The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline

[paulthompson]

I've been working on this for a month, with some key help from some great DUers, and now my website on the Clinton email scandal timeline finally up and running. Here's an email I've been sending about it:

My name is Paul Thompson. I wrote a book on terrorism called "The Terror Timeline," which was published by Harper Collins. Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism tsar under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, used it as one of his sources in a class on terrorism at Harvard University. Here's the Wikipedia page on it:

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

Today, I'm announcing a new project, which is an on-line timeline about Hillary Clinton's email scandal. Clinton is currently winning the Democratic primaries, but there's an active FBI investigation into her emails, and most people don't know what to think about that yet. I'm politically progressive, but I believe her email scandal is for real and much more serious than generally believed. Anyone who follows politics needs to understand what it's all about.

To that end, I've created a 60,000 word long timeline that compiles and condenses thousands of news reports on the scandal in a way that's never been done before. I've also created versions of 20,000 and 35,000 words for those who don't want so much detail.

Here's the link:

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

I've written an introductory essay to the timelines called "Is Clinton's Email Scandal for Real?" which I recommend you read first:

http://thompsontimeline.com/IS_CLINTON%27S_EMAIL_SCANDAL_FOR_REAL%3F

And here's additional commentary for Clinton supporters. I know I'm going to be attacked by some for this effort, which is critical of the Democratic frontrunner. But believe me, I'm a staunch progressive. I want nothing more than to see a Democrat win the White House in November. Before you dismiss this timeline, READ IT! This scandal is not a right wing witch hunt. I've quoted from thousands of mainstream news reports. Those exist. The FBI currently is investigating Clinton and her aides. That investigation exists. Simply trying to wave this away as dreams of the "indictment fairy" or trying to ban discussion about it or the like does not help Clinton's cause, because the Republicans hate Clinton so much they're going to be attacking her on this for years to come no matter who wins in November, and no matter what happens with the FBI investigation. To talk intelligently on the issue, you need to be informed.

Sometimes scandals happen, even to Democrats. Some politicians survive them and some don't. Look at Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal. That was a real scandal based on real events, yet his political career survived it. Donald Trump is so awful - easily the worst presidential candidate in our lifetimes - that one might argue Clinton is still the better choice despite her email scandal. Bill only made matters worse by being in denial about his Lewinsky affair. In a similar way, I believe it's better to confront the reality of this scandal and separate the fact from fiction now, instead of waiting for it to be some kind of "October surprise" Republican media push that could propel Trump into the White House.

This needs to be confronted head-on sooner rather than later, because the options narrow as more time passes. It's not too late for Democrats to choose Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, or someone else if this scandal is damaging enough to Hillary. That needs to be decided before the Democratic convention, not after. Alternately, Clinton could try to seriously address the issue and apologize in order to start to put it behind her. So far, as the timeline shows, she's been evasive and dishonest with her comments about the scandal, which ultimately will only make matters worse for her when more of the facts come out. Just look at the comments Bill Clinton made in a speech yesterday, calling the scandal a "game." It's not.

We need to be honest about the actual facts and not the spin (be it right wing spin, pro-Clinton spin, pro-Sanders spin, or other), which is why I've tried to compile a timeline as objectively as I can. I'm open to adding to the timeline with any facts I've missed, including those deemed helping Clinton's point of view. Please read the actual facts as presented in the timeline before you judge.

[grasswire]

1. Thank you Paul.

You are a patriot and a scholar of truth.

[JudyM]

39. +1.

I hope this gets MSM traction so we can learn more before the convention rather than waiting for the rethugs to exploit it in the GE.

[paulthompson]

88. This!

That's the entire point of what I'm doing. Let's hash this out now, while we still have options, instead of in a general election where it's Trump vs. Clinton.

[appal_jack]

99. Yes. Thank you.

I've only read parts so far. But what I've read seems well-researched and accurately-presented. k&r,

-app

[GreatGazoo]

119. +1

[silvershadow]

2. We need to work on a general scandal timeline...And a Great Smash-and-Grab Primary of

2016 timeline. Saving for evaluation later. Bookmarked.

