apr 2016 #277
AzDar Apr 2016 #73
dchill Apr 2016 #146
gordianot Apr 2016 #74
bbgrunt Apr 2016 #75
apcalc Apr 2016 #76
Babel_17 Apr 2016 #78
BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #84
nolabels Apr 2016 #86
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #152
nolabels Apr 2016 #294
Gothmog Apr 2016 #87
frylock Apr 2016 #239
Gothmog Apr 2016 #89
frylock Apr 2016 #240
Gothmog Apr 2016 #90
frylock Apr 2016 #241
Gothmog Apr 2016 #92
Gothmog Apr 2016 #94
Gothmog Apr 2016 #95
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #99
Marr Apr 2016 #235
Gothmog Apr 2016 #97
JoePhilly Apr 2016 #103
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #107
JoePhilly Apr 2016 #109
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #111
JoePhilly Apr 2016 #112
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #115
Waiting For Everyman Apr 2016 #182
Gothmog Apr 2016 #98
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #102
Seeinghope Apr 2016 #225
Waiting For Everyman Apr 2016 #119
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #321
The_Casual_Observer Apr 2016 #122
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #154
hollowdweller Apr 2016 #127
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #148
Cali_Democrat Apr 2016 #132
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #133
snowy owl Apr 2016 #150
grasswire Apr 2016 #156
smiley Apr 2016 #147
grasswire Apr 2016 #153
MFM008 Apr 2016 #163
Kelvin Mace Apr 2016 #164
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #327
Fairgo Apr 2016 #166
grntuscarora Apr 2016 #175
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #178
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #259
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #260
KoKo Apr 2016 #181
ReRe Apr 2016 #199
Lil Missy Apr 2016 #184
KoKo Apr 2016 #187
frylock Apr 2016 #242
winter is coming Apr 2016 #191
Demsrule86 Apr 2016 #205
CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #227
tblue37 Apr 2016 #217
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #268
tblue37 Apr 2016 #316
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #320
dlwickham Apr 2016 #226
Major Hogwash Apr 2016 #228
Cleita Apr 2016 #229
silvershadow Apr 2016 #230
CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #233
KoKo Apr 2016 #254
silvershadow Apr 2016 #255
JTFrog Apr 2016 #261
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #267
snowy owl Apr 2016 #269
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #272
pacalo Apr 2016 #274
Sparkly Apr 2016 #275
snowy owl Apr 2016 #279
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #305
leveymg Apr 2016 #276
creeksneakers2 Apr 2016 #278
winter is coming Apr 2016 #287
creeksneakers2 Apr 2016 #288
winter is coming Apr 2016 #290
BlueStateLib Apr 2016 #297
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #306
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #304
jcgoldie Apr 2016 #293
Unicorn Apr 2016 #298
eridani Apr 2016 #303
pampango Apr 2016 #309
randome Apr 2016 #310
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #314
still_one Apr 2016 #329
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #330
still_one Apr 2016 #331
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #326
antigop Apr 2016 #328
emulatorloo Apr 2016 #336
NorthCarolina Apr 2016 #332
jimmy_crack_corn Apr 2016 #337


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:31 PM

186. Be honest about your links

2 of them are from last year. 2 others are opinion pieces. And one is at least frank about being an opinion piece and doesn't necessarily make the case you might expect.

In other words, nothing you produced clears HRC beyond a reasonable doubt based on information in the public domain.

The best thing to do is wait until The FBI and Justice have completed their investigation. Then we will know , one way or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)



Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:34 PM

188. Be honest about you links

2 of them are from last year. 2 others are opinion pieces. And one is at least frank about being an opinion piece and doesn't necessarily make the case you might expect.

In other words, nothing you produced clears HRC beyond a reasonable doubt based on information in the public domain.

The best thing to do is wait until The FBI and Justice have completed their investigation. Then we will know , one way or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CompanyFirstSergeant (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:50 PM

140. Mommy, make it stop!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)


Response to CompanyFirstSergeant (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:13 PM

11. Thank you. Its like they don't even know lawyers can argue any case

 

from any point of view, and can/will switch sides at the drop of a paycheck.

Plus, NONE OF US KNOW what the FBI is actually investigating, so any "analysis" is simply "paid speculation" by a certain class.

I prefer journalists who "present data" and let the reader draw a reasonable conclusion. (That is why I *specifically* called the FOX folks out for using the word "criminal" when the Attorney General didn't say that - she said "investigation" but they translated it to "criminal investigation".)

I believe the Inspector General, not Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:48 PM

77. I'm actually a bit worried that if something does happen

... the mental makeup of Hillary supported will completely melt down and they will disolve into puddles of goo. Or they'll just say they always knew something was wrong and this confirms their belief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #77)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:58 PM

93. Worry about your own ...

"I'm actually a bit worried that if something does happen ... the mental makeup of Hillary supported (sic)will completely melt down and they will disolve into puddles of goo..."



mindwalker_i



Worry about your own mental makeup, okay?


Love,
DSB


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #93)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:04 PM

100. Why do you say that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #100)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:09 PM

106. Because

"I'm actually a bit worried that if something does happen ... the mental makeup of Hillary supported (sic)will completely melt down and they will disolve into puddles of goo..."

-mindwalker_i




Sounds like a broad based character attack on an entire group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #106)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:17 PM

108. Is it sexist too?

You're playing the persecution card, which is kind of the default for Hillary and her supporters when confronted with anything that interferes with your pocket universe where Hillary is awesome. Probably your best option is to call me a BernieBro (tm) and go about your happy life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #108)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:20 PM

110. I didn't call you a sexist ...

However I do have the power of divination.


"I'm actually a bit worried that if something does happen ... the mental makeup of Hillary supported (sic)will completely melt down and they will disolve (sic) into puddles of goo..."

-mindwalker_i



You strike me as the type of person who would "completely melt down and ... disolve (sic) into puddles of goo" if you got a parking violation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #110)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:40 PM

126. I didn't say that you had called me sexist

However, you mentioned that I was making a broad brush attack, which is part of the whole persecution complex of Hillary supporters. So is calling everything against her sexist, which is why I asked. The persecution complex of Hillary supporters would make a Christian blush. I realize that you probably don't actually feel persecuted and just use it as a way to shut down conversation that isn't positive to Hillary.


You strike me as the type of person who would "completely melt down and ... disolve (sic) into puddles of goo" if you got a parking violation


On what do you base this hypothesis? Do you have any instance where I "melted down" at something, or specifically, something trivial? It seems like you're desperately looking for something to attack with, so I'm trying to understand whether you have a specific reason for this comment or whether it came from your backside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #126)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:46 PM

135. SMH

"I'm actually a bit worried that if something does happen ... the mental makeup of Hillary supported (sic)will completely melt down and they will "I'm actually a bit worried that if something does happen ... the mental makeup of Hillary supported (sic)will completely melt down and they will disolve (sic) into puddles of goo..."




On what do you base this hypothesis? Do you have any instance where I "melted down" at something, or specifically, something trivial? It seems like you're desperately looking for something to attack with, so I'm trying to understand whether you have a specific reason for this comment or whether it came from your backside.



You said the "mental makeup of Hillary supported (sic) " makes them susceptible" to "melt down" and " disolve (sic) into puddles of goo..."




I was kind enough to return the favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #135)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:07 PM

160. But I explained why

I had a reason for what I said and tried to make that clear. What you said was that you had the feeling I would break down at a parking ticket, and if you had that feeling, there should be a reason why you had it. Unless, of course, it was the equivalent of, "I know you are but what am I?" If that's the case - and you seem to indicate so above with the comment that you were "returning the favor" - then this is a case of "I know you are but what am I". In other words, it did, indeed, come from your backside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #160)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:11 PM

162. The only reason...

The only reason you had to suggest that Clinton supporters are fragile flowers who will dissolve into goo at the first sight of adversity:



"I'm actually a bit worried that if something does happen ... the mental makeup of Hillary supported (sic)will completely melt down and they will "I'm actually a bit worried that if something does happen ... the mental makeup of Hillary supported (sic)will completely melt down and they will disolve (sic) into puddles of goo..."






is your intense animus for them which is no valid reason at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #162)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:19 PM

168. Y'all are kind of soft...

 

Just sayin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #162)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:40 PM

179. I did not say that "Clinton supporters are fragile flowers who will dissolve into goo at the ...

... first sign of adversity." What I did say is that you have build an entire reality around Hillary being the end-all, wonderful candidate who could never possibly have anything wrong with her, and that if the FBI investivgation did find otherwise, it would be a blow to your manufactured reality. Given how hard and visciously you all respond to people bringing up negative things about Hillary - questioning her wonderfulness and infallability - there is objective evidence to support this statement.

Your response saying that you thought I would dissolve at something like a parking ticket was the equivalent of, "I know you are but what am I," and in fact you even said so, as I pointed out above. When someone has to resort to that kind of "retort," it's another strong indication that their "reality" is fabricated - it not be defended with arguments that contain logic.

Watching people have to face the dissolution of their "reality" in, in general, unpleasant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #179)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:19 PM

185. The difference is Hillary supporters realize she is all too human and Sanders supporters think...

The difference is Hillary supporters realize she is all too human and Sanders supporters think he is a deity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #185)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:37 PM

189. Bullshit

Sanders supporters believe it's way past time for government to work for the people, not just the rich and the corporations. We know getting stuff passed will be hard, but the conversation has to change direction before anything can be done. Hillary is not about changing the direction at all but rather perpetuating the damage being done.

Your claim that you just see her as human is an excuse for things she has done that are bad. But it's not that she made a mistake, it's that she knew what she was doing when she did it and will continue to do things that are damaging. And you will find more reasons not to blame her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #189)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:55 PM

197. You seem to be verging on apoplexia

"Bullshit"


You seem to be verging on apoplexia .I almost feel like stopping before you melt down into a "puddle of goo."


Maybe if you invoke the name of your deity and click your heels three times I will turn into a "puddle of goo."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #197)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:28 PM

211. So wait a minute, me calling bullshit on your conjecture

is a sign of my mental instability? That's quite a stretch. It's the equivalent of, "Are you gonna cry?"

It's pretty clear that you're using this to avoid the points I made about how you use the idea of "she's just human" to excuse all of Hillary's bad decisions. That's kind of normal for Hillary supporters - if you can't argue on the merits, deflect. I guess I headed off the claims of sexism and persecution early on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #211)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:31 PM

214. You're losing it

"Are you gonna cry?"



You're losing it, my friend.





MELTDOWN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #214)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:42 PM

219. "You're losing it, my friend."

You've been so far from reality for so long, you shouldn't be talking about other people losing it. If you do, someone might give you a parking ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #219)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:44 PM

220. I am getting more concerned by the moment.

Repeat to yourself "it's just a message board."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #220)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:47 PM

221. Damn, you're like a crack-addled energizer bunny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #221)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:55 PM

224. Here is some music to calm you down. Em seemed to make you more agitated





Are you feeling more relaxed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #224)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:56 PM

262. This is just funny

I started out saying you (Hillary supporters) were creating your own reality where Hillary would wonderful and everybody would love her. Now, you're creating this reality where I'm about to crack (I am, but not because of you). There seems to be a consistent theme here.

