Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(13,297 posts)
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:37 PM Jun 2016

Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt With Planned Drone Strikes [View all]

Source: Wall Street Journal

At the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information is a series of emails between American diplomats in Islamabad and their superiors in Washington about whether to oppose specific drone strikes in Pakistan. The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side’’—government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters—as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a Central Intelligence Agency drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials briefed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe. Some of the emails were then forwarded by Mrs. Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said. Investigators have raised concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s personal server was less secure than State Department systems. <snip>

Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems. The State Department said in January that 22 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s personal server at her home have been judged to contain top-secret information and aren’t being publicly released. Many of them dealt with whether diplomats concurred or not with the CIA drone strikes, congressional and law-enforcement officials said.

Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863

215 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I hope Wall Street Journal is acceptable news source tomm2thumbs Jun 2016 #1
right wing trash n/t Mohammed_Lee Jun 2016 #3
How is this Right Wing......Are you trying to say that any evidnce that Hillary is corrupt is a DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #4
Intent? MFM008 Jun 2016 #7
It absolutely shows corruption, not on a scale of the clinton foundations foreign donations from DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #15
Yeah, Saudi Arabia never got a weapons deal before Hillary. Darb Jun 2016 #123
they didnt need a deal, we had a base therebefore Obama pulled out of Iraq and Saudis swhisper1 Jun 2016 #194
Rebut it. SusanLarson Jun 2016 #50
Easy. beastie boy Jun 2016 #85
Try again SusanLarson Jun 2016 #115
Says you. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #141
Are you serious? beastie boy Jun 2016 #150
Rupert Murdoch leaves lots to be questioned for sure. midnight Jun 2016 #92
I prefer to filter out the "facts" that don't suit me at the moment, its less stressful....n/t Mohammed_Lee Jun 2016 #10
Perfect. avaistheone1 Jun 2016 #28
Rupert Murdock own the WSJ WhiteTara Jun 2016 #53
Former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is on the News Corp Board of Directors. OnyxCollie Jun 2016 #119
Then why did Murdoch hold a fundraiser for her then? 2cannan Jun 2016 #120
The facts are included in the subhead of the article: beastie boy Jun 2016 #82
For the record there is NO evidence that Hillary is corrupt. George II Jun 2016 #166
Her and Bill have accepted $150,000,000 from special interests for their rhett o rick Jun 2016 #167
Sure.............. George II Jun 2016 #168
No? Do tell. Within the next few minutes, preferably. libdem4life Jun 2016 #203
She lost a court battle on that issue and paid the fine without objection swhisper1 Jun 2016 #195
What "issue"? George II Jun 2016 #200
How predictable of you. 840high Jun 2016 #54
Three weeks...three words...three minutes. libdem4life Jun 2016 #202
And, the timing is very suspicious (ntxt) scscholar Jun 2016 #70
The FBI’s investigation has been going on for a year. SouthernDemLinda Jun 2016 #84
You should stop using Microsoft products scscholar Jun 2016 #113
Huh? libdem4life Jun 2016 #204
Clap harder. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #144
How about clapping for just some good, old fashioned truth. libdem4life Jun 2016 #206
So basically they were classified. DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #2
Basically you don't know that. beastie boy Jun 2016 #87
Drone targets would be classified....Obviously! DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #89
"Vaguely worded" emails do not amount to drone strikes, do they? beastie boy Jun 2016 #91
The emails contained information on drone targets....Classified. DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #93