[Baobab]

97. this is a REALLY scandalous bunch of emails

Start here:

http://www.pnhpillinois.org/pipermail/activists_healthcareil.org/2009-August/000156.html

[Onlooker]

3. The scandal is a right wing witch hunt; don't fall for the right wing spin

Here are the facts:

- Hillary legally used a private email account.
- This legal activity mysteriously led to claims that she was breaking the law.
- These claims led to a search for evidence that she was breaking the law.
- This search for evidence secured investigators permission to comb through her 50,000 emails.
- There is still no evidence she broke the law.

This scandal is complete right-wing bullshit.

There is as much chance that Bernie broke the law as Hillary did, so why don't we demand to see all of Bernie's public and private emails? In fact, we should demand to see every Congressperson's private and public emails.

At any rate, in my opinion your site should get you banned from DU, since it's clearly one that geared towards providing Republicans with all the information they need. I will alert.

[BootinUp]

4. Yep. nt

[Peace Patriot]

6. You certainly don't know that Clinton used a private email SERVER legally.

It was not just an email "account." It was an entire server, outside of government channels and security protections, and emails sent on that private server contained information so sensitive that it had to be redacted by the NSA (and probably other intelligence agencies) before it could be provided in a FOIA request, at the order of a judge. This was after Clinton said that all the emails she deleted were personal. They weren't. You don't seem to understand the seriousness of this. You don't seem to understand the difference between an email account and a private server. And you certainly don't know that Clinton's actions were LEGAL. You got a mole in the FBI or something?

Why do you think that there is an FBI investigation? Why do you think that the FBI has given immunity to the Clinton employee who set up the private server? What do you imagine the FBI has been doing for a year?

You say: "This scandal is complete rightwing bullshit." You think the FBI is party to a great rightwing conspiracy? Obama is president, you know. You think Obama would permit the FBI to go on a rightwing witch hunt? You think he wouldn't have fired Director Comey by now, if that was the case?

We are in the midst of the Democratic Primary, trying to produce the best candidate we can, to beat a Republican in the GE. ONE of our candidates is under FBI investigation! You don't think we should know the details of this that are available? That's pretty myopic of you. I've read some of the referenced material, and I think Clinton IS vulnerable to indictment on a number of legal issues. You think the opposite but apparently haven't read any of this material, and want it banned. I really don't understand the desire to censor information that may well be pertinent to Clinton's viability as a candidate in the GE.

[BootinUp]

11. If both Bill C. and Obama indicate there is nothing to this that will be damaging

then that is good enough for me.

There is some info on the Hillary campaign website as well that should answer most questions.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

[frylock]

42. Oh, well if Bill C. says so.

[SwampG8r]

105. Admitted perjurer and disbarred attorney bill ?

No.court would take the word of a confessed perjurer.

[pnwmom]

12. Yes, we do. There was no law that prevented this according to the head of the

National Archives. And previously members of the Bush administration had routed their email through a PRIVATE server belonging to the Republican party.

[bahrbearian]

21. June 20, 2007:

June 20, 2007: Clinton publicly criticizes the Bush administration's use of non-governmental email accounts: While campaigning for president, Clinton says, "Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps. We know about secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts. ... It's a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok." (ABC News, 3/6/2015) (The Hill, 3/5/2015)

[pnwmom]

22. Hillary wasn't secretly doing anything. She was openly using the private server and openly

had a state department employee set it up correctly. And President Clinton's secret service detail guarded it.

The emails she sent back and forth to the state department got saved to the state department .gov accounts of the staff there, but she sent along additional copies of her emails upon request anyway.

[paulthompson]

89. No

Nothing in your email is true. First off, Bryan Pagliano set up Clinton's server a year before he worked for the State Department. Secondly, when he joined the State Department in 2009, he lied on a form by saying he didn't have any outside paid jobs. He did, managing Clinton's server. Why do you think he's reached an immunity deal with the Justice Department? The penalty for lying on the form is a maximum of five years in prison. Furthermore, by all accounts, nobody in the State Department knew about Clinton's private server, except for her close aides.