Thing is, the rest of the country doesn't share your adulation of Hillary. There is so much wrong with her - she is so flawed - that the attack ads write themselves. That warp-bubble you're in will eventually come in contact with the greater universe. But I think I see the way out for you: to blame all us BernieBros for coming up with the material that the Republicans will use against her, and you'll be able to keep on avoiding reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #262)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:02 PM

266. I just watched Confirmation on HBO On Demand.

I wanted to check in and see if you calmed down yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #266)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:27 PM

271. ... and going, and going, and going ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #271)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:33 PM

273. Here's another song to help you relax

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #273)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 02:19 AM

291. ... and going ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #266)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 04:49 AM

299. Funny, but I could swear you were the one declaring how civil and respectful you always were,

how someone had to bring civility to DU. Must have been a site malfunction that let two people get the same user names.

You're really showing yourself to be quite an ass. And also proving yourself wrong about Hillary supporters vs. Bernie supporters.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #299)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 08:02 AM

311. Cui bono

Funny, but I could swear you were the one declaring how civil and respectful you always were,
how someone had to bring civility to DU.

-cui bono




"I have become what I beheld and I am convinced I have done right."


You're really showing yourself to be quite an ass

-cui bono



(C)ui bono- who benefits from such unduly hash invective, cui bono, I say. Your vituperative language is reflecting poorly on our online community. No one benefits. I humbly request you peer into your conscience, heed your better angels, and eschew such hateful language.

Thank you in advance.

DemocratSinceBirth



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #311)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 04:56 PM

323. doubling down I see...

DU Hillary fans do not disappoint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #323)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 04:58 PM

324. It was a call to our better angels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #221)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 08:22 AM

312. Just give him a single line response you can keep.him dancing for days

Its a hoot
Every response will get more and more persecuted.
I had him dancing for 3 days once

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SwampG8r (Reply #312)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:51 PM

319. This whole subthread has been highly illustrative

My attacks are mean and I'm a bit of an ass, but I defend the reasoning as to WHY I'm an ass. Seriously, if this FBI thing with Hillary comes down, it's going to be really hard on the people who follow her. It shows that support for Hillary is more of a belief than anything that has been reasoned through. "Believing in" things, whether it's a political candidate or a deity blinds one to problems or facts that contradict their belief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #185)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 04:44 AM

296. Can you provide evidence of this hypothesis of yours?

I have not seen anything close to what you stated at all. Quite the opposite.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #296)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:34 AM

307. Which group of supporters found providence in a bird?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #307)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 04:53 PM

322. what does that have to do with my question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #160)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 04:42 AM

295. Beautifully said. Some *cough cough* won't appreciate it but I do.



.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #295)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:42 PM

318. thank you! This has been a tough thread

I try to argue with reason and logic - I might say mean things, like someone is mentally unstable (I know a lot about that ). but I (try to) defend it logically, rather than just fling poo indiscriminately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #108)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:17 PM

167. When I hear the laments of Hillary fans I think of that scene...

 

in The Holy Grail:

"HELP! HELP! IM BEING REPRESSED!"

Lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buddyblazon (Reply #167)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:30 PM

213. Yup, it's the go-to diversion for the Hillary campaign

Whiny bunch, aren't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #213)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 03:30 AM

292. Boy, mindwalker_i I am sooo glad you are on our side. You are EXTREMELY bright.

No kidding. You have my sincere admiration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigBearJohn (Reply #292)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:36 PM

317. Wow, thankyou

Sometimes I'm incredibly stupid, but other times I see things that most people miss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #77)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:52 PM

223. Oh, I think we've already seen what they'd do.

 

They'll just deny there's anything to it. They'll say the indictment is just another right-wing conspiracy, that they're making a mountain out of a molehill to sabotage the first female President, they'll map out bizarre connections between various FBI officials and the GOP, and then they'll point the finger at everyone who doesn't buy it, and say we're to blame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:09 PM

5. Your wish is my command. You op is not worthy of this place.

 

It reads like something at Free Republic. That is the simple truth. Fact is, I will be hidden while your spreading of "we report, you decide" propaganda will stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:13 PM

10. Absolutley.

 

Fox news and Judicial Watch are go-to sources for some here. Pretty sad what has happened here since Paul dropped out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:22 PM

23. Judicial Watch had the *right* to use the FOIA. Hillary had no business

 

hiding government records from them. And while you might use the "Judicial Watch" folk as a slur, remember there are THIRTY-EIGHT other lawsuits pending on this because of HER actions, including from the Associated Press.

Some people hate the ACLU, but when they submit an FOIA request, I *expect* it will be honored. The PRECEDENT of "hiding government records so you don't have to turn them over in a FOIA request" is BEYOND UNACCEPTABLE.

The fact I have to explain this to a DEMOCRAT is unbelievably SAD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:27 PM

29. Sorry to be so blunt.

 

Agree. The fact you are trying to explain why Judicial Watch and Fox News are solid sources to a DEMOCRAT is unbelievably SAD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:31 PM

39. I share you sadness...Because your interlocutor's candidate is losing her sadness has turned to...

I share you sadness...Because your interlocutor's candidate is losing her sadness has turned to madness.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:49 PM

139. So we've gone from Fox News to Judicial Watch ...

... where am I again? Is this Flee Republic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:02 PM

155. moreover, Ida, it is ILLEGAL

Hiding records from FOIA is ILLEGAL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:33 PM

43. Govt transparency is not dependant upon party.

 

Transparency laws apply to everyone. Democratic politicians are required to be transparant as Republicans. RW groups are as entitled to FOIA requests as Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #43)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:45 PM

69. ^=== THIS!!! In a two party system, they each play watch dog to the other.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:37 PM

190. Be honest about you links

2 of them are from last year. 2 others are opinion pieces. And one is at least frank about being an opinion piece and doesn't necessarily make the case you might expect.

In other words, nothing you produced clears HRC beyond a reasonable doubt based on information in the public domain.

The best thing to do is wait until The FBI and Justice have completed their investigation. Then we will know , one way or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #190)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:53 PM

195. You can go and rely on the legal analysis of a random internet poster

You can go and rely on the legal analysis of a random internet poster and I will rely on the analyses of accomplished lawyers and former prosecutors and we will see who is right.



Indictment wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which one gets filled first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #195)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:05 PM

203. It OPINION

An opinion formed from an incomplete picture.

It's like attempting to describe the form and function of a cell when you have never seen it through a microscope.

It's very possible to get the broad strokes and generalities right but miss all the details that matter completely.

I have been very fair from the beginning on this. I think what she did shows stunningly poor judgment, at least one of your own links says as much. Is it illegal? That isn't for me to decide. As I have said many times, I will wait for the determination of the FBI and Justice and will live with their determination, one way or the other as far as it being criminal or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #203)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:12 PM

204. They are expert opinions

What part of I choose to accept the expert opinion of several accomplished lawyers and former prosecutors and not the opinion of a random internet poster don't you understand ?


An indictment of Hillary Clinton is a chimera.


I like that last sentence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #204)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:42 PM

218. All due respect to your experts

I'll wait for the only "opinion" that matters, that of the FBI and Justice Department.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #218)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:48 PM

222. Some sage said if you write out an indictment and put it under your pillow you...

Some sage said if you write out an indictment and put it under your pillow you will wake up, turn on the television in the morning, and see Secretary Clinton in an orange jump suit.

The same sage who said a Clinton indictment is a chimera.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #222)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:13 PM

237. Whatever

This has devolved into you spouting nonsense.
Bye Bye

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #237)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:00 PM

265. "Keep hope alive."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:28 PM

31. this is info about a possible Democratic nominee; she could sink the party; & i see plenty of pro-FT

posts on this site that get praised

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #31)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:37 PM

50. If she sinks the party, it's because of her own actions.

 

Nobody forced her to use a basement server to block FOIA requests. No one forced her to stall handing over emails for 2 years. No one forced her to exchange classified information with non-clearances people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:10 PM

6. OMG...did you include anything about Benghazi too?

 

seriously you desperately needing something other than the will of the MAJORITY people to help get Bernie into Office. Email is not an issue, except in the mind of RW outlets you feel are appropriate to post here on DU.

Oh, never mind, I though you said "Thrash this Thread."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:30 PM

35. Ida didnt'; but please see here how HRC blatantly lied during the hearings & her emails proved it:

although the Obama White House believed Blumenthal had spread false rumors about Obama during the 2008 campaign, and although Obama had banned Blumenthal from any State Dept business, SOS Clinton kept up a steady and solicited correspondence with Blumenthal behind Obama's back:



And despite ample evidence on the public record for months that Clinton repeatedly asked Blumenthal to keep sending her updates on Libya and other matters, she repeated previous assertions that his advice was unsolicited.

"I did not ask him to send me the information that he sent me," Clinton said.


"You wrote to him, 'Another keeper, thanks' and 'Please keep them coming
....Greetings from Kabul and thanks for keeping this stuff coming,'" Gowdy shot back.

Clinton then shifted slightly, conceding that she urged Blumenthal to keep up the flow
. "They started out unsolicited and, as I said, some were of interest," she said.

snip

.....You said they were -- you said they were unsolicited," the chairman said.

While Clinton minimized the significance of what Blumenthal sent along, she did not dismiss it entirely, and she defended forwarding the information to aides who sometimes scrambled to respond to the unusual dispatches.

"Some of it I found interesting....

snip

....Allegations relating to Blumenthal's role in that campaign are what kept him from joining the State Department in 2009. Obama aides were convinced that Blumenthal spread false personal and policy rumors about Obama during the battle between Clinton and Obama for the Democratic nomination. While Clinton had more authority to name State Department personnel than any other Obama Cabinet member, Blumenthal was blacklisted--effectively banished by the White House.

When Gowdy asked about Blumenthal's rejection, Clinton didn't dispute it, but said she couldn't remember or didn't know who at the White House put the kibosh on her regular correspondent.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-sidney-blumenthal-emails-benghazi-hearings-215083#ixzz42cF2UM5y

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-sidney-blumenthal-emails-benghazi-hearings-215083#ixzz42cEb3aOA
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook



Hillary was taking State Dept Advice from Blumenthal and others with Business interests in Libya:


Plus, all the while, Blumenthal was working for the Clinton Foundation:




International New York Times May 20, 2015 Wednesday

Clinton friend's memos on Libya draw scrutiny to politics and business

NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
Clintons last occupied the White House, Sidney Blumenthal cast himself in varied roles:

speechwriter, in-house intellectual and press corps whisperer. …..Now, as Hillary Rodham Clinton embarks on her second presidential bid, Mr. Blumenthal's service to the Clintons is again under the spotlight. ……

….. a series of memos that Mr. Blumenthal - who was not an employee of the State Department - wrote to Mrs. Clinton about events unfolding in Libya before and after the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

According to emails obtained by The New York Times, Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, took Mr. Blumenthal's advice seriously, forwarding his memos to senior diplomatic officials in Libya and Washington and at times asking them to respond. Mrs. Clinton continued to pass around his memos even after other senior diplomats concluded that Mr. Blumenthal's assessments were often unreliable.

But an examination by The Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal's involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons.

While advising Mrs. Clinton on Libya, Mr. Blumenthal, who had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama, was also employed by her family's philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation, to help with research, ''message guidance'' and the planning of commemorative events, according to foundation officials. During the same period, he also worked for organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton's 2016 campaign.