And the article clearly identifies references to drone targets, right? beastie boy Jun 2016 #96
Classified info floats all over everyday. 1.4 million of us have TOP security clearance out of ancianita Jun 2016 #171
the fact that this was reported right after Obama endorsed Hillary is strange tomm2thumbs Jun 2016 #5
The start of the real, actual, damaging drip, drip, drip... -none Jun 2016 #13
agreed.....it's the beginning of the leaks that we were told would happen... grasswire Jun 2016 #27
It's deja vu all over again SouthernDemLinda Jun 2016 #101
Exactly maybe they were humbled_opinion Jun 2016 #83
No news combined with old news to keep Hillary in the news. beastie boy Jun 2016 #95
Is the information correct or not? -none Jun 2016 #125
The information is absolutely correct. beastie boy Jun 2016 #145
Seems that way. ozone_man Jun 2016 #24
I find it queer..also. One would think Obama endorsement laserhaas Jun 2016 #51
Maybe not to smear the Presidency, but to make a "heads up" regarding Clinton. Duval Jun 2016 #59
Are you saying the FBI doesn't even tell the President? Reter Jun 2016 #65
It is those independent career professionals at Justice. gordianot Jun 2016 #76
The Wall Street Journal is owned by the same man who owns FOX, Ruppert Murdoch. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #6
Yup. This guy RufusTFirefly Jun 2016 #8
That's o.k. Time is our friend. June 16 is fast approaching. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #12
do you think that just because DU goes dark, the problem for HRC.. grasswire Jun 2016 #30
Dark ? DU is a community that supports Democratic causes. Hillary is our nominee and, therefore, Trust Buster Jun 2016 #33
but you want legitimate news to be censored here. grasswire Jun 2016 #35
You only wish to bash our nominee because your candidate did not win. You are fooling only Trust Buster Jun 2016 #39
Trump has all this by now. 840high Jun 2016 #57
Trump is not the one pushing this stuff on DU. Did I really have to point the obvious out ? Trust Buster Jun 2016 #61
grassfire makes a very good point. Duval Jun 2016 #62
Hardly legitimate. beastie boy Jun 2016 #90
she is not the nominee yet my friend swhisper1 Jun 2016 #196
That story has been in many other papers SouthernDemLinda Jun 2016 #108
Hahahahahahaha....actually that is scary, not funny. DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #17
Your behavior is counter productive to the Democratic cause. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #21
Oh jeesh....counterproductive. Are you saying i should be happy to see her buddy buddying up with DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #22
The nomination has been decided. It's not about you. It's about our nominee. Time to grow up. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #23
Growing up led to something novel in me.....guess what that was? DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #26
There's that "me, me, me" again. DU is a "community" that supports Democratic causes. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #29
As far as I can tell Bernie has more support on this site now. DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #38
No, he did not win the nomination. The Democratic voters chose Hillary to represent our cause. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #41
Oh so now its not a community, it takes its dictate from the DNC no matter how its membership feels? DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #42
You'll have to find someone else to carry on this nonproductive back and forth. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #43
I'm good. Actually great...because one thing everyone learned from this cycle DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #45
I sincerely hope you get over your bitterness. God speed. Good bye. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #46
Why would i get over my "bitterness" until I'm treated more fairly by politicians who eat my tax DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #47
.+1 840high Jun 2016 #60
That is what my husband said during dinner. I agree. Duval Jun 2016 #66
not yet- are you feeling the SGs slipping into doubt yet, swhisper1 Jun 2016 #197
It isn't decided until the convention votes. nt grasswire Jun 2016 #31
No, it's been decided. That's why the President, Senator Warren and Governor O'malley officially Trust Buster Jun 2016 #36