Furthermore, Clinton was allowed to use a server like that, but only if it was inspected and approved by government security. That didn't happen. Ditto with BlackBerry. It should have been inspected and approved, but it wasn't.

And yes, the Secret Service physically guarded Clinton's house, but if you think hackers get her emails by breaking into her house and walking off with the server, you don't know much. That's totally irrelevant to the security of the server.

There was a later investigation by the State Department which showed that far less than one percent of all emails were permanently archived by the department during Clinton's time as secretary of state. And after she left and people filed Freedom of Information Act requests for some of her emails, the department would always reply that none were found. Even Clinton's chief of staff Cheryl Mills said no emails existed, despite emailing Clinton every day. Judges (including those appointed by Bill Clinton) have rightly pointed out that there was a pattern of deceit of hiding Clinton's emails.

So, other than that, everything you said was spot on .

[paulthompson]

90. Example

Here's an example of the sort of thing you might learn if you actually took the time to read the timeline.

December 2012: A non-profit group files a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking Clinton's emails, but a Clinton aide says the emails don't exist despite knowing that they do. The request by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) ask for "records sufficient to show the number of email accounts of or associated with Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton." This request is sparked by reports that Lisa Jackson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, had been using an email account at work under the name "Richard Windsor." Clinton is still secretary of state at the time, and her chief of staff Cheryl Mills soon learns of CREW's request. But although Mills is very aware of Clinton's private email address since she frequently sends emails to it, she doesn't mention it and merely has an aide monitor the progress of CREW's request. Melanie Sloan, the executive director of CREW, will later say, "Cheryl Mills should have corrected the record. She knew this wasn't a complete and full answer." In May 2013, the State Department will respond to CREW, "no records responsive to your request were located." Other requests for Clinton's records will meet the same fate until the House Benghazi Committee finds out about her private email account in 2014. Steve Linick, the State Department's inspector general, will conclude in a 2016 report that the State Department gave an "inaccurate and incomplete" response about Clinton's email use to CREW and in other similar cases. (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016) (The Washington Post, 1/6/2016)

So please tell me again how Clinton's use of her private email account and server wasn't kept a secret.

[pnwmom]

92. Yeah, right. How many books did you sell today, Paul? Have you checked your Amazon #'s lately?

[senz]

102. Cheesy, irrelevant ad hominem.

This person gives you a careful, detailed account and you respond with an off-the-wall personal putdown.

[pnwmom]

103. His account is biased and not supported by independent, non-book selling legal analysts. n/t

[libdem4life]

111. It's all they have. Be kind.

[senz]

112. I'm starting to think

they are fundamentally different from us and not reachable through normal channels.

It makes me feel a tad helpless -- but that's life, I guess.

[libdem4life]

113. Yes. They seem to have entered into Plato's Cave

But Bernie got out and is showing the way to sensible, people driven politics and the funding thereof.

For those not aware of Plato's Cave, there are a
lot of visual reproductions on You Tube. I'm on my cell so can't link sites. It's a must read/see for Progressives. Guaranteed to go over the heads of the rest

[senz]

115. Very insightful way to put it, libdem4life

It's amazing to think that the truths Socrates saw so long ago and expressed so oddly are in fact eternal.

I didn't know there were visual reproductions of it on YouTube. Will have to check them out.

[libdem4life]

116. Enjoy. n/t

[yourpaljoey]

32. they will not listen, kinda frightening akshually

[grasswire]

68. It is frightening.

Herd mentality. A cult of personality. It's what we saw with the Bushies. I don't think I like what it says about some Democrats and human nature.

Personality politics trump truth and evidence, for them. It's the same thing that allowed my MIL to refuse to see that Nixon faced any culpability.

[That Guy 888]

14. The scandal should not be about her server so much as what her emails contain.

Two off the top of my head.

Successfully lobbying for regime change in Libya (not a reference to Benghazi!1!!) that led to a failed state that Isis is taking over. A lLack of judgement that shows her Iraq vote reflects her view of how American power should be used.