Much of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government.

The venture, which was ultimately unsuccessful, involved other Clinton friends, a private military contractor and one former C.I.A. spy seeking to get in on the ground floor of the new Libyan economy.

The projects …..would have required State Department permits, but foundered before the business partners could seek official approval.


The Libya venture came together in 2011 when David L. Grange, a retired Army general, joined with a new New York firm, Constellations Group, to pursue business leads in Libya. Constellations Group, led by a professional fund-raiser and philanthropist named Bill White, was to provide the leads……

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:39 PM

54. feels like find death throws in here

 

...cant you just paraphrase, I get really bored reading the same old crap that doesn't have any legs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #54)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:59 PM

183. why doesn't evidence of corruption have legs? b/c the MSM benefits from oligarchy; they're part of

it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #183)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:09 AM

283. Shit floats. I don't think its going away. And

I don't think Bernie is going away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:07 PM

232. Blatantly lied.

#WhichHillary blatantly lied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 04:53 AM

301. OMG look at your sig. And btw... have you conceded that Bernie is a Democrat yet?

Or are you still in denial about that link to Vermont's SOS site I gave you.

So you're saying the FBI is a right wing outlet? Interesting.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #301)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 10:01 AM

315. And if an anti Bernie article from Fox had been posted here

 

World war 3 would have erupted. The hypocrisy here is sparkly.

So let's clear things up...I was referring to the source of the info. You can twist it it into what ever you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #315)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 05:00 PM

325. mmkay...

So have you accepted that in Vermont one does not register to a party or is the Vermont SOS page still a questionable source for you?

I ask because you never acknowledged this fact before so I need to know if you are still of the mindset where even when something is proven to you beyond doubt you still deny it. Because if that is still true we can stop right here. No point discussing anything with someone who denies reality.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:11 PM

8. Showing your desperation is not admirable. This is not a fitting eulogy for Sanders' campaign.

 

You are neither doing him any good nor his cause. Perhaps that doesn't matter to you.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:14 PM

13. Bernie has nothing to do with Hillary's legal issues. He is not employed by the FBI or the DOJ.

 

Please stop conflating the two of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:16 PM

17. Heck, he hasn't even mentioned her legal issues. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:20 PM

20. Because she doesn't have any so far as we know.

 

And whatever the hell Fox News says is irrelevant. Your 'revolution' is going out, not with a bang nor a whimper, but a solid whine. Holding Fox News as worthy of mention is a sure-fire way to drown the 'revolution' in nonsense and get people to tune out. Forever.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:21 PM

22. I thought you were smarter than this. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:23 PM

24. I'm smart enough to not reach for Fox News to support a 'revolution'. I'd rather drown.

 

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:47 PM

136. You're not replying to the substance reported

Bernie is not involved, don't blame him. Democrats should care about this issue as it might affect our nominee if it's Hillary. It's always someone else's fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:03 AM

280. *snort! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 04:51 AM

300. She thinks she does. She has a criminal lawyer. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:05 PM

101. Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #101)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:56 PM

149. One thing this is missing is

 

the server. It was an account on her server that she then purged. I still have not clue if any rules were broken, but on your own server and deleting emails does not look great. The others used personal email address as did she, but they did not do the other things.

Powell, however, sought to draw a distinction between his use of a private email account and her use of a private home server through which all of her government-related email was routed.

"It's a lot different from what the rest of us were doing and what Mrs. Clinton is doing," said the former secretary of state, a longtime Republican who endorsed President Obama.

"Should she have had a private server?... Did she use it for classified information? I don't know and I don't want to know," Powell said.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice-aides-powell-also-got-classified-info-personal-emails-n511181

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to northernsouthern (Reply #149)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:43 PM

245. TWO Servers. She upgraded and had a company without

 

security clearance take care of it for her. They put *everything* on a cloud backup system. The Hillary folk "double checked " that they destroyed the backups, but somebody forgot to check the box for "bill for the cloud" so the FBI was able to retrieve the 30,000 "personal" emails (that we know aren't "just personal" because other people have already turned them in). Big Oops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #245)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:44 PM

246. Damn!

 

I had not even heard that part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #245)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:48 PM

247. on a cloud ???? holy fuck. just floating around. shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hiraeth (Reply #247)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:56 PM

248. Yup. With *classified* data, per the Inspector General of Central Intelligence.

 

That no one knows how Sidney Blumenthal got his hands on since he had no clearance and was working for the Clinton Foundation.

And that was just the *first* 30,000 - no one has released the stuff she erased (except for the hacker who just got extradited here earlier this month who got some of it from Blumenthal's computer and posted it on the net).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #248)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:58 PM

251. fuck me running. the incompetency. the negligence. the dereliction of duty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #245)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:00 PM

252. the reason that Platte River server provider preserved the data...

...is that they began to understand that HRC was engaged in a coverup and thought they needed to protect themselves.

As far as Clinton knew, the data was being automatically deleted. But Platte River preserved it deliberately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #101)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:59 PM

151. what does that cartoon have to do with Bernie?

nothing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #101)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:51 PM

193. This rebuttal line always amuses me

That somehow, somewhere, it was decided by someone in the DNC that it is "ok" to use the incredible, staggering lapses in judgment by Rice and Powell as the measuring stick for acceptable behavior for a SoS.

I keep expecting their to be a punchline but it never comes.

To associate your performance and conduct in office to the likes of such monumental failures in judgement such as these, as well as that of Kissinger, shows a stunning lack of sound judgment and an even poorer understanding of what the person in that position should be doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:51 PM

142. That's right. Bernie's too smart to fall for Fox's bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:21 PM

21. You are disgracing his name and his mission. Please stop.

 

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:24 PM

26. Again, Hillary's LEGAL ISSUES have nothing to do with Bernie Sanders.

 

They also have nothing to do with Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or even Mickey Mouse.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:27 PM

30. This OP, however, DOES have to do with Sanders.

 

This is not some objective viewpoint you've posted. IT'S FOX NEWS!! Why would anyone desperately look to Fox News for information if not to try and sully Clinton? Which makes it about Sanders.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:33 PM

120. Are the points presented true or not?

That is more important than the "source". You keep harping on "It's FOX" and ignoring any information contained in the posting, or the links.

The OP has nothing at all to do with Sanders. He is not involved in Hillary's private E-mail scandal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -none (Reply #120)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:52 PM

143. If the source can't be trusted to be true

 

I generally don't waste my time on them. Once credibility is lost, it's hard to regain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #143)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:33 PM

177. You don't think the FBI investigation of Hillary actions involving her E-mail server is important?

You know the private one in her bathroom closet, she used for commingling of her personal money making business with the Secretary of State's official business? I do think it is important. How can she be trusted with security matters as President?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #143)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:43 PM

244. So John Edwards didn't have an affair? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to druidity33 (Reply #244)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:26 PM

270. Yup. Gawd help me - the National Enquirer had that one right!

And I didn't believe it for a long time. Until I HAD to believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:53 PM

194. Sullying Clinton makes it about Sanders?

How? Because he is running against her? There is no link between Hillary and Bernie. It's FOX sullying Clinton, not Bernie. They aren't speaking right now, if you didn't notice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #30)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 04:59 AM

302. You don't really believe what you just said. Please tell me you don't.

That is some of the most ridiculous "logic" I've ever seen. It's not logical at all. You're just grasping at something to use as deflection, just grasping to bring Bernie into it somehow and take some heat off of Hillary. Not sure how that would even accomplish that but you must have a plan.

You should ask the FBI if this is about Bernie. They would know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #26)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:37 AM

289. You OP

Your source, Fox News.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:55 PM

196. So funny

Based on your comments over the last couple of months, you give zero fucks about Sanders name or his "mission", whatever that means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #196)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:05 PM

231. The faux concern is touching, you have to admit that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #231)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:15 PM

238. True

I was almost faux impressed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:41 PM

180. thank you for posting this information

As the calls for Bernie to step aside continue, so does the scrutiny of Clinton's careless, reckless, and possibly criminal treatment of secret government emails. Let them minimize all they want. This is going somewhere soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:15 PM

16. They will go out the way they came in, like flotsam and jetsam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:29 PM

33. What's the opposite of throwing someone under the bus?

 

Clearing a seat on the bus? No, that doesn't sound poignant enough. I'll give it some thought.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:12 PM

9. HE HAS BEEN SUMMONED!!!! THE END IS NIGH!!!! REPENT!!!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:14 PM

12. So now we're holding up Faux News as a credible source of information?

This really does give credence to the Horseshoe Theory of extreme political wings being closer to one another than those who are not as extreme.

It's disgusting that this primary season has devolved so much that Bernie supporters are reduced to calling on Faux News to amplify their misguided self-righteousness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:50 PM

80. And your sig line is disgusting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #80)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:53 PM

85. About said poster

 

Profile Information Nolawarlock

Member since: Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:02 PM
Number of posts: 404

Probably one of those paid people from Hillary's campaign

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinebox (Reply #85)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:51 PM

141. Brock....money and corruption...nonsense posting from the Hillary machine. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #80)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:26 PM

114. At least it's credible, unlike Fox News. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #114)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:05 PM

202. Since when is shilling credible? I think you just admitted something. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:21 PM

169. your sig line sounds like a playboy letter from long ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:14 PM

14. I wonder what's next.

Vince Foster? Ron Brown's plane?

Next thing they'll be saying she caused 9/11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:36 PM

48. Fox was the source of the rumor that 150 agents were assigned to investigating Hillary's server.

The most bandied around number is 12.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:16 PM

165. it is terrible how bad luck just follows hill around!!

it's terrible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wendylaroux (Reply #165)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:16 PM

207. It is not bad luck

It is the usual Clinton right wing attack dogs ...now getting help from Bernie supporters. Terrible thing to help the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #207)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:37 PM

216. shhh, don't tell anyone,these days,isn't a whole lotta diff.

Bernie gonna try and get our old party back though!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:23 PM

170. but what happened to the emails that were erased?

I wonder if they can be retrieved?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wendylaroux (Reply #170)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:58 PM

250. The company that did the upgrade backed them up to the cloud

 

and the FBI got them ALL last October. They have been Very Busy ever since....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #250)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:03 PM

253. yes, Platte River server provider in Colorado got very nervous..

...and realized that HRC was likely engaged in a coverup. They preserved the data that HRC thought was being deleted regularly, for their own protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #253)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:27 PM

258. I loved the "oops, did we forget to bill you for that?"

 

"Just one of our many service offerings, because we *care* about your data!"



Smart people to realize they were being used -- and they said they were excited at first to get a "big contract" before they realized they were being used as goats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #253)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 06:51 PM

333. Actually, it was Datto, Inc. that stored what was on her server, to the cloud

Platte River bought a device from Datto to store what was on Hillary's private server. No one really knows why they did this, even Platte is puzzled by it, but Datto did it and monitored the Cloud storage for quite some time.

What is really important to note with Platte, the Clinton people told Platte to keep emails for 30 days. Anything older than 30 days was to be deleted and so they did delete most of what was on Hillary's server.

That's when Platte employees became leery of what was going on and referred to it as "shady shit." This was also done at the same time FOIA's were being filed for Clinton's emails as well as the Benghazi committee asking for copies.