She is the presumptive nominee. Duval Jun 2016 #64
if she was the nominee, there would be no superdelegates, no convention, no reason for any of it tomm2thumbs Jun 2016 #73
I could see Trump doing that! Duval Jun 2016 #159
Your behavior is undemocratic. 840high Jun 2016 #58
The Democrats I know outnumber the Deocrats that you know. And that's why Hillary is our nominee Trust Buster Jun 2016 #68
What does Sanders have to 840high Jun 2016 #77
You are the problem! SouthernDemLinda Jun 2016 #110
+1 harun Jun 2016 #133
great questions tomm2thumbs Jun 2016 #11
Ooops So, it's beginning. nt Duval Jun 2016 #69
So it should be easy to refute what the article said. Wait, no let's attack the source. rhett o rick Jun 2016 #16
You're not use to that yet? laserhaas Jun 2016 #52
Really, Wall St Journal has been used as a source glowing Jun 2016 #19
You forgot this part: annavictorious Jun 2016 #9
maybe because someone in the FBI leaked to the WSJ? grasswire Jun 2016 #32
Or maybe not beastie boy Jun 2016 #97
News Articles videohead5 Jun 2016 #14
What you are doing is called making a Strawman then tearing it down. No one accused or said Hillary rhett o rick Jun 2016 #20
The article also mentioned beastie boy Jun 2016 #99
Elvis never did no drugs. n/t Matt_R Jun 2016 #182
No evidence he did in this WSJ article. beastie boy Jun 2016 #183
Your article link also does not have merit in this discussion. Matt_R Jun 2016 #189
LOL! My link refers to exactly the same article as the OP! beastie boy Jun 2016 #201
OK, your quoted words don't say the same the OP was trying to say. Matt_R Jun 2016 #207
No shit!.. Yes, I added a quote from the article that the OP neglected to include. beastie boy Jun 2016 #208
Still dont see how yahoo.com = wsj.com Matt_R Jun 2016 #209
Yahoo.com is reprinting the WSJ article and giving WSJ full credit for it. beastie boy Jun 2016 #210
So they were unclassified as per a secret arrangement with the State Department and the CIA Laser102 Jun 2016 #18
"sent via the “low side’’—government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters" geek tragedy Jun 2016 #25
No. grasswire Jun 2016 #34
That's an important point. She didn't just receive classified info on an unsecure server, she also leveymg Jun 2016 #130
Oh dear! Another shooting of the media messengers ... Jarqui Jun 2016 #37
State.gov videohead5 Jun 2016 #48
One sign of maturity is making 840high Jun 2016 #71
Responsible for "vaguely stated" emails which "did not mention "CIA," "drones" or details about beastie boy Jun 2016 #100
Thanks so much for this SCantiGOP Jun 2016 #40
Timing is Interesting: Also its bullcrap jzodda Jun 2016 #44
The operative words in your post are "Some of those emails were not top secret when she got them but 2cannan Jun 2016 #121
Again State disagreed with the classification jzodda Jun 2016 #122
This is what Factcheck.org said the State Dept. report said about classified emails on Clinton's 2cannan Jun 2016 #147
What exactly are we talking about here? jzodda Jun 2016 #149
He didn't intend to rob the bank arikara Jun 2016 #160
False Equivalence jzodda Jun 2016 #164
This all will come to naught. eom PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #49
Hillary Used a Secured System videohead5 Jun 2016 #55
She did not. 840high Jun 2016 #72
Not from a lack of asking apparently cstanleytech Jun 2016 #75
She Did videohead5 Jun 2016 #88
What way was that? NWCorona Jun 2016 #111
Secured Fax videohead5 Jun 2016 #112
There are 3 systems: DOS NIPR email, Secure SIPR (to Secret), and Interagency JWICS (to TS/SAP) leveymg Jun 2016 #136
So You Are Saying videohead5 Jun 2016 #161
No. Saying that after-hours, she knowingly used only a nonsecure private system to send messages to leveymg Jun 2016 #193
More about secure faxes and approved phones from DoD infosec manual leveymg Jun 2016 #198
Never Heard videohead5 Jun 2016 #213
..... 840high Jun 2016 #86
Wrong videohead5 Jun 2016 #94
No. She refused to touch a keyboard. She never directly accessessed the Secure SIPR. leveymg Jun 2016 #132
From Hillary's E-mails videohead5 Jun 2016 #178
Correction: she was dependent on aides to send and to receive. leveymg Jun 2016 #181
I Know videohead5 Jun 2016 #185
The work around they came up with was illegal. leveymg Jun 2016 #188
And Another videohead5 Jun 2016 #179
"These would be the ones provided/briefed B5" "Can they be secure faxed?" "Portions are classified" leveymg Jun 2016 #205
The E-mails About Drones videohead5 Jun 2016 #212
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #174
You didn't provide a link to your claim. I googled and only link was Fox news and a few RW Bloggers. Fla Dem Jun 2016 #175
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #176
What Right Wing Website? videohead5 Jun 2016 #177
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #180
Yep, the "Top Secret" Emails Were All About Drones Gothmog Jun 2016 #56
The State Department videohead5 Jun 2016 #63
Except that the Secretary of State receives the PDB Monday - Saturday and at least 50% of that comes 24601 Jun 2016 #103
It Depends videohead5 Jun 2016 #106
You know, I thought I had read that before! Thank you Gothmog. It wasn't a senior moment. LOL Laser102 Jun 2016 #67
Yep bunch of bullcrap jzodda Jun 2016 #74
I should have read the whole thread before posting OKNancy Jun 2016 #118
Thanks for the information, tomm2thumbs. senz Jun 2016 #78
The WSJ puts... Mike Nelson Jun 2016 #79
How can anyone say she has humbled_opinion Jun 2016 #80
Speculation videohead5 Jun 2016 #98
Right here. Deny and Shred Jun 2016 #129
Talking Points videohead5 Jun 2016 #163
Big Nothing Burger videohead5 Jun 2016 #165
You didn't include the subhead of the article. beastie boy Jun 2016 #81
If this is true, this will be a disaster for us. BlueNoMatterWho Jun 2016 #102
It's all true! beastie boy Jun 2016 #104
Nice concern you got there. Noted. Darb Jun 2016 #124
Thank you for posting. This clarifies a lot. leveymg Jun 2016 #105
Intent videohead5 Jun 2016 #107
You have to read the statutes to understand that intent is not a requirement for 18 USC 793(f). leveymg Jun 2016 #126
This has been sorely needed NJCher Jun 2016 #170
Yep. Transmiting "some emails" "which did not mention the "CIA," "drones" or details about beastie boy Jun 2016 #109
The Emails Did not Originate From Hillary videohead5 Jun 2016 #114
The responsibility Crepuscular Jun 2016 #134
She was aware that her Blackberry and server were uncertified for classified info. leveymg Jun 2016 #137
Are we still talking about the OP? beastie boy Jun 2016 #140
I am providing context. leveymg Jun 2016 #143
You need more than speculation to accuse someone of violating the law. beastie boy Jun 2016 #146
Thanks for clarifying. nt Duval Jun 2016 #158
concur Crepuscular Jun 2016 #187
State.gov videohead5 Jun 2016 #162
irrelevent Crepuscular Jun 2016 #186
She Will Not Be Indicted videohead5 Jun 2016 #190
... Crepuscular Jun 2016 #192
That Did Not Happen videohead5 Jun 2016 #211
Uh-huh. Crepuscular Jun 2016 #214
Calling The Kettle Black videohead5 Jun 2016 #215
These emails expose the USG decision-making process involved in targeted killings using drones leveymg Jun 2016 #128
These emails expose nothing other than WSJ spin. beastie boy Jun 2016 #139
If the emails contained discussions among US officials about targeted kills, they're classified. leveymg Jun 2016 #148
Once again, the emails in question DO NOT contain discussion about targeted kills. beastie boy Jun 2016 #151
Your statement is directly contrary to the following paragraph in the WSJ leveymg Jun 2016 #153
You are speculating. And your speculations are based on hearsay. beastie boy Jun 2016 #155
I'm glad we've gotten past the "intent" issue, anyway. leveymg Jun 2016 #156
Far cry from your Post 105 beastie boy Jun 2016 #157
The Question is videohead5 Jun 2016 #116
Yes, we already know this. These have been discussed before. They are the emails that were also OKNancy Jun 2016 #117
Do you have any link to where that info was out first ? Thanks OnDoutside Jun 2016 #127
posted in this thread OKNancy Jun 2016 #131
Thanks OnDoutside Jun 2016 #154
I think we can all agree whistler162 Jun 2016 #135
At least. leveymg Jun 2016 #138
I wonder if this was cross posted at free republic. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #142
It's all part of a vast RW conspiracy. Hillary brought none of this on herself. Exonerated! leveymg Jun 2016 #152
Doesn't surprise me. Nt Herman4747 Jun 2016 #169
This message was self-deleted by its author George Eliot Jun 2016 #172
This message was self-deleted by its author George Eliot Jun 2016 #173
Amazing how popular the right-wing sources are oberliner Jun 2016 #184
this thread has decended into idiocy, lets close it down swhisper1 Jun 2016 #199
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #191
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Emails in Clinton Probe D...