Tacit support for a coup in Honduras, which has lead to a brutal suppression of democracy. This is different from Kissinger's Realpolitik how? I guess it's ok because she's a Democrat, or is it because there have not been enough sociopathic women leaders in history?

Clinton insists she hasn't changed her position on 2009 Honduras coup
“No one wanted to see a return to the bad old days of frequent coups and unstable governments,” she wrote in “Hard Choices.”

Soon after Zelaya's ouster, wealthy Honduran businessmen and politicians who had opposed him and who had influential friends in Washington, including lobbyists and some members of Congress, mounted a campaign to defend his removal.

They used much of the same language that Clinton used last month, arguing that the coup plotters had acted with legal authority.

Neither the Organization of American States, the main regional governance body, nor former Costa Rica President Oscar Arias, the Nobel Peace laureate brought in to mediate the Honduran constitutional crisis, saw the ouster as legal.

*

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-clinton-honduras-coup-20160501-story.html

Well as long as wealthy businessmen say it's legal I guess there really wasn't a military coup in Honduras was there? Good thing that money doesn't influence policy here or abroad.

[Scuba]

20. ^^ This ^^

[FarPoint]

27. The Bernie followers, they know this is a witch hunt.

All they have left is to fight with is empty flaimbait. Posting right wing trash talk is not a Sanders Campaign strategy. It's a right wing strategy.... Nothing more. So pitiful....not the Revolution at all.

[dchill]

38. You REALLY don't know what you're talking about.

The level of willful ignorance is stunning in Hillary World. You are trying to shine up this awful truth with a special blend of thin gruel and Kool Aid.

Paul Thompson has presented facts. Facts are not partisan and not prejudicial. They simply exist. The more time you waste trying to rub them out, the more leverage you gift to the Republican Party, which is in DIRE need of just such a huge, shiny softball.

READ Thompson's work. Let it sink in. Your candidate is not worthy. Not worthy. Stop trying to sell a pig in a poke.

[frylock]

41. Sorry, Paul, but your detailed timeline was a waste of effort.

Here it is, all summarized in a few, short lines. Nothing to see here, folks!

[karynnj]

50. You forgot that she did not archive any of these emails in the SD in spite of FOIA and inquiries

even before she left office. Those emails were among the materials that should have been subject to these searches.

So, do you content:

1) HRC was right to abscond with all her email
2) No one had the right to ask questions about anything she did
3) Obama/Kerry owed it to her to stonewall and not insist she return the email

This is a mess of HRC's own making. The truly appalling thing is that had she given the SD the emails when she left - there would have been NONE of this because it likely never would have come up. No one would have even known she had a private server and no one would have bothered to see if things were classified. Not to mention, about 50 SD FOIA experts would not have had to spend almost a year going through her email.

Whether this results in charges for anyone, this was not good. It is especially not good as it revives some of her negatives - on being too secretive and that she likely hid the Rose Law firm records.

[dlwickham]

55. And it's turned into a left wing witch hunt as well

Just SMH

[ContinentalOp]

5. LOL

"This is a very complicated scandal, and if you want to truly understand it, there's no way it can be boiled down to a few thousand words."

That's not really helping your case. You think she clearly committed a crime but you can't explain what it is in fewer than 1000 words? Yeah, good luck with that.

[Demsrule86]

24. Of course it can

It is easy...Republican Bull shit.

[libdem4life]

66. Well, that surely settles it. Please tell the FBI, OK? n/t

[Demsrule86]

109. The rogue rightie FBI types already know they have nothing on Hillary

just totally without merit like....Benghazi ,Benghazi, Benghazi haha

[gordianot]

7. Guilty, not guilty, irrelevant, we Democrats are going to be beat over the head with this for years.

Hillary is going to be elected given the objectionable and subjective nature of the Republican opposition are their candidates are shitty. The only hope of Republicans is to find a distraction of such a magnitude it gives them clearance to go into a full time tantrum. Having a secretive and somewhat compromised Corporate Clinton to target is almost is as good as having a Democrat with a clean record who happens to have a dark complexion.