The possibility of obstruction looms, on just this issue alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #333)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:25 PM

334. yes

the Platte River people are American heroes. The company founder had a very old tie to Bill Clinton. Some say Platte was chosen specifically because it was so obscure and remote.

We are lucky they kept the backup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #250)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:41 AM

308. Ohhh I did not know that!

hmm, wait and see now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:10 PM

234. Do a search for Vince Foster.

You'll find that only Hillary Supporter ever mentions him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #234)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 08:36 AM

313. Yup.but they will allpoint and say

"Even vince got dug up" while expecting us to ignore the shovel they are holding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:06 AM

282. Well she certainly has tried to make a career out of it that even

 

Guiliani is jealous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:15 PM

15. Ignore at your peril, Democrats.

Thank you for this compilation, Ida.

It's a bizzarro world when we Democrats must rely on the right wing for critical information about a candidate seeking our nomination.

What a laughingstock our party will be if we do not prepare for the worst case here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:18 PM

18. Thank you, grasswire. The fact she is even still in the race is a national embarrassment.

 

We have good people in the party - why did we have to go to an INDEPENDENT SENATOR before someone was actually able to stand up to her? At a certain level, I get the attraction of the money she and Bill bring to the party, but how did we lose an entire generation of political leaders and end up with someone who actually looks like she committed CRIMES?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:24 PM

27. Because no one in Dem party was dumb enough.

 

Sanders is at end of his career. He no longer has to worry about pay back like most of the other people would. I can understand why they would not want to run. Look what Clinton and her drones have done to one most honest men in congress. They where able to paint him as a sexist and racist. And people bought it. Look at what happened to the principle in Chicago because he dared support Sanders. They fired him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gwhittey (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:16 PM

256. That is one reason Bernie's age is an asset.

A younger politician has to worry about pay back. Plus Bernie has a lot of experience to draw on and I really hope that he is working closely with some younger Democrats showing them the ropes. I am pretty sure he is, but I have no way to verify that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:46 PM

134. Thank you Ida.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:53 PM

144. Thanks Ida...excellent post. Notice the Brock patrol has nothing to say of any importance. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #144)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:02 PM

200. There are more replies here than I can view or want to. IGNORE LIST

Last edited Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)

is your friend! The few that are left on not on that list...are just about "ready to go."

And, that's sad, because I usually like to read opposing opinions if they seem valid. I imagine they have hit the equal opportunity IGNORE on me...but That's Life!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #15)


Response to CompanyFirstSergeant (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:29 PM

34. Thank you. I agree with everything in your post.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CompanyFirstSergeant (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:50 PM

82. Ignoring or ridiculing the possibility of calamity for HRC....

willful ignorance. The freight train of justice is coming down the track. Someone in the Democratic Party needs to be brave enough to throw the switch. There is no remedy aside from Hillary bowing out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #82)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:28 PM

174. "The freight train of justice is coming down the track."

 

Am I to understand you expect people to take this seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CompanyFirstSergeant (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:01 PM

96. They threw reality under the bus long ago

There are legitimate concerns about sources, etc. But Hillary supporters are completely and totally incapable of even considering that something - anything - that Hillary did or is doing could be, in any way, wrong or unethical, let alone less than legal. As such, their "analysis" or reasoning is completely worthless. It can not incorporate anything that goes against their complete and utter faith that Hillary is God.

But the majority of the country is not so completely enthralled. They will see the allegations and look at the evidence, and not casually dismiss it out of hand. That will be a serious problem for the election (general). Most of the country sees her as a liar. When she said she was always for a $15/hour minimum wage when there was video evidence of her saying quite different, anyone watching without absolute faith and adoration had that view cemented into their brains. And it will be shown a billion times before the general.

"Deeply flawed" doesn't even come close to covering it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CompanyFirstSergeant (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:27 PM

172. "I still prepare"....wise words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CompanyFirstSergeant (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:57 PM

198. I understand wanting to view anything coming from Fox with a jaundiced eye.

But enough has been reported in the New York TImes and the Washington Post to look damning to anyone with a halfway decent background in IT and the handling of classified information. The concern is legitimate. The FBI is investigating. They are interviewing Hillary and some senior staffers. They wouldn't still be doing that if there was obviously nothing worth investigating.

Fox may be bloviating about the timeframe of the investigation, suggesting it will be over sooner than it actually will be, but they're not overinflating its seriousness. Anyone who thinks Hillary will be cleared is kidding themselves. The best she can hope for is "not enough evidence to prosecute" and I doubt the FBI would have sought an interview if that was where things are headed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #198)


Response to CompanyFirstSergeant (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:23 PM

257. I have seen those arguments from Hillarians

So to answer

1) I don't hope for Hillary's legal troubles to worsen. I wish she had never gotten herself in trouble to begin with. But, OTOH it's her propensity for trouble and her lack of judgement that is driving me to support Bernie and not her.

2) Of course I want Bernie nominated. We need someone to be in the race should Hillary end up indicted. And Hillary has really bad ideas like starting a war with Russia.

3) I don't watch FOX or get information from sources that repeat FOX. Sometimes conservative sources besides FOX are the only ones that will report on hinky behavior done by Democrats. I think that journalists have lost their integrity if they don't follow up on stories even if those are stories that were covered by a conservative media outlet. Conservatives slant the news in ways I don't find acceptable. Liberal outlets seem to ignore news that make Democrats look bad I don't find that acceptable either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:12 PM

236. It's going to be fun when Rachel Maddow has to start covering this.

I may actually tune in!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #236)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:42 PM

243. you shoulda seen Tweety today

He was sputtering, sputtering, sputtering and Jeff Weaver was running circles around him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #243)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:56 PM

249. It's amazing that what seems to be the "paid for post" Brock infiltrators

are constantly trashing Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver when those two have a Candidate that has "Caught Fire" against All Odds and the job they've done for him has been exceptional given how late Bernie came into this Campaign as an "unknown" to average Americans with a former popular President and his Wife (who was Senator and SOS) having the position of the "Chosen Ones...The Incumbents" to carry on Obama's Legacy.

Those two are AMAZING! And, that is why the Hillary Campaign Ops, Brocks Online Disinformationists and the US MSM want to go after them and trash them.

Hey...it's Just Politics....Right.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #243)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:04 AM

281. link to video:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:20 PM

19. good research! things are looking dire!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:29 PM

32. It's a sad state of affairs when anything Rupert Murdoch produces is considered "research" nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:30 PM

37. Member: Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:02 AM nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #37)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:33 PM

42. What does that have to do with anything?

I've been reading this site during election seasons since the 2008 elections and have visited every so often much longer than that. This implication that I'm somehow a sock account is getting old, but whatever. The admins know I'm not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #42)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:41 PM

59. What it means is that you are newbie who is attempting to smear *MY* reputation

 

and I am calling you out on it. I've been a member here since 2004, I helped get the state of New Hampshire recounted while investigating election fraud, and your snotty insulting attitude is not appreciated.

I do NOT tell lies.

Agree with me, disagree with me - this is a discussion board. Repeating nonsense to increase your post count looks bad to me.

Have a different opinion? EXPLAIN IT.

For example, do you think the Inspector General SUBORNED PERJURY AND LIED TO CONGRESS?

I find it infuriating that any discussion of these LEGITIMATE CONCERNS is immediately dismissed by the "she can do no evil" crowd.

The last time a Clinton told us not to worry about their legal trouble (Bill was being sued for sexual harassment when he was running for office), we ended up with a crippled presidency and impeachment - some of us want to avoid that happening again.

And before you say, "well, the Republicans would do that to any Democrat" I'd like to point out that OBAMA hasn't been impeached, and they hate his guts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #59)


Response to Post removed (Reply #68)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:50 PM

81. Nor could you, regardless.

 

Moreover: "poisoning the well." Look it up...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #81)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:25 PM

113. Continue to deflect and make this about her reputation.

If anything is poisoning the well, it's holding up Rupert Murdoch as a source for credible journalism. But nice try at trying to derail my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #113)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:29 PM

117. Like I said, look it up.

 

Don't try to use words and phrases you don't actually know the meaning of. Oh, and that's not a deflection from your point. It's exactly about your point...which if you knew what the phrase meant, you'd have known.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #117)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:35 PM

123. I actually have an education in politics from a prominent politically-oriented university

And yes, I know what the term means, but since you want a quote, here's Wikipedia for you, with my inserted text to show relevance in bold parenthesis:

"adverse information (from Fox News) about a target is preemptively presented to an audience (such as the people reading this post), with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person (posting on this thread) is about to say"

Care to go on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #123)


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #42)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:30 PM

176. Nothing much. It's just a bullying tactic used by certain long-time DU members

 

I went through the same nonsense when I was arguing for Obama back in 2008. Amusingly enough most of the poo-flinging is coming from the same people as it was then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #37)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:09 AM

284. Maybe if we throw the nickels far enough

 

it will scamper away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:32 PM

40. it's sad to see a candidate who is so compromised in so many ways

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #40)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:33 PM

44. I agree with you totally on that!

I wish more people could see how compromised Sanders actually is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:38 PM

52. now that is a smear! what if we started talking about HRC's bad health?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #52)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:40 PM

58. What is a smear?

Saying he's compromised? Isn't that what you just said? I was agreeing with you. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:41 PM

61. that's all HRC supporters have---baseless smears

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:52 PM

83. Well, they also have a venal, lying sack of a candidate.

 

Last edited Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:33 PM - Edit history (1)

So there's that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #83)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:32 PM

118. I disagree with the premise ...

... I don't believe Hillary is a criminal. All those things said about her for all these years and they can't make anything stick? Sounds more to me like it's not a case of her being criminal. It's a case of her being correct and they just can't stand it.

And as for "laying," I'll assume you meant "lying." I take my opinion on that from television.

"Everybody lies. It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what."
— Doctor Gregory House

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #118)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:34 PM

121. Thanks for the edit! (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #121)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:40 PM

125. I edited ...

... because the brackets don't show up and made the language clearer for the cheap seats. But far be it from me to peel the tinfoil away from your head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #125)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:43 PM

131. You mistake my meaning.

 

I meant thanks for catching my typo.

But since you couldn't resist appending a vacuous insult to your latest comment, then off to Ignore with you. I've neither time not patience for your ilk.

Bye, Felicia...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #131)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:47 PM

137. I love the whole concept of ignore on DU ...

After the first few days and a couple (now-removed) ignores, I very quickly decided not to use that feature on this site.

1) Why would I ever want to give up the opportunity to have the last word. Remember, darling, since you're so fond of the rules of debate, you may want to ponder the fact that debate is about changing the minds of the audience, not the person you're debating with.

2) I cannot seem to fathom why anyone would say they're about to ignore someone

-- a) it comes across as flouncing and stammering

-- b) why would you want to tell someone you're about to ignore them? Let them keep wasting their time thinking they might have a chance of convincing you if they don't actually realize that the real target of the point is the audience watching (see point 1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:27 PM

116. Baseless?

The most baseless thing on this post is the op itself. Fox News. Really? Really???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:32 PM

215. BAM! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #40)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:14 PM

206. I know

I used to really respect Bernie...now I can't stand him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:34 PM

45. Do you know it's false? You're the choir. Dangerous being part of a "choir" in politics.

You're gonna get burned if you don't do some independent thinking. Putting all your "trust" apples in one basket isn't smart. Check out the post by looking for more evidence rather than reject out of hand. That is not smart either.

As someone smart once said, keep your friends close but your enemies closer. You might be surprised what they know that you don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #45)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:39 PM

55. I have always thought this email thing was a mistake ...

... in the sense that it didn't follow protocol and probably made the IT people's jobs that much more difficult. And I don't think she should have kept a private server. However, like Mr. Sanders made clear in debate, this is such a tempest in a teacup. If the Republicans didn't jump up and down so much about it, I don't think it would have been an issue and I still don't think it will be. My opinions on this issue have been pretty much settled when it was first announced and I believe the only people making it an issue are doing so for other agendas. I find it incredulous that anyone actually cares about this beyond its use as a political football.

But beyond the specific issue, Fox News is among the most biased, the most disingenuous, and the most vicious news sources on the planet. They aren't interested truth. They're interested in negative spin. Rupert Murdoch is the tabloid king. Is that really the kind of journalistic baseline we want to set?

I'm sure the Free Republic folks lurking (and posting) on this site are gonna have a field day with the fact that we're now paying homage to their temple of journalistic sludge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #55)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:39 PM

124. Fox has changed. No, i'm not recommending it as news sources. But opinion...yes.

Your response tells me that you haven't watched it - just like I used to not watch it EVER! It was anathema to me. But, MSNBC is more in the tank for Hillary than Fox News is for any candidate including those on the right. I've moved to CNN generally. But someday try to watch Wallace. You'll be making faces for a while esp. when it's Rove and Krauthammer and the worst is Bret Hume. But you know what? You don't see Bret Hume much anymore. Fox News Sunday (Wallace) has taken on a much more honest reflection of politics. And Chris Wallace is such a good host. I wish you'd watch just so you know what you're talking about now.

I've voted twice Green and once Nader (not 2000!) so I'm no rightwinger. But I check out the competition now and then and I was quite surprised to find some good shows. Namely, Fox News Sunday with Wallace, Media Buzz with Kurtz (hardly political at all) and Shep Smith at noon - also hardly political. MSNBC and CNN have no comparisons to these three shows. MTP might have been watchable at one time but I can't watch Chuck Todd anymore. You really hear more substance from Wallace than you do Toad. Wallace in my mind compares to Stephanopoulos on ABC.

Anyway, I'm not trying to sell ads for Fox but they have some very good programming now. And you get a different perspective on politics which is always a good thing. You choose what to believe.

BTW, their afternoon "legs" panels are the worst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #124)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:40 PM

128. And here we have it.

Rupert Murdoch has "evolved." Glad to get the memo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #124)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:22 PM

210. YOU LIKE FOX

Of course, you do. Birds of a feather.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #210)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:58 PM

264. You like being in that MSNBC box?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:40 PM

56. If you are going to use that quote--please post the entire quote.

Blatantly taking it out of context is not cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #56)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:41 PM

60. That's why it's hot-linked to Snopes

People can gain a pretty non-biased context from there and make their own decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #60)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:42 PM

63. >>>O<<<

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #63)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:45 PM

71. I apologize in advance,

But I don't speak in clicks and whistles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #60)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:27 PM

173. Hmmm, not a bad idea

"I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body."

I should make a sig pic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:06 PM

104. Waiting for a Clinton indictment? Don’t hold your breath

Last edited Mon Apr 25, 2016, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)

I am amused by the Sanders supporters and republicans praying for an indictment http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/waiting-clinton-indictment-dont-hold-your-breath

The fact remains, however, that such a scenario is pretty far-fetched. Politico’s Josh Gerstein took a closer look today at the legal circumstances, and the reasons Clinton’s foes shouldn’t hold their breaths.

The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but – in nearly all instances that were prosecuted – aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.

Politico’s examination seems to have only been able to find one person who sincerely believes Clinton will face prosecution: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who was a prosecutor and a Justice Department official before his partisan antics made him something of a clownish joke.

Among more objective observers, the idea of Clinton facing an indictment seems, at best, implausible. This is very much in line with a recent American Prospect examination, which reached the same conclusion.

TPM’s Josh Marshall published a related piece in February, after speaking to a variety of law professors and former federal prosecutors about the Clinton story. “To a person,” Josh wrote, they agreed the idea of a Clinton indictment is “very far-fetched.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #104)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:46 PM

192. Josh Marshall?

Where have I heard that name before? The Progressive Institute? If you don't know, someone else help me here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:23 PM

25. Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:30 PM

36. I'm sorry you have to feel apologetic for posting information here.

I hate FOX and all they stand for, but this information is very interesting. Aren't we going to be amazed when the rest of the media catches up with them on this? There are things about this that have really shook me up...the biggest being the IT guy getting IMMUNITY. I think that is a big deal.

I applaud you for having the guts to post this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:33 PM

41. Thank you. To be honest, it isn't easy.

 

The vitriol from the Hillary people is ...

I don't work for the FBI. I don't work for the DOJ. I wasn't even paying attention to this stuff until last month - I was just thinking "man, that's a lot of emails - she was working hard!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #41)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:37 PM

49. Thanks from me too. I love people who go to many resources . . .

can't trust just those who preach to your beliefs. It becomes propaganda. Think MSNBC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #41)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:54 PM

88. Just ignore it. Any thing said about Hillary REALLY doing things that are not alright...they are

always in DENIAL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #41)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:29 PM

212. Good post Ida

All news sources should be screened with a discerning eye but intelligent sourcing denotes what is news and what is opinion and what is spin.
I truly hate the "kill the messenger " line of attack. Direct quotes from testimony or comments that were actually sourced from AP or other source and somehow it's still horrible.
Don't let them get you down Ida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:07 PM

105. Why go to the Free Republic when Sanders supporters will bring Freeper material to DU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:20 PM

209. No it is not

And as one poster showed it is old, opinion and BS...and if you hate Fox your would not post it...you are not a Dem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:30 PM

38. I don't trash Fox News anymore. I get around. I'm not part of the choir; I want diff perspectives.

So I watch and listen to learn what I can't learn on MSNBC. I use CNN most. But I do not trash Fox anymore. Wallace is so much better than Toad. Hannity, O'Reilly, the old guard still around and their silly afternoon panels otherwise known as "legs" - pure trash. But Shep, Kurtz and Wallace can be very interesting.

This email thing. Who knows. I'm starting to wonder... It is going on and on and on under a democratic administration. I don't know what to think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:37 PM

51. Who knows is right.

None of us know, even those who always say this is nothing. I don't know if it is or not, neither do they. Maybe some of the FBI agents know, or the career Justice Department lawyers, but they aren't talking yet. Maybe they don't even know yet.

One thing I know for sure, if there is something to it, we are screwed in November with Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #51)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:57 PM

91. The party is screwed way before November

According to the FBI's own words, they have completed the investigation. They only have to interview Hillary's aids and Hillary.

The FBI has an electronic trail of everything that happened and what she did. They have Hillary's server. They have the 30,000 emails that she deleted. They granted immunity to the IT professional who built her server.

The interviews are basically to lay out the case against her and to put the information they have gleaned, into proper context. And to see if the interviewees are willing to commit perjury.

I would not be surprised if all interviews are completed and we have final word before end of May.

Al Jezeera broke the story, at the end of March, that the FBI would be conducting these interviews, "in the coming days and weeks." Not months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #91)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:41 PM

129. Leave it to Al Jezeera! :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #129)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:05 PM

157. I miss them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #91)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:23 PM

171. I hope sooner rather than later so we know where we stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:34 PM

46. These are all fine examples of why Faux news isn't to be trusted. Funny you had to go all the way

back to Jan and Feb to dig them up, though.

Haven't they put out more recent attacks, since these fell flat?

I wonder why you didn't at least point out that that Inspector General is a Republican who has every reason to write that letter for political reasons. But non-partisan experts who have examined the case say there is little likelihood she will be prosecuted for any of the spurious reasons Faux news suggests.

For example, Prof Richard Lempert, who wrote the book on classification procedures when he was with Homeland Security:

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.

Richard O. Lempert
March 20, 2016

News reports suggest that the FBI is nearing the end of its inquiry into the legal issues surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal server for government emails and into the legal ramifications of classified information found in messages to and from her. Most of the reporting—and virtually all political discussion—reads as if reporters and pundits know little about the rules regarding the classification of information and what they imply not just for the likelihood of a Clinton indictment but also for whether she violated other rules regarding the proper handling of classified information, whether or not the violations constitute crimes.

What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate. In this discussion, I offer answers to questions about the former secretary of state’s email that have not been frequently asked, but should be.

SNIP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to pnwmom (Reply #46)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:40 PM

57. No evidence here that anything in OP is false. Justice still investigating...

Be patient. Rather than calling out Fox and then maybe eating crow later, wait and see. Ida brought us information. Okay. I'll wait and see what happens. I have no opinion about the emails because I am no expert and it has gone on so long, I will now wait for the outcome. My opinion means nothing when it comes to emails nor does anyone elses. Justice Dept. has the final answer. It's an Obama Justice Dept. So, I'm waiting...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #66)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:42 PM

130. Before I open all and read a lot: opinion/analysis with or without evidence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #130)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:49 PM

138. It is based on the evidence in the public domain.

You have my inbox. Shoot me a message to remind me I was wrong when she is indicted. I suspect I have a greater chance of growing wings .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #138)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:07 PM

159. I'm not judging you. Whether you turn out to be r or w matters little to me.

I'll wait for the verdict or evidence that pertains to the outcome. I've had it with so much opinion about everything. Seems to me that's the difference between HRC and Bernie supporters although I agree we all defer to common sense as well. I do not expect her to be indicted. But I'm not relying on external analyses to decide for me. They are all interesting I'm sure, but I'll wait for the outcome. There's only so much time to keep up with it all and honestly, I'm not that interested nor am I basing my votes on the email thing. I haven't once used the email meme against Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #57)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:54 PM

145. When has Fox ever been truthful about a Democrat?

With the exception of Shep Smith, their job is to catapult GOP propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #145)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:09 PM

161. When has MSNBC ever been truthful about a candidate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #161)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:18 PM

208. You are no Dem

Now you are defending Fox...really. Go to Free Republic...you will fit right in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #208)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:22 AM

285. Put your hands over your eyes, over your mouth and over your ears. Stay in the MSNBC box and be good

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #161)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:56 PM

263. You sound like a Murdoch apologist. Weird.

Last edited Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #263)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:24 AM

286. Check out Murdoch's kids who took over. Then get back to me.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/roger-ailes-fox-news-murdoch-james-lachlan

Oh, and check out Shep, Kurtz and Wallace. Then go back to Toad if you wish. But you'll be better informed when you do. Funny, I didn't know being broad-minded was a Republican trait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #286)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 11:03 AM

335. Shep is great. Only fools look to Fox News for truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #335)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 03:50 PM

338. Truth at MSNBC? Both chiefly opinion places. Perhaps you mean "factual?"

CNN is more objective. Truth? That is dependent on one's perspective. It is factual that Hillary spent $1M on trolls. It is factual that Bernie did not. It is factual that Fox is a right-wing talking machine. It is factual that MSNBC is a left-wing talking machine. You choose MSNBC's "truth" and I choose to listen to all three. I prefer "truth" from multiple sources then I make up my own mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #338)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 06:52 PM

339. You brought up MSNBC, not me. Enjoy your GOP propaganda Murdoch outlets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:36 PM

47. I never trash threads nor ignore anyone.

So, I'll pass on your order, if you don't mind.