As of yet the M$M has not picked up the constant drumbeat that is not going away from the GOP whose only product is obstructionism. Someone might as well chronicle this (false, true?) Scandal is not going away. The totally irrelevant incompetent GOP desperately needs this now that Barak is retiring. Denial that problems exists from Democrats only makes this sweeter for Republican obstruction.

The proverbial unstoppable force and immovable object. Maybe someone someday will reassess their personal ambition for the greater good, I am not holding my breath.

[onecaliberal]

77. This IS a national Security Risk, it SHOULD damn well NEVER be allowed to happen again.

[VOX]

8. With "progressives" like these, who needs wingnuts?

Not even Bernie is interested in the "damn emails."

If you're going after Hillary, at least come up with some novel approach, rather than trekking the same tired, wagon-rutted path to that imaginary Eden where anti-Hillary right-wing talking points grow on trees.

[Kalidurga]

17. Yes, but the FBI and the DOJ are very interested

And so what if you don't read it you already have your mind made up it's nothing. But, no one will be here to say I told you so if she is indicted. And this is a very real possibility.

[VOX]

81. Oh, I've read it with an open mind...

But it reads like a label on a Dr. Bronner's Soap bottle...it's a borderline Ron Paul-9/11-truther screed.

There is no "there" there.

BTW, I'm in CA and am voting for Bernie in the June primary. But if Hillary is ultimately the nominee, I'll I unenthusiastically vote for her because the alternative is pure hell.

[Kalidurga]

82. I am pretty sure you didn't look at it let alone read it with an open mind or not

If you went to the website you could tell me in seconds why I don't believe you read it.

[VOX]

120. When the term "scandal" is used 15+ times in OP's title...

It kinda tips off that certain minds are already closed.

[Kalidurga]

122. Yep it doesn't take a genius to figure that is all the farther you read then lied about reading it.

[Demsrule86]

25. So true

Awful article...never liked this guy...one step away from a 9-11 truther in my opinion.

[Maedhros]

54. So Obama's Justice Department is a right-wing organization?[n/t]

[uponit7771]

9. EMAILGHAZI!!!

[pnwmom]

10. And lucky you, you found a couple hundred thousand followers to sell your books to.

Have you written your new book proposal for H.C. yet, talking about your platform on DU?

[mmonk]

13. Thanks Paul in your diligence and hard work.

[leftofcool]

15. Ben Gawzi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Vattel]

16. Meh, too many sentences like this one:

"she could be in more trouble if it happened after December 2014, when the State Department formally asked for copies of all her emails."

First, the State Department did not formally ask for all of her emails. They only asked for work emails.

Second, the claim you make is uninteresting: "IF it happened" . . . "she could be in more trouble." And IF I robbed the corner liquor store, then I could be in more trouble. Who cares?

[Kalidurga]

18. They asked for her work emails and she deleted 30000 of them.

That's a huge issue.

[Vattel]

28. No she deleted roughly 30K personal emails.

Of course, some of the deleted emails were work-related. But she claims that she used certain search metrics to identify work-related emails and that the metrics weren't perfect. In other words, she claims that she did the best she could in identifying the work-related ones.

[merrily]

76. And you know they were personal because she said said so.

[Vattel]

80. Fair enough, I don't know what percentage actually were personal.

[merrily]

84. I just posted this to a Hillary supporter. I think it explains my feeling about taking her word for

it.

You know, if I had to sort through my emails to see what was personal, like my daughter's wedding and my mother's funeral, and what was official state department business--and I had my own law degree--,I don't think I would have needed to hire a lawyer and take two years to figure it out with him. In most cases, you can tell just from the addressees whether something was personal or not.

I just posted this to another poster on a similar issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1884150

[Kalidurga]

110. 30,000 personal emails over a 4 year period is 20 a day

Now that might not seem like a lot to some people. But, it kinda is. Seriously who emails people instead of calling them on their Blackberry? That might be something I would do, but that is decidedly weird behavior and I have been told to make the phone call instead. So, there is that. Of course she has a whole lot of shady friends she would want to keep in touch with. But, it's known she has said it herself (why leave a trail) that she doesn't like email much. So, under those circumstances 20 personal emails a day seems like a lot. This is without considering it would be strange for her to not have days off of working where she would likely be rather busy to be sending emails.

[sufrommich]

19. The desperation in this forum is really starting to reek.nt

[Demsrule86]

23. So this guy is the one who exploited 9-11

And now is doing Trump's heavy lifting but he is progressive...Ok...sure. I checked it out...Bernie supporter doing Trumps work for him...how not surprising.

[frylock]

43. Exploited 911?

Did Paul vote in favor of IWR or pitch Iraq as a business opportunity?

[panader0]

93. You don't think that Trump needs DU to do his "heavy lifting" do you?

The information is available to anyone who wants to look for it.

[Demsrule86]

108. I don't know if he needs it...but

He sure uses it...I have heard the not qualified meme...among others...Bernie Sanders is helping Trump.

[Vinca]

26. A very good synopsis.

It's amazing this all seems to have started with Hillary acting like a spoiled child and refusing to give up her Blackberry.

[Onlooker]

29. Hey Donald! Come over to DU where we're doing the opposition research for you! n/t

[bahrbearian]

36. I think Donald has his own sources

[Kittycat]

30. Thank you Paul. If we can't hold our leaders accountable

How can we except the RW to be held accountable?

You should add this port to your journal.

[IamMab]

31. Must suck having to move the goalposts for the "forthcoming indictment" every few weeks, huh?

Maybe you should rely less on LOL Goodman for your "facts" maybe?

[nc4bo]

37. You just have no effing idea who the person you're talking about really is.

Understandable since you just recently joined us.

I suggest you do some research or risk looking really REALLY foolish.

[IamMab]

40. Keep praying to the Indictment Fairy and you'll end up looking worse than "REALLY foolish."

#BernieSoMath

[TM99]

52. Ah, the talking points

plus the cutesy phrases.

Not very bright are you? Or is just that you get paid per phrase?

[yourpaljoey]

33. Great work. One of the great scandals of our time. Obama will look the fool when all comes out.

[grasswire]

70. I like you, Joey.

Every time I see your user name I think of the way Sinatra kissed Kim Novak in the movie Pal Joey, and it was a humdinger!

Aside from that, I like your style here on DU. On the money, all the time.

[yourpaljoey]

75. This is indeed a great compliment

I appreciate the time you have put in here.
In a world coming apart, Lord knows, you try

[Thinkingabout]

34. One part is correct, it is a scandal.

[mmonk]

35. If people read the whole thing and order of events, they might see some problem areas.

But I know they won't. Meanwhile some of us worry about it and what it might mean going forward.

[frylock]

44. Great job, Paul! Pay no mind to Hillary's Ostrich Army here.

They have no clue as to what's going on, and they don't want to know. They still cite articles from September in an attempt to assuage their fears.

[yodermon]

45. Congrats on a great site, Paul. Sorry you got banned from your original thread

Just for announcing it. Nothing but pure spite, that was. Let's hope this one survives.

[JonLeibowitz]

48. Link to that one? Did it get hidden?

[yodermon]

49. yep

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280158157#post268

[Bob41213]

46. A very good read. I'm about halfway through but a few things caught my eye...

This suggests a leak that should be reported and that she should question further intel from Sid as being classified:

March 18, 2011: Blumenthal's intelligence to Clinton is coming from at least one active CIA official. Clinton confidant Sid Blumenthal sends Clinton an email which states, "Tyler spoke to a colleague currently at CIA, who told him the agency had been dependent for intelligence from [redacted]." "Tyler" is Tyler Drumheller, a CIA operative until 2005. (Yahoo, 10/8/2015) Blumenthal sent Clinton hundreds of intelligence updates which appear to be based on information from Drumheller. It's unclear where Drumheller got his information from, but this email suggests Drumheller was getting information from at least one unnamed active CIA agent.


This suggests she was knowledgeable about classified info (something people claim would be difficult to prove).

April 25, 2012: Clinton asks if an email contains classified information, despite a lack of classification markers. Clinton aide Jake Sullivan emails Clinton information from a blog promoting Islamic jihad, saying it is "pretty interesting." Clinton forwards the email to State Department spokesperson Philippe Reines while also asking Sullivan, "If not classified or otherwise inappropriate, can you send to the NYTimes reporters who interviewed me today?" Politico will later comment, "The email suggests Clinton may have known some of the messages that came to her were classified, as she had to ask her staff whether the content was or was not guarded at such a level for national security reasons." (Politico, 2/29/2016)

[2cannan]

64. See Paul's reply about Hillary responding to Blumenthal's emails on another post

and whether or not she should have been aware he was sending classified info:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511882337#post55

[pacalo]

47. Bookmarking for later reading...

Thanks, Paul!

[AzDar]

51. K & R

[Logical]

100. Another! Nt

[R B Garr]

53. It's interesting you call it a "scandal". Scandal implies a moral judgment

that an investigation does not. I'm assuming all your "facts" represent that dishonest agenda, so I'll pass.

p.s.--You used the word "scandal" 21 times in this post alone, and I lost count. Could me more. Agenda much?

[Maven]

56. Great. So now DU is a platform for oppo research and fake RW "scandal" mongering against Democrats

Hooray for the jury system!

[MisterP]

59. the oppo already knows and will use it, she'll look bad no matter what, and it's not fake or RW

[kentuck]

57. Paul Thompson! So good to see you again!

I think this is the real reason Bernie is staying in 'til the end. If something happens, we will have a candidate to step in.

[libdem4life]

65. I have thought this, as well.

He had his say about the emails, of which he knew little, but was a gentleman about it. But time has revealed more details and more rotten apples in the basket, so now he's finally taken to comparing their records. (Hating, as defined by the Ostrich Group...saw this upthread and it really fits)

And Biden or any of the other Establishment names will be unwilling to "take her place". They'd have to be daffy to do so. That leaves Bernie. He's in the right place and if all this blows up...even after the Primaries, he'll still be around.

[grasswire]

72. Isn't it great to have Paul here?

A true hero.

[kentuck]

106. I was very pleasantly surprised...

to see him post again.

[Jim Lane]

58. Clinton supporters, don't confine your attention to illegality.

It wasn't illegal for Anthony Weiner to send salacious texts, but the political fallout was nevertheless severe, costing him his seat in Congress.

I personally haven't paid enough attention to the Clinton email business to have an opinion about the legality of her conduct or about whether the whole thing will have any legs politically. (That the harshest criticisms are widely believed by partisan Republicans proves nothing, because those people weren't going to vote for her anyway, but it also doesn't prove that the accusations are wrong; partisan Republicans don't possess reverse infallibility.) The only point I'm making is that some things might look bad to significant numbers of swing voters even if they're not illegal.

Also, it's not helpful to brush the whole thing off just because further development of the facts might help Donald Trump. That reaction on the part of Clinton supporters will not make the issue go away.

[2cannan]

60. Interesting about David Brock

snip

Shortly After March 2, 2015: The main government watchdog trying to get Clinton's emails is silenced by a Clinton ally. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) had been pursuing the public release of all of Clinton's emails. CREW has been one of the top political watchdog organizations, targeting unethical and corrupt behavior in both major political parties. But in August 2014, CREW was effectively taken over by David Brock, a close Clinton ally who runs the main Super PAC (political action committee) for her presidential campaign. In December 2012, CREW filed the first Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking Clinton's emails from when she was secretary of state, and that began a long legal battle over the issue. However, after Clinton's email scandal becomes public following a New York Times story on it on March 2, 2015, the new CREW leadership decides not to pursue the issue. Anne Weismann, CREW's chief counsel who led the search for the emails, will later comment, "It was made quite clear to me that CREW and I would not be commenting publicly on the issue of Secretary Clinton using a personal email account to conduct agency business. The fact that we said nothing on that subject says volumes." Weismann soon quits CREW as a result. Others also quit. Louis Mayberg, a cofounder of CREW, quits in March 2015, saying, "I have no desire to serve on a board of an organization devoted to partisanship." He also says that CREW's lack of action regarding the email scandal is another key factor in his departure. (Bloomberg News, 4/11/2016)

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_4

Excellent resource, Paul. Thank you so much.

[grasswire]

74. yes

You want this man as WH chief of staff??

Run away!!

[polly7]

78. Wow. They may as well be family. nt.

[panader0]

61. Bump

[amborin]

62. Kudos and thanks to you! Awesome work! Next, we need timeline for State and Foundation

[libdem4life]

67. This ^^^^^

[Oilwellian]

69. Actually, there is a Clinton Foundation timeline within the timeline

You can find the link on the main page, in left hand column. The Clinton Foundation and Hillary's Dept. of State were grossly intertwined.

I have to laugh at those who poo poo the timeline as being right wing. You have to realize it was Obama's appointed State Department Inspector General who recommended the FBI investigate Hillary. I would hardly consider him to be right wing. Ignore this scandal at your own peril. When the FBI recommends an indictment, you'll be asking yourself WHY.

[amborin]

118. thanks for pointing me to it! and, yes, totally agree with your post!

[senz]

117. Yes, indeed.

We need to root out the filth and dispose of it.

[bobthedrummer]

63. You've always been in the core of the real DU reality-based community, thank you again for that. K&R

[panader0]

71. Great work.

[grasswire]

73. what we need now is a meme that is easily shared to FB...

..or other social media that contains the URL for both the introduction and the timeline. I tried to share the URL directly to my timeline, but it was disallowed by FB.

[ucrdem]

86. 200 mil buys a lot of Facebook memes.

Take your pick.

[grasswire]

91. I don't understand what you are saying.

But that's okay. I doubt that I would accept it anyway. nt

[Faux pas]

79. Whoa!

This is a treasure trove!!! Thank you paulthompson

[Uncle Joe]

83. Kicked, recommended and bookmarked, the medium version is well worth reading if

you don't have time to read the long version.


Thanks for the thread, paulthompson.

[ucrdem]

85. You know Paul, this makes me wonder, maybe 911 really was a terrorist attack?

[robertpaulsen]

87. I appreciate all your great research, Paul!

Glad to see you are keeping up with pursuing the facts. The Terror Timeline puts all the other "official" accounts to shame.

[riderinthestorm]

94. Fantastic! What a tremendous resource!

[Pastiche423]

95. Another excellent job, Paul!

Thank you.

Is your original Timeline still on the internet?

[Babel_17]

96. Thanks

I've been of the opinion that the FOIA requests being blocked would be an issue. That one judge seems to suggest that there's an air of guilty knowledge to it, going by how the case has been treated by the Department of State. It's one thing to have a system that makes FOIA requests a PITA/impossible to fulfill. It's another thing to make an effort to set things up that result in that.
The FOIA is law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29

[Logical]

98. Kick!

[mooseprime]

101. thank you for your hard work and your courage to pursue the truth

i know the hyenas will be on you like locusts.

i worked in a classified environment and i can only imagine the reaction if i had proposed i was going to start handling work files on a server at my house.

the security of US secrets is not trivial and can't be shrieked away by saying Clinton just forwarded a chain email message.

the support of this candidate is nothing short of faith-based.

[sorechasm]

104. Thank you paulthompson for such a thorough resource

I'll never understand the DNC's willingness to put all our eggs in a basket of filled with flaws. Flaws made so obvious by this timeline.

[HereSince1628]

107. So, the Clintons financed a spying operation on the CIA using the Clinton Foundation

as a front.

Paying Sid Blumenthal $122K a year to be a conduit between a CIA leak and madame secretary Clinton.

To me that looks like point, game and match

[2cannan]

114. That's really interesting. Two other DUers think that Blumenthal and his source(s) are the key.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511882337#post91

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511882337#post64

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511878008#post3 (Al Hunt Show on Hulu - http://www.hulu.com/watch/936368 15:00 minute mark)

[Logical]

121. Kick

[GreatGazoo]

123. bookmarking email timeline