As for your OP, well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #47)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:43 PM

65. It was actually a suggestion intended to help lower the blood pressure

 

of those who find such things infuriating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #65)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:44 PM

67. Nothing on DU raises my blood pressure...

Writing deadlines do though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #67)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:46 PM

72. Okay, and me playing on DU is me avoiding one of mine.

 

Thank you for the (I'm sure unintended) call-out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #72)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:49 PM

79. DU is great for writers who are procrastinating.

But, wait...I'm still writing, even when I'm here. I seem to never stop writing. I can't count how many keyboards I've worn out since 1984, when I got my first PC. Before that, I wore out several IBM Selectric type balls.

Uff da...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:42 PM

62. I am very curious. Have you seen any international reporting on this?

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:43 PM

64. I love when people won't consider anything but favorable news sites

Liberal media is protecting Clinton. So there's only one place left to go to get any information of note.

Hard to believe, but our side is wrong now and then

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:45 PM

70. Yeah, cases don't last THIS long if there's no evidence.

They're building a strong case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joob (Reply #70)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:43 AM

277. Perhaps they are being very thorough

because if she doesn't get charged the Republicans are going to accuse them of covering up. Endless hearings will be held and every time an agent made coffee that will be questioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:46 PM

73. She is a HORRIBLE candidate; thoroughly corrupt and completely compromised. If she's the Nominee...

 

we will LOSE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AzDar (Reply #73)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:54 PM

146. That one's outta here! Home run...

And it went right over their heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:46 PM

74. Hillary's best defense is Barak Obama.

It was not her intent to violate national security she is a patriot. (Paraphrase) Other politicians have been destroyed by much less and this will be in a realm of verifiable facts not politics. I do think the Democratic Party borders on lost judgement at levels encountered in the Republican Party. Even a hand slapping which I expect will be fatal to Hillary's trip to the Whitehouse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:47 PM

75. thanks Ida for updating us on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:47 PM

76. Shew...

Full of sound and fury....signifying nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:49 PM

78. The time stamps will be highly indicative

If info comes off a secure server, and then is immediately reworded and sent over a non-secured one, then that that is something the FBI would likely want to look at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:52 PM

84. If the Clinton Foundation is willing to take large donations from Fox and the Murdochs

then it should be an acceptable source on issues regarding the Clintons.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/17/the-fox-news-connection-to-clinton-foundation-d/203674

<But the non-profit arm of Fox News' then-parent company donated to the Clinton Foundation. The News Corp. Foundation, the charitable arm of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which at the time was the parent company of Fox News, donated between $500,001 to $1,000,000 to the foundation. James R. Murdoch, the co-chief operating officer of Fox News' current parent company, 21st Century Fox, and son of Rupert Murdoch, donated between $1,000,001 to $5,000,000.>

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%241%2C000%2C001%20to%20%245%2C000%2C000&page=1

James Murdoch is listed as a donor of between $1 million and $5 million on the page of the Clinton Foundation website at the link above, right next to NewsMax. So NewsMax should also be an acceptable source for information on the Clintons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:54 PM

86. Dear Ida, i am no Hillary supporter, but if you consider the mass intricate story of 9/11 then......

you will understand whatever is said is only words, when people go to jail for deeds done then is then we will start heeding more of the words you say. Before that, it is all mostly just a bunch of B.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabels (Reply #86)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:00 PM

152. They always give examples and note that is she was anyone else they would have taken

 

her clearance, fired her and she'd probably already be under indictment.

When you don't know anything at all you are free to make up your own concepts, but once you start getting informed, you have to take FACTS into account.

Be fact free if you choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pdsimdars (Reply #152)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 04:28 AM

294. I have learned enough about politics in the last 35 years to know the facts are just a narrative...

to keep us busy. Keep us busy while they reach around with the other hand and steal us blind.

The concept i see is most of the present fiasco we find our country in happened the day POTUS Kennedy was assassinated. A large mix of people wanted him dead and there is lot of evidence to conclude that it was carried out with many collaborators.

Yea, it was like fifty years ago but many things can be traced back to that point. The facts are when we think others will be or should be the heroes instead of having a immutable system in place, we will always end up the fools and be bound for failure. We have been conditioned to think there was one special person who was going to take charge repair our woes. It isn't going to happen, we have to band together and take it for ourselves

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:54 PM

87. Officials: New Top Secret Clinton Emails 'Innocuous'

You got to be kidding http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous-n500586

The classified material included in the latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails flagged by an internal watchdog involved discussions of CIA drone strikes, which are among the worst kept secrets in Washington, senior U.S. officials briefed on the matter tell NBC News.

The officials say the emails included relatively "innocuous" conversations by State Department officials about the CIA drone program, which technically is considered a "Special Access Program" because officials are briefed on it only if they have a "need to know."

As a legal matter, the U.S. government does not acknowledge that the CIA kills militants with drones. The fact that the CIA conducts drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, however, has long been known. Senior officials, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former CIA Director Leon Panetta, have publicly discussed CIA drones.

In 2009, Feinstein disclosed during a public hearing that the U.S. was flying Predator drones out of a base in Pakistan. Also that year, Panetta called drone strikes in Pakistan "the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership." Various public web sites continue to keep track of each CIA drone strike.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #87)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:20 PM

239. More State Dept CYA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:55 PM

89. These claims are based on very old information-there is nothing new

The latest round of claims are based on very old information that is being recycled
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

"This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received" said Clinton Campaign Spokesman Brian Fallon. "It is alarming that the intelligence community IG, working with Republicans in Congress, continues to selectively leak materials in order to resurface the same allegations and try to hurt Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. The Justice Department's inquiry should be allowed to proceed without any further interference."

Just days ago, State released an email showing Clinton asking top policy staffer Jake Sullivan to send information that was slated to be transmitted on a secure fax machine over an unsecured fax because the secured machine was apparently broken. Republicans seized on the message, saying it suggested Clinton was playing fast and loose with classified contents.

It is unclear, however, if the content of the information slated to be faxed that day was indeed classified. And State later said they had no indication that the content in question was ever sent via non-secure means.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985#ixzz3xpPI273W

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #89)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:22 PM

240. This story is from January ffs.

A whole lot has happened regarding this issue since.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:56 PM

90. Diane Feinstein-There is nothing new here

This attack is really sad and bogus http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-had-emails-on-server-more-classified-than-top-secret/

The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, had a similar response, calling the story "nothing new."

"None of the emails that are alleged to contain classified information were written by Secretary Clinton. The question of whether she received emails with classified information has nothing to do with any action taken by Secretary Clinton," she said. "Additionally, none of the emails that were sent to Secretary Clinton were marked as including classified information, a requirement when such information is transmitted."

Feinstein said the inspector general was being used for "baldly partisan attacks."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #90)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:23 PM

241. January 19, 2016, 6:53 PM

You're right about nothing new here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:58 PM

92. The Hillary Clinton top-secret email controversy, explained

Here is a good explanation of the issue that even some laypersons should be able to understand http://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10873106/hillary-clinton-email-top-secret

This might seem unimportant. If it's top secret, then it must be really sensitive, right?

Not necessarily. A large proportion of documents that our government classifies are not actually that sensitive — more on that below. So the key thing now is to try to figure out: Were these emails classified because they contain highly sensitive information that Clinton never should have emailed in the first place, or because they were largely banal but got scooped up in America's often absurd classify-everything practices?

Obviously we can't know the answer to that for sure unless we read the emails. But one good way to make an informed guess is by asking whether the emails were classified at the moment they were sent or whether they were classified only later.

The reason this matters is that if they were immediately classified top secret, then that is a good sign that they contained information that is known as "born classified" — that it was information in itself obtained by classified channels or because it was generated internally by classified means. For example, if Clinton were emailing the secret US bombing plans for Libya, or sharing something that the French ambassador told her in confidence, that would be "born classified."

But if the information were classified only later, then that would indicate it was more banal, or that it was not classified for any reasons particular to the emails themselves. Again, see below on how a boring email could become marked as top secret.

According to a statement by the State Department, "These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent."

In other words, they do not contain information that was "born classified," but rather fall into the vast gray area of things that do not seem obviously secret at the time but are later deemed that way — not always for good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:59 PM

94. Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

If an e-mail was not marked classified, then Clinton is in the clear under federal law http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Standards for classifying information and procedures to be followed are found in EO 15326 and elaborated on in later regulations. The regulations provide that information “may be originally classified” only if classified by an “original classification authority” and if certain conditions relating to the source of the information and the need to protect it are met. The regulations also provide that “if there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority and those in the department who had original classification authority had it only by virtue of a delegation from her. As the font of their authority Clinton could legally override any classification determination a subordinate made.

These standards make it difficult to conclude that Clinton violated any law regarding the disclosure of classified information. As indicated by the word “may,” which I italicized, the regulations do not require that any information, no matter how sensitive, be classified. They also indicate that when in doubt information should not be classified or should be classified at the lowest level consistent with national security. Not only was Secretary Clinton the ultimate authority within the State Department to determine whether State Department information should be classified, but she was also the ultimate authority in determining whether classified information should be declassified. Moreover, declassification when done at the highest level appears to require no formal procedure. Indeed, we have a history of high-level officials engaging in “instant declassification,” most notably by leaking classified information to the press for political or strategic advantage. Since the leakers are typically speaking off the record or on deep background, some disclosures may have been made by people lacking the authority to declassify information, instantly or otherwise. No such leaker has been criminally prosecuted, and so long as the authorization to reveal classified information was approved at the cabinet level, it is unlikely that anyone could be.....

There are elaborate rules for marking and protecting information, depending on its level of classification. For example, a letter containing confidential information can be sent by ordinary mail. If it contained secret information it would have to be sent by certified mail, and if it contained top-secret information, except in special circumstances, a courier would have to deliver it rather than the U.S. mail.

Secretary Clinton has claimed, so far without leaked contradiction, that no message she received or sent was marked so as to indicate that it was classified.
Similarly, the government has specially secure, and different, computer systems for transmitting or discussing secret or top-secret information, and high security locales, called Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities or SCIFs, where secret and top-secret discussions can be held, and where an agency’s employees can access its secure computer systems. The key to knowing whether information is classified and at what level are markings to be attached to documents, whether paper or electronic. Secretary Clinton has claimed, so far without leaked contradiction, that no message she received or sent was marked so as to indicate that it was classified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:00 PM

95. 'Top Secret' Email Revelation Changes 'Nothing,' Clinton Says

Articles in the New York Times are not SAP http://www.npr.org/2016/01/20/463730125/-top-secret-email-revelation-changes-nothing-clinton-says?live=1

Clinton added, "I'm just going to leave it up to the professionals at the Justice Department, because nothing that this says changes the fact that I never sent or received material marked classified."

She said "the best we can determine" is that the emails in question were a forward of a New York Times article on a classified drone program and that they had likely been retroactively classified.

"How a New York Times public article that goes around the world could be in any way viewed as classified, or the fact that it would be sent to other people off of the New York Times site, I think, is one of the difficulties that people have in understanding what this is about," Clinton said.

Though the drone program was classified at the time, it was being written about publicly, which Clinton said, "strikes me as somewhat strange that there would be a — an effort by those who are leaking this — and obviously that's what's happening — to try to raise concerns and doubts about information in the public sector."

She added, "But even if they have retroactive concerns and doubts, that doesn't change the fact that these were not marked classified at the time they were sent or received."

You can not make it illegal to read the NYT or to discuss an article from the NYT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #95)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:03 PM

99. You are interrupting their indictment wet dreams. OTOH, at least their bed sheets will be clean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #95)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:12 PM

235. Oh, well if CLINTON says it's nothing, that's different!

 

I don't use this often, but I can't think of a better reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:01 PM

97. "Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strike

These charges are really funny. The so call beyond top secret information is material in news reports http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

“Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.”

The State Department is likely to persist in its contention that some information the intelligence community claimed was “top secret” because it related to North Korean nuclear tests was actually the product of “parallel reporting” that did not rely on classified intelligence products and so should not be treated as highly classified, the official said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985#ixzz3xvQpGCwW

E-mails discussing material in the Washington Post are not top secret or SAP.

Thank you for the laughs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #97)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:06 PM

103. + 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #103)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:15 PM

107. I read the super duper Top Secret E-Mails dealt with information available in the New York Times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #107)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:19 PM

109. If they connect enough dots ... maybe the Indictment Fairy will appear!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #109)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:22 PM

111. Well, Joe, it certainly won't be for a lack of trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #111)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:23 PM

112. True they started with this ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #112)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:26 PM

115. I am counting on you and your fellow Pennsylvanians to end this unpleasantness next Tuesday.

I read the Vermont independent is spending like a drunken sailor in Pennsylvania. He also did so in New York and got clobbered, so it's a good omen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #97)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:57 PM

182. Oh, oops, you missed a paragraph above your quote...

"However, the emails now deemed to contain “top secret, special access program” information are in addition to the messages previously disputed between State and the Director of National Intelligence, according to a spokesperson for McCullough. The official said the intelligence community review group is wrapping up its look into the documents and is putting these documents in the SAP category."


More background on the review of these (usually stated as two) SAP documents:

"An intelligence official familiar with the matter told NBC News that the special access program in question was so sensitive that McCullough (that's Charles McCullough, Inspector General for the Intelligence Services) and some of his aides had to receive clearance to be read in on it before viewing the sworn declaration about the Clinton emails.

Clinton's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hillary-clinton-emails-contained-info-above-top-secret-ig-n499886


Doubtful that this SAP issue had to do with nothing but drones. Cover stories abound, but that doesn't make them true. Until the FBI puts its cards on the table, Hillary Clinton is not cleared. And an objective reading of what's been written about this makes it highly unlikely that she will be cleared. I wouldn't bet on it, but anyone else can go ahead and do that.

Bear in mind that the biggest part of the email problem though, is NOT the emails themselves but the SERVER. The server was blatantly gross negligence and it is provable. (And no, contrary to her lies, no other official EVER set up their own server, and there was NEVER "permission" given to her to do so.) Bye, bye Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:03 PM

98. Yep, the "Top Secret" Emails Were All About Drones

The so-called "Top Secret" emails were all about NYT stories concerning drones and were in the public domain http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/yep-top-secret-emails-were-all-about-drones

So just what was in those "top secret" emails that Hillary Clinton received on her personal email server while she was Secretary of State? The New York Times reports what everyone has already figured out: they were about drones. What's more, the question of whether they contain anything that's actually sensitive is mostly just a spat between CIA and State:

Some of the nation’s intelligence agencies raised alarms last spring as the State Department began releasing emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, saying that a number of the messages contained information that should be classified “top secret.”

The diplomats saw things differently and pushed back at the spies. In the months since, a battle has played out between the State Department and the intelligence agencies.

....Several officials said that at least one of the emails contained oblique references to C.I.A. operatives. One of the messages has been given a designation of “HCS-O” — indicating that the information was derived from human intelligence sources...The government officials said that discussions in an email thread about a New York Times article — the officials did not say which article — contained sensitive information about the intelligence surrounding the C.I.A.’s drone activities, particularly in Pakistan.

The whole piece is worth reading for the details, but the bottom line is pretty simple: there's no there there. At most, there's a minuscule amount of slightly questionable reporting that was sent via email—a common practice since pretty much forever. Mostly, though, it seems to be a case of the CIA trying to bully State and win some kind of obscure pissing contest over whether they're sufficiently careful with the nation's secrets.

It is not against the law to read and talk about articles in NYT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:06 PM

102. GOP thanks you for this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #102)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:58 PM

225. The thing is if the DNC and the MSNBS CNN ...were truthful maybe people wouldn't have to listen

 

To FOX to hear ANY truth about Hillary Clinton

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:32 PM

119. You did a great job putting this together, IdaBriggs!

I read it all the way through and will do so again, and bookmark.

I have a Notepad full of links that I started saving as of about a month ago, which is a mess because it is growing much faster than I expected. It isn't just Fox reporting this, there isn't a major source that is left out of the links I've collected. And that is just links that I happen to see, and links from those stories, etc., not in-depth research on my part.

So I can appreciate the great work you did here, in putting together the main points so clearly and logically, because I can estimate what it would take to organize the messy Notepad I have that well.

I'll be matching what you have here with my "collection". Some of the links I recognize, and some I probably missed and will add. That you! for the great job you did on this, and I hope a lot of people who haven't been paying attention to this will take the time to follow the info you provided here.

My opinion on the whole thing is this: there are an abundance of criminal charges that can be brought against HRC, most of which she has admitted to doing. She insists that it was fine, but no, it really wasn't. She's going entirely on bluff about this, just bulling through on blatant lies. Highly credible people, like former heads of the agencies involved, have said that what she did was criminal, along with numerous less serious legal issues.

Whenever the FBI releases its findings, her goose is cooked in my opinion. Because no matter what happens after that, the court of public opinion WILL believe the FBI and whichever Repub is running WILL harp on their findings 24/7, and her career will be DONE at that point, regardless of any charges to come out of it later. And the 38 civil suits will not be going away either. She won't be able to raise any other subject and no one will vote for her.

There can be nothing more insane the Dem party could do, than nominating her. But I think the people who are scoffing it off now will understand how real this is when the FBI checks in. When they do though, there might not be enough time to salvage this election for the Dem party.

And wouldn't it be absurd for one of those idiot Repubs to win, in a year when that should be impossible, simply because the Dems insisted on backing to the end someone they should never in a million years even consider allowing to run -- someone under active FBI investigation. It is gobsmackingly stupid.

Excellent job, IdaBriggs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Waiting For Everyman (Reply #119)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 03:14 PM

321. Thank you!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:35 PM

122. Yes, but not one mention of Vince Foster in this "piece"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The_Casual_Observer (Reply #122)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:02 PM

154. And some are also casual thinkers.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:40 PM

127. I don't know what to think

 

I mean if she really did screen out work related emails later found that may be bad.

On the other hand it could all be bullshit and innuendo like so much of the stuff about Clinton always has been.

You'd think with so much of the emails being forwarded to her thru other people maybe if anybody IS prosecuted it will sort of be her underlings not her, much like Oliver North took the hit for Reagan and no problems for Hillary even if there is something.

The one dude already has immunity so he could go full Oliver North and say he was responsible for all of it and take the fall. He'd be rewarded later on I'm sure, cause they have the Clinton Foundation to give friends jobs and stuff.

However given that Edwards was going full steam ahead with a potential killer secret I hope Sanders stays in the race to the very end just in case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hollowdweller (Reply #127)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:56 PM

148. She didn't separate her work related and personal e-mails. One of her State staff attorneys did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:44 PM

132. 5 links to Fox News in a single post. This might be a DU record.

 

Congratulations.

You're really feeling the Bern!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:45 PM

133. I hate to say it, but FOX has been the only one doing any reporting on this.

 

I wish people on the left wouldn't mimic people on the right. It is often mentioned how tea baggers only watch FOX and refuse to accept information from other sources, live in their own bubble, etc.

I have seen it just as much here on the left.
People FREAK at the mention of Fox. But they've been going a good job of reporting the facts which you hear NOTHING about on the left. You don't have to accept their conclusions or their analysis but they do report facts.

The latest that I appreciate is when Obama went on Fox with Wallace and said, "there is classified and there is classified." (or something like that) and he basically gave the impression that what Hillary did was no big deal.

But there were at least 22 emails which were the top level (SAP) of the highest classification (top secret) and the State Department (and probably Obama's state department is not part of the "vast right wing conspiracy", State Department said there are 22 emails that would cause "exceptionally grave damage to America's national security."

That doesn't sound like "ho-hum" to me. And I don't believe just because it was from a RW source means it is a lie. It was reported.

Get out of denial.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pdsimdars (Reply #133)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:57 PM

150. Excellent response. FOX has changed. Dems who stick with msnbc are less informed.

Get out of media boxes and then you'll really be informed because you'll be contrasting different points of view and you'll be gaining information you won't get from only one or two sources. Wallace beats Toad every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pdsimdars (Reply #133)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:04 PM

156. which is worse?

A RW news source reporting facts?

Or a Democratic or MSM news source trying desperately to bury a real story?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:55 PM

147. 143 reponses to this OP...

and less than 40 are visible.

Thanks for the info. I never would've watched Fox news to hear any of this. But I'm sure you made some heads explode though!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smiley (Reply #147)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:01 PM

153. this OP is like a honey pot

and looky look at all the critters squirming in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:12 PM

163. lol keep hope alive

Something may stop her yet.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:15 PM

164. Which narrative am I to believe?

 

The one where HRC is the tech savvy politico totally down with the Millennials in the age of Twitter



Or the one where she's all "Wiped? Like with a cloth?" in full "I don' know nuthing 'bout deleting no email" mode.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #164)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 05:15 PM

327. One observation someone made about all those pictures of Hillary using her Blackberry in public

 

when she was SoS was that they might be used as evidence to show her un-secured device communicating. May be far fetched because how could you know if it was SoS business but it points out one of the problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:16 PM

166. If the party nominates HRC

They deserve what happens next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:28 PM

175. Most of us know the shit will hit the fan soon.

The others will continue to whistle in the wind no matter what you say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:39 PM

178. This is why and the sons are starting to win this little intramural fight I see

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/roger-ailes-fox-news-murdoch-james-lachlan

I noticed the change in print, not tv yet, a while ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #178)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:38 PM

259. You should have quoted it -- let me help!

 

Ailes and James have maintained a distant, if frosty relationship. James is an environmentalist who led News Corp's campaign to be a carbon-neutral company. His wife once worked for the Clinton Foundation. Ailes, a fierce climate change denier, openly badmouthed James to friends and colleagues. He's called him a "fucking dope" and "Fredo," according to sources.


So, if I read this correctly, Ailes just got demoted and his new boss is the guy he hates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #259)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:42 PM

260. Yeah the transition has started

 

And even in the local coverage you can see it. My local affiliate is far more down the middle and balanced than the NBC, CBS and ABC stations. Don't get me started with KUSY.

The other day they ALMOST had the words climate change cross their lips. I was honestly rooting for them... YOU CAN DO IT!!!!



But this is way too much inside media baseball, My guess is that the sons are going for a few pullitzers. They find themselves in the same situation the WAPO was in the summer of 1972 if you get my drift.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:51 PM

181. People forget...as hard as we fought to defend Bill Clinton

all those years of his Administration.

In the end: There really WAS a BLUE DRESS...with stains of the President on it. And, we had been convinced it was all a lie from Monica Lewinsky.

Depends on how long one has been around as to how they feel about Hillary. But, Bill is running for his Third Term (actively campaigning for Hillary all over the country) and he will be in the White House which is unprecedented in American History. We need to think carefully and reflect on both Hillary and Bill and ask ourselves--if they represent the ideals of Democratic Party going forward given that one was impeached and the other is now under FBI Investigation.

I expected more from Bill and Hillary when I voted for Bill twice. I lost friends defending Bill through the scandals. I now know more about what Bill's policies in tandem with Wall Street and DLC's Deregulation Policies did to dismantle good Federal programs for the people that had in place since FDR's New Deal for workers rights and other issues that most here are aware of.

There's no way I can accept Bill and Hillary given the cloud over Hillary with the E-Mail Server issue hanging over her and Bill who not only behaved badly enough sexually in the White House but pals around with the same Wall Street crowd that influenced his Deregulation that helped lead to the 2008 Crash or Hillary's War policies which led to Libya and the spread of ISIS.

We need Real change...not, a rehashing of the Clinton's and their Policies and their Personal problems. They will have a fine life with their Foundation if Bernie wins the Election. They have had their time in the Sun and profited from it. Time to Move On.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #181)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:58 PM

199. Hear! Hear!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:11 PM

184. you forgot to include how she murdered Vince Foster. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #184)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:33 PM

187. That is ridiculous. It was Mellon-Scaife's Money putting that out...

and Bill Clinton gave his Eulogy when he died! How about that?

That's what bothers so many of us Dems who thought he was our Salvation when we voted for him Twice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #184)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:28 PM

242. Another Hillary Supporter brings up Vince Foster.

Everyone down your drink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:44 PM

191. It would be ironic if that photo that launched a thousand gifs (the one of Clinton

using her Blackberry on a plane) turns out to be evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:13 PM

205. So now you are posting Fox lies against Hillary....

I do not understand how the mods have not already locked down this threat. For shame doing heavy lifting for the GOP...Bernie is not going to be the candidate...he knows it...so you slime the democratic candidate. I long for the day this primary is called and it should not be in June either, and you are tossed out for your treachery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #205)


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:38 PM

217. Ida, when you paste an excerpt from elsewhere, you need to change where ometimes a word

is in brackets in the original, because on DU those brackets will make the word disappear when you paste it into the DU message box.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #217)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:08 PM

268. I thought I caught all of them - would you mind specifying where I missed?

 

Much appreciated! I think I stared at it too long while putting it together!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #268)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 10:42 AM

316. Sorry I didn't see your request until now. I have not been online since yesterday when I posted

that comment. Here is the passage:

The source emphasized to Fox News that “if was allowing other people to use her passwords, that is a big problem.” The Foreign Service Officers Manual prohibits the sharing of passwords.


I saw whose name was mentioned because I went to the article to find out. (I hate not knowing stuff.) I didn't say the name in my post, though, because most people would read the OP but not my post way, way down, and not the article either, so I figured you would want to fix the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #316)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 03:07 PM

320. Thank you and fixed!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:01 PM

226. in other words

Faux is right when they trash Hillary but not when they trash anyone else

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:03 PM

228. Wow, devastating OP.

I know there is an end to it, but considering we have gone this far, I think we should go all the way now.

To the convention, that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:04 PM

229. K&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:04 PM

230. If she wins, we are cooked. The party MUSt stop this. California and Indiana need to turn

 

out in massive numbers. I am volunteering Sat and Sun in Indiana for the Bernie campaign, and may well fly to California as well (remains to be seen). We CANNOT go down the Hillary road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #230)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:08 PM

233. Good luck to you.

 

Thank you for your involvement.

CFS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #230)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:08 PM

254. ....! Thank You!

We are all doing what we can and thanks for sharing. Need all support we can get!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #254)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:12 PM

255. I may even fly to California to help. Not sure yet...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:54 PM

261. If the only sources you can find to make a case for your candidate or against mine are extreme right

 

wing, you might consider that your hatred is blinding you enough to become an "useful idiot".

In political jargon, useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.


Just sayin.... something to consider even though you didn't want anyone to come into this thread and take you to task for posting a couple of right wing links and driving revenue to those sites.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #261)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:05 PM

267. Sigh. Let me cut to the chase:

 

Do you believe the (independent) Inspector General of the Intelligence Community suborned perjury and documented this in a written statement to Congress?

If the answer is "no", then be aware Hillary Clinton has been publicly lying because his statement directly contradicts hers that "there were no classified documents on her server".

The PDF of the document I reference was "exclusively leaked" and can be viewed at the FOX News link I have provided in the first part of my original post.

If you answered "yes", I don't even know what to say to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #267)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:26 PM

269. Problem is too many do not read the comments. Answers all included in them. Great post!

You got a lot of thinking going about messengers as opposed to messages. The days of Ailes per a poster above are over. Fox has changed. But those so loyal to one source and so angry at another source can never see when change happens. And it has happened. You look where others do not. I do as well. We are the more informed.

Before I shoot the messenger, I read the message and then I verify. Well, most of the time. You've attracted the best and the worst on this thread. Impressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #269)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:32 PM

272. Wow. That is such an amazing complimentary post.

 

Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:50 PM

274. Thank you, Ida.

No sense in apologizing any longer about Fox News -- MSNBC is no longer on the high ground. It is just as biased & contrived in its reporting as Fixed News.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:53 PM

275. Just scanned for the sources...

Yeah... You'll believe Fox and the Washington Examiner, but not the Democratic Party.

Not that the rightwing has anything to do with it, I'm sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #275)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:00 AM

279. I don't believe either party! I'm laughing.

That probably explains our differences. Clinton is the party and Bernie is an outsider who wants the party and democracy to be better. You "trust" the party and I trust my own informed self. Notice I said "informed" because that is what makes the difference. Honestly, get out of the MSNBC box. It is more propaganda than Fox. You should go back to the comments and read what Brez wrote about Roger Ailes and the Murdoch kids - you might be surprised. If you don't check out all sources, you'll be limiting yourself to the choir.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #275)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 06:47 AM

305. See post #267. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:38 AM

276. This is confirmed by numerous other sources. The basic facts have been known since 3/15

Excellent compilation Ida. It's a shame that so many here will ignore it because of the messenger. Fox, not you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:53 AM

278. My issue isn't with Fox

Its with you. She did say no E-mails were classified when this first broke but she quickly changed that to no E-mails were MARKED classified. So far, that is still uncontroverted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #278)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:27 AM

287. I don't see that as a point in Hillary's favor.

Saying the emails weren't marked classified doesn't mean they weren't classified. If anything, retreating from "not classified" to "not marked classified" sounds like an evasion.

It's known that classified material was found in some of the emails, although we don't know the nature of that material. I see multiple possibilities:

1) Material was classified at the time. If it was marked classified, that's a blatant violation. If it wasn't marked, but a reasonably competent Secretary of State should have known it should be classified, her behavior was either criminal or incompetent, neither of which would recommend her for the role of President. If said material came from Blumenthal, who wasn't cleared for that info, and she failed to report it, she's toast.

2) Material wasn't classified at the time. If it's something that a reasonable person wouldn't have considered sensitive info (example, some tidbit about a country that only in retrospect became a piece of red-hot intel), she's in the clear. If not, and she didn't classify it, or question what it wasn't classified, she's again in trouble.

Worst of all, they switched servers and the work was done by a company without a security clearance. There's no way that shit's gonna fly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #287)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:33 AM

288. You said she lied about that


She didn't.

Whether the information was marked makes a big difference. The main law they are saying she's in jeopardy from defines classified information as information that had been declared classified by an agency. If it wasn't declared, it doesn't fall under the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #288)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:44 AM

290. She's actually in jeopardy on multiple fronts.

Google up some of levymg's stuff. Not all of the things she could be dinged for rely on intent, and there are problems with not properly classifying things, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #290)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 04:45 AM

297. There has been no target letter

A target letter is a letter one would receive from a United States Attorney stating that you are the "target" of a federal criminal investigation; that you are the subject of a criminal investigation.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStateLib (Reply #297)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 06:57 AM

306. If I understand correctly (from 30 seconds of googling because not a lawyer)

 

that only applies if one is being asked to testify in front of a grand jury.

http://www.edmecka.com/articles/federal-target-of-investigation-letter.html

She is not being asked to testify in front of a grand jury. She and her top staff are going to be interviewed by the FBI after a year long investigation. Hillary will be bringing her criminal attorney with her for legal counsel.

Numerous sources have stated on the record that FBI does not have to notify people they are being investigated for criminal stuff (which makes sense, because then they would run around destroying evidence).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #288)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 06:46 AM

304. They have an email where she tells her aid how to use

 

"copy/paste" so he can send her information via email that is too classified to be faxed.

It's on Wikileaks, and the PDF is on DU already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 04:26 AM

293. we all know what fox news is

but we cant blame them for posting this bullshit here. That was you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 04:46 AM

298. I wouldn't say fox news has a reputation of being a rw propaganda machine

 

I'd say it IS a rw propaganda machine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 06:00 AM

303. She's a member of The Club

Members of The Club can do anything they like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:53 AM

309. Bernie supporter here. Trashing RW sourced thread. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:57 AM

310. The next time I see a smear on SteveLesser for appearing on Fox, I'm referencing this OP.

 

From the Indictment Fairy to Fox News to O'Keefe-associates and now the Transcript Fairy. Let it go. Do something useful with your time on DU.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 09:14 AM

314. To my fellow Clinton supporters reading this thread

Keep your chin up. When you wake up next Wednesday morning we will be enjoying the fruits of our well deserved victory which will be all but complete and our nemeses will be waking up to a breakfast of poisoned fare and the wailing of their allies.

Onward. Victory is ours as victory is the province of the just .


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #314)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 05:25 PM

329. Absolutely. I am sick of their faux outrage. This is the garbage that they are pinning their hopes

on that somehow it will propel their candidate to the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #329)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 05:26 PM

330. All this unpleasantness will be coming to an end soon, Inshallah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #330)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 05:28 PM

331. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 05:04 PM

326. Never seen a thread so big. I hope people are starting to pay attention.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pdsimdars (Reply #326)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 05:20 PM

328. heh, heh, you know Ida has hit the nail on the head when... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #328)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 11:05 AM

336. You know when Fox News is your only hope, you need to step back

and re-evaluate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 05:38 PM

332. As Secretary of State and, to her, rightful President she likely operated under the assumption that

 

she was above the law, or decided the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 11:58 AM

337. Thanks

If I plagiarize you take it as a complement, but I needed to copy this in a place where it can not be removed by HRC folks. I like to keep track of info.

Besides, I am not an Ostrich keeping my head in the sand I want to know what the GOP might do to win and Fox is a good source for understanding their possible attack strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread