Indictments will be long: State sent unsecured "classified" e-mails during Bush Administration

A point I have tried to make a number of times on the "Eghazi: It's Classified!" "scandal" is that the originators of the "classified" e-mails were career State Department officials. Thus, I noted that the current US Ambassador to Bahrain William Roebuck originated a now "classified SECRET" e-mail that founds its way to Clinton's inbox after being forwarded by multiple careeer State officials.

Yesterday Josh Gerstein identified now "classified e-mails that were originated by 33 year State Department veteran William Burns.

Now today the AP reports what should have been obvious to any honest observer by now - State Department officials routinely sent subsequently classified information over unsecure e-mail:

The transmission of now-classified information across Hillary Rodham Clinton's private email is consistent with a State Department culture in which diplomats routinely sent secret material on unsecured email during the past two administrations, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

And here's the kicker:

five emails that date to Condoleezza Rice's tenure as secretary of state during the George W. Bush administration, large chunks are censored on the grounds that they contain classified national security or foreign government information.

Oh, here's the other kicker:

In a December 2006 email, diplomat John J. Hillmeyer appears to have pasted the text of a confidential cable from Beijing about China's dealings with Iran and other sensitive matters. Large portions of the email were marked classified and censored before release.

What Colin Powell did we don't know because he destroyed his e-mails.

Now I guess we can pretend Hillary is the evilest of them all, but it doesn't wash.

You'll have to write a pretty long indictment if you are intent on getting Hilary Clinton on EGhazi.

< Wednesday Open Thread
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you. (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 03:54:11 PM EST

    BT, can you provide a link or cite to (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:26:08 PM EST
    the fact that Colin Powell "destroyed" his emails? I don't recall seeing that. I recall seeing that he said he didn't have them to turn over to State now. However, I don't recall the exact wording of what I've read.

    Powell hasn't been SS for 10 years. He's said he used private emails. He didn't have or set up his own server. Personally, I don't think Powell's situation is that similar to Clinton's. He was SS 10 years ago. He used private email, and not his own server, at a time when he wanted the State email system expanded and improved. No one asked him for his emails until fairly recently. He doesn't have them. Who has their emails from 10 years ago? I sure don't. My personal computers and devices are long since discarded, and my law firm has replaced it servers multiple times and presumably destroyed the old servers as a matter of course.


    Colin Powell (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 07:35:48 AM EST

    Emphasis mine.

    "When I entered the State Department I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly," he said. "I started using [email] in order to get everybody to use it, so we could be a 21st-century institution and not a 19th-century [one]. But I retained none of those emails, and we are working with the State Department to see if there's anything else they want to discuss with me about those emails."

    When it comes to govt. technology, jb, ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 02:59:40 PM EST
    ... the prevailing characteristics appear to be redundancy and antiquity. For example, there is a standard form which the federal government requires organizations or corporations to submit either concurrently with or prior to any application for federal financial assistance, be it a grant or a loan, which is called the SF-424.

    This particular form was initially the brainchild of the federal Office of Management and Budget, which intended it for use by all departments and agencies. Yet over the ensuing years, many federal agencies have since created their own unique and respective version of this ostensibly standard form, and they will not accept an SF-424 from an applicant which bears the mark of any other agency or department.

    Further, a significant number of these same federal agencies are apparently unaware of the fact that we now have pdf files which are both individually fillable and savable to one's own hard drive.

    And so these agencies' online SF-424s are available in print format only. It's as though they're operating under the assumption that everyone keeps a Smith-Corona or IBM Selectric typewriter handy in the corner of the office for just these sorts of such occasions. (Well, I'll admit that I do, but that's beside the point.)

    It's not just the federal government that's guilty here. State and local governments across the country have also been slow to respond to or keep up with the advances in IT, particularly in the wake of cuts in departmental and agency allocations of funds due to the economic recession.

    Taming this multi-headed hydra as a means to ensure general consistency of purpose throughout government will be a necessary task for public officials, but it will also be a relatively thankless one as well.

    I accepted a voluntary appointment last year to a governor's task force that's presently reviewing the State of Hawaii's IT policy. And I must say, I'm amazed at how badly we managed to both underestimate the scope and breadth of this problem, and let it compound upon itself to the extent that we did.

    I mean, we still have two major departments operating with '90s-era mainframes, including the department which handles the state payroll! When they need to procure parts for these now-obsolescent machines, the IT guys have to go on eBay &etc. to seek them. It's ridiculous.

    Government IT issues across the country are presently a real mess, and it will require both a lot of personal effort and considerable amount of funding to get the systems modernized to contemporary standards.



    Jb, that's my point. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:56:02 PM EST
    Not "retaining" emails is not the same as "destroying" emails. Feel free to provide citations to Powell having destroyed his emails.

    Yours is a distinction without a difference. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 01:29:22 AM EST
    The bottom line is that none of his emails are archived at the State Department, as is and was required.

    Please explain to me (none / 0) (#127)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 07:23:12 AM EST
    How one would not retain their emails without destroying them.

    And Colin Powell used Yahoo (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:16:15 AM EST
    I did not know who he had entrusted his emails to. But it came up in this same story on Dailykos that Colin Powell's private email that he used as Secretary of State was through Fricken Yahoo!

    Not much to say except Yahoo! Ride em cowboy! 8 seconds and a couple of distracting clowns is all you need to ensure the safety of the world :)!


    If everybody, or most everybody, does it at State, (none / 0) (#33)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:09:43 PM EST
    that's persuasive to me, except that Clinton has her own server at home. Very interesting. I had always assumed that this was a fairly frequent occurrence at State, and probably not confined to Clinton or her aides/people, but BT's post makes it look ever more widespread and common.

    The private server aspect, tho, still makes the Clinton situation potentially different. Private email does too, but my gut tells me that the private server is worse than private email. Maybe it isn't. We'll see.

    Thx for the reporting.


    Yeah, because using yahoo is better :) (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    All email is vulnerable (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    That is what John Kerry was talking about.....

    If it is sensitive or confidential--do not put it into an email.   Works for everyone:  students, professors, Secretaries of State, wingnuts....

    Top secret information should never be sent via a .gov email.....


    Your "gut" tells you (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:06:52 PM EST

    Yman, please name any other top US official (none / 0) (#110)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:58:27 PM EST
    who has ever set up and used his or her own private server for the bulk of his/her emails in his/her government position. There aren't any, are there?

    ... used a private domain name called gwb43.com for much of their email traffic, which was hosted by a server owned and controlled by the Republican National Committee, as well as other domains provided by the RNC. The stated rationale was that those officials and other employees could then avoid violations of the Hatch Act. A White House official told a congressional inquiry that Karl Rove used RNC email 95% of the time while he worked in the Oval Office.

    Further, State Dept. spokesman John Kirby ... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    ... confirmed yesterday that Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email address and server was not against the department's policy in effect at the time she served as Secretary of State. Of course, since none of this happened in the GOP's parallel universe, what does it matter?

    It also apparently never happened (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 04:30:42 PM EST
    in the universe of some supporters of Sanders.

    It's become a bit pervasive (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by CST on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    The other day a good friend of mine who knows better brought it up.

    It took me about 45 seconds to convince him it was a manufactured non-issue like Benghazi, but I was still disappointed.


    As the old Persian proverb goes, ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:12:55 PM EST
    "Dogs bark, and the caravan passes." It's no use arguing with people who refuse to live the real world.

    but, but, but (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 04:26:08 PM EST
    6,529 wrongs don't make it right. That will be the next thing you hear.

    ....wha Oculus said

    It was all (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 04:41:41 PM EST
    a nothingburger from the start and now it's unraveling. So 33 years ago it was the Reagan Administration doing this. When you build a stupid argument based on speculation this is what happens.

    Will NY Times pick up this story? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Coral on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 06:38:33 PM EST
    Their reporting on the e-mail "scandal" has been scandalous.

    Thank you, BTD!

    While the judgement of people (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:02:45 PM EST
     who sent information that anyone should have known should have been classified should be called into question and their continued employment and possible election to high office placed in the nearest trash can... that is only one issue.

    The second is taking previously classified emails and changing the classification and sending them over unsecure networks. That is a clear violation and anyone doing so should suffer severe legal sanctions.

    The third is improper storing and/or handling which also carries severe sanctions.

    The FBI is now looking at all of this.

    Some folks are going to jail.

    Call me when Petraeus is in jail (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:09:55 PM EST
    Call me when Hillary is his cellmate (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:17:55 PM EST
    But someone will take the fall.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:49:00 PM EST
    well, if you're going that silly route there needs to be a lot of people in jail. Do you think we could dig up the corpse of Reagan and put it in a jail cell?

    Only with the live Ollie North (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:55:31 PM EST
    Haha (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:01:47 PM EST
    good one!

    Jim (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:53:03 PM EST
    that whole thing about somebody stripping the classification out of an email and sending it is pure fantasy cooked up at Fox News. But then you'll believe anything.

    Ga6, perhaps true, but how do you know that? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:11:02 PM EST
    Can you provide a link or cite?

    You know better (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 12:08:33 AM EST
    You are asking her to prove a negative.

    The burden is on the person making the accusation--especially an inflammatory one like this.

    since you like putting on your lawyer hat.


    No, MKS, I'm just asking (none / 0) (#112)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:00:41 PM EST
    for a citation. A blog poster's statement on that point is not meaningful. If the statement is prefaced with "I don't think", then I'm okay with that.

    Funny (none / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:08:22 PM EST
    I thought the standard was what your "gut" tells you.  Suddenly, you want evidence.

    Oh, for crying out loud, Jim, ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:29:23 PM EST
    ... how many times do you have to be told, per the Justice Dept., that the FBI inquiry is NOT a criminal investigation? From the Washington Post (August 11, 2015):

    "The inquiry by the FBI is considered preliminary and appears to be focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material. Officials have said that Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, is not a target."

    So, it looks like it's boiler plate time again:

    "Once again, you (a) are trafficking in misinformation; (b) don't know what you're talking about; and (c) are simply parroting the empty rhetoric of the professionally outraged GOP provocateur class."

    Stop wasting both our time and Jeralyn's bandwidth.


    Donald, do you know what not being a target (none / 0) (#35)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:17:23 PM EST
    means? It means that the investigator/prosecutor isn't focused on you and not about ready to indict you. It doesn't mean they are not looking at you, or there's no criminal investigation. I don't see anything in the WaPost quote you provided that indicates that there isn't a criminal investigation. Not saying there is; just saying your quote doesn't support your conclusion.

    ... when it comes to baseless speculation. Contrary to what you may believe, most of the people who comment here are in fact quite intelligent and fair-minded. Strictly my observation here, but I tend to believe that we are not a stupid people at TL. While we are generally tolerant of diversity of thought and opinion, we also tend to not suffer fools lightly when they seek to play us for the same, as you're doing.

    So, please cease with your condescending remarks, because neither I nor anyone else here were born yesterday. Given what you've written about this subject and at least from my perspective, yours appears to be a somewhat inflated opinion of your own legal intellect, because you increasingly sound like some weasel who could be on the payroll of the Heritage Foundation.

    As for myself, I worked for House leadership at a senior level in our state legislature for over a decade, and before that I was chief clerk of the Senate Judiciary Committee for three years. I'm not an attorney, but I like to believe that I generally know my way around because unlike you, while I didn't practice law, I actually wrote it.

    As far as any "criminal investigation" is concerned, there is none at this time for the simple fact that the IG's referral to the Justice Dept. was not criminal in nature. Not all FBI inquiries necessarily involve criminal investigations and absent any evidence or public statement by Justice Dept. officials to the contrary in this case, you really need to stop presuming otherwise, at least here.

    Hillary Clinton stepped down from her post as Secretary of State over two years ago. It's already been established that she was not in breach of any standing federal laws or regulations prohibiting her use of a private email account or server, because there were none in place at the time she held the office.

    Further, it has also been established that Mrs. Clinton was the recipient of the emails in question, and was not their originator or disseminator. Still further, all of the emails presently in question apparently originated within the State Dept. itself. Finally, none of them were duly marked as either "Classified" or "Top Secret," either at the time they were initially written by department personnel, or when they were subsequently forwarded by senior officials to Madame Secretary.

    So, since it's been established that Mrs. Clinton obviously had authorization to use private email in her conduct of State Dept. business, and since there's also no evidence that she knowingly emailed any classified information, I think we can safely conclude that:

    • The present questions about the retroactive classification of content of these emails were likely triggered by the media's FOIA requests; and

    • Such questions would have arisen naturally as a matter of course and protocol, regardless of whether or not Mrs. Clinton used a private server -- which, again, was not prohibited at the time by either law or regulation.

    So, the primary issue that's presently before the FBI appears to center on how Mrs. Clinton's emails were handled as they were being reviewed and prepared by the State Department for public release, per those aforementioned FOIA requests.

    As BTD has already covered in detail in numerous posts at TL thus far, the Intelligence Community IG has insisted -- albeit questionably, in BTD's estimation -- that some of the material in these emails should now be considered retroactively as classified.

    For its part, and as BTD also noted, the State Dept. obviously begs to differ with the IC's interpretations, as demonstrated by the fact that as of this writing, some of the emails in question are still online and available for public perusal at the department's website.

    And that, in a relative nutshell, is the Great State Dept. Email Kerfuffle which is presently before us, at least as far as I understand it. Unlike you, I'm not speculating breathlessly and endlessly about either material content or personal motive, because there's no evidence to support any such suppositions as you've thus far posited.

    Unlike you, I'm not impugning the integrity of anyone who may be involved, whether directly or tangentially, because I lack both the necessary professional standing and the requisite due cause to do so.

    (As for your own integrity in these discussions of this particular matter, please be advised that you are rendering yourself an increasingly conspicuous and tempting target.)

    And unlike you, I'm doing my level best here to not get way ahead of myself, and I won't say anything that can't otherwise be supported by any rational reading of the available evidence (or lack thereof, as the case may be) as it presently stands -- emphasis on the word "rational."

    I further refuse to worry about anything over which I have no control. While I'm fairly confident in what this Justice Dept. inquiry will eventually conclude, I'm also content to let the chips fall where they may because I happen to believe in the rule of law.

    Why can't you do the same, and stop chasing your own tail?


    Gosh (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:42:57 AM EST
    As far as any "criminal investigation" is concerned, there is none at this time for the simple fact that the IG's referral to the Justice Dept. was not criminal in nature.

    Let me see, I refer something to the JD who investigates possible crimes.... but "criminal" can't be used.....

    Donald, that's the best example of parsing, dodging, ducking, hiding and reframing that I have seen in years.


    Now, if we only had some eggs we'd have some ham and eggs of we had some ham.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:57:04 AM EST
    don't know about the ham and eggs but you sure deliver the baloney. There has been absolutely no mention of a criminal investigation by the JD, IC-IG, FBI or any credible news outlet. It was originally and remains a non-criminal referral, despite your constant desire to make it otherwise.

    LOL, you're whistling past the graveyard (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:59:57 AM EST
    If (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:12:37 AM EST
    the only thing I need to be afraid of is your zombie ideas, I might just stop and have a picnic.

    LOL some people are going to jail (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:37:22 AM EST
    the way Mitt Romney would be elected President and the way human activity influenced climate change is a hoax..

    Never underestimate the power of wishful thinking.


    Don't be an a$$, Jim. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 03:17:55 PM EST
    I realize that it's difficult for reality-challenged individuals such as yourself, but if you want people to stop rolling their eyeballs at you every time you open your mouth, then you really do need to work with actual facts as they are, and not as you might otherwise wish such facts to be.

    Because otherwise, I'll keep trotting out the ol' boiler plate response to your delusional rants:

    "Once again, you (a) are trafficking in misinformation; (b) don't know what you're talking about; and (c) are simply parroting the empty rhetoric of the professionally outraged GOP provocateur class."



    Donald, calling me an a$$ (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:12:19 PM EST
    is a bit beyond the vale.

    But it proves again that you know that Hillary is in big trouble so you try and deflect with personal insults.

    So I thank you for demonstrating what you are.


    ::sigh:: if only (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by sj on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:35:50 PM EST
    is a bit beyond the vale.
    ...you mean that you were actually communicating from beyond the veil...

    Possibly you meant "beyond the pale". But that couldn't possibly be right because that would mean you are the most dishonest, insultiest hypocrite on this site.

    Oh. Right.



    Thanks sj (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:57:32 PM EST
    I really need a secretary... do you do coffee and dry cleaner pick up and delivery.

    The pay is low but you will have an opportunity to learn some important life lessons.


    Psssstttt ... Jim (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:09:57 PM EST
    As someone who used to work at DOJ, let me break a secret to you.  They do a lot more than investigate potential crimes.

    Green has said (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 01:13:13 PM EST
    he works for a "large" law firm.  And he referred a client to Ted Wells.  Sounds like a DC firm, but who knows.....

    So, I do believe that Green is not on the payroll of the Heritage Foundation.

    But I think his Risk Management Committee would be none too pleased that he is talking about his work here on this forum....name dropping to boot.


    I never said that Green was employed by ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 02:13:47 PM EST
    ... the Heritage Foundation. Rather, I said that he sounded like the type of weasel that the Heritage Foundation would employ. I apologize if I caused any confusion here.

    I figured that he works for a private law firm, and yes, I would agree with your observation that his bosses at the firm would likely not be too pleased with his references to either his work with that firm or its clientele, regardless of however obliquely those references are made.

    In the legal profession, the rules in place regarding confidentiality exist for some very good reasons. and let's face it, there are some people out there in the blogosphere who live only to put two and two together, and then rush to tell everyone how they got to four. In that regard, why should one make any otherwise unnecessary trouble for one's own self?

    Those of us who are not attorneys are obviously under no such similar constraints professionally, although in any references to our own respective work product or employment, discretion is probably the better part of valor.



    No doubt, is trying to (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 03:22:53 PM EST
    carry water for the Heritage Foundation.

    I agree with you.


    You just stated why (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:20:05 PM EST
    Hillary actions are so despicable.

    let's face it, there are some people out there in the blogosphere who live only to put two and two together,



    You're out of your league here, Jim, ... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:24:25 AM EST
    ... and trying to punch way above your weight class.

    Some of you don't have clue (none / 0) (#114)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:06:51 PM EST
    Making a general comment about a completed matter (and without even identifying the matter) and mentioning a lawyer who was hired for an aspect of the case, is not confidential material, and no risk management person at any law firm would even blink. Someone was talking about how smart TL posters are, but those making this comment are disproving that point.

    When you find yourself in a hole, ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 01:50:53 AM EST
    ... you really ought to stop digging. Nuf ced.

    Honestly, Donald, (none / 0) (#107)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:54:22 PM EST
    you apparently don't know what being a target means. That's pretty funny. And you write such long-winded emails avoiding the subject and without providing not much substance. You don't know if there's a criminal investigation going on, and neither do I. At least, I can admit it. And as for being condescending, you are the one being condescending, not me.

    You quite obviously have no idea as to the parameters and scope of the Justice Dept. inquiry, never mind knowing who is or isn't a target, or even if there's a target at all. Having a JD degree does not automatically make you an expert in such matters.

    Yman is a well-renowned criminal defense counsel who likely has considerably more experience in these matters than do you. Further, he worked for the Justice Dept., and he's quite obviously not agreeing with your continued bluster on this subject. You have no business dismissing his opinions as though he was still in law school.

    And speaking of law school and for myself only, I'm really starting to wonder if you ever took a class in ethics, given your determination to impugn the integrity of Mrs. Clinton without any due consideration of the actual facts as we know them to be at this time. You want to channel the ghost of Roy Cohn, counselor, you really ought to do it somewhere else.



    Unless and until (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 12:10:07 AM EST
    one becomes a target of a criminal investigation, it is premature to accuse someone of a crime, no?

    Not when utterly irrational emotion (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:39:41 AM EST
    and a hated enemy are involved..

    but they don't erase (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:17:15 PM EST
    Maybe the state department sends lots of emails on private servers but they don't wipe half of them clean and ask people to "trust me" that the other half was clean.  The only person who did this since Nixon was Lois Lerner.  Even the Rose Law Firm records eventually came up, albeit years later.

    Oh, baloney. (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:35:01 PM EST
    Guess you've forgotten about the millions of e-mails that ran through RNC servers during that Bush administration that just vanished into thin air, never to be recovered.

    "Trusting" there was nothing to see there was apparently what we all had to do, because absolutely nothing ever came of it.


    heh (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:23:08 PM EST
    Daughter: "But Mom, everybody is doing it."

    Mom: "If everybody robbed a store would you?

    Daughter: "Yes, if it helped me do what I want."

    Mom (sighing): "Hillary, I don't know what I'm going to do with you."



    Not the point, jim. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:33:21 PM EST
    The point is the hypocrisy, and the selective outrage.

    I can't decide if you constantly miss these points on purpose, or if you just can't help yourself.

    Look out!  Woooosh...there goes another one now!


    It's purposeful (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:12:02 PM EST
    Well, ..

    ... at least for Jim's sake, I hope he does it intentionally.


    yes, anne (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:00:04 PM EST
    I get the point that you want to change the subject.

    What's missing here? (none / 0) (#7)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 06:40:30 PM EST
    Did the State Department just, publicly, announce that classified government information may be treated as one would when sending birthday greetings to a relative?

    Seriously, where's the rest of the story? It's long been apparent that there were problems in how official communications were handled. The dispute between The IC & State as to what should, and, should not, be considered, "classified," was an embarrassment to our entire National Security apparatus.

    This can't be the end of the story.

    You're not (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 07:27:35 PM EST
    understanding. There is a separate system for classified information. The emails that were sent around were unclassified. They were marked unclassified. They were sent on an unclassified system. They are only now being retroactively classified with lunch meetings and the sort having classified stamped on them because as long as they have classified stamped on them they don't get released under a FOIA request. It's really all about FOIA requests.

    This has nothing to do with markings (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:37:11 PM EST

    It has to do with content. If an email describes the ICBM targeting list, the number of drones currently operating over Iranian nuke sites, or what Putin and Merkel discussed in their latest private phone conversation, the markings are irrelevant. Indeed, failure to ensure proper marking is not an excuse.

    If you are the one sending (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:54:04 PM EST
    the email, then perhaps....

    So where's your evidence that any of those emails (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 04:57:19 PM EST
    that under the terms of your straw boogeyman argument contain ICBM targeting lists or the number of drones operating over Iranian nuclear processing sites or the secret transcripts of Putin's conversations with Angela Merkel... Where's your evidence that those exist anywhere but in your damp and fevered imagination?

    Yep (none / 0) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:12:55 PM EST
    its more like this;
    Neither of the two emails sent to Hillary Rodham Clinton now labeled by intelligence agencies as "top secret" contained information that would jump out to experts as particularly sensitive, according to several government officials.
    Even the experts could not spot "top secret" contents just by reading the emails.

    This can't be the end of the story. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:08:27 PM EST
    This can't be the end of the story.

    It's not.

    There is a long way to go.

    What just occurred is the "They have been doing this for years defense",

    So indict everyone for the last 12 years.

    The State Department is in a massive CYA mode.

    We will get a lot of real information when the FBI investigation concludes, unless its "classified"...Lol


    It is (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:51:52 PM EST
    the end of the story. Sorry. No dice. It was always a nothingburger and the GOP should know by now that nobody is going to continue to listen to their BS. Go back to calling all Hispanics rapists.

    Go back to calling all Hispanics rapists. (none / 0) (#21)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:01:44 PM EST
    Go back to calling all Hispanics rapists.

    What are you talking about? Have you been drinking?


    Haha (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:02:32 PM EST
    good one.

    GA, I think I have read everything (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:17:43 PM EST
    that he has posted on TL and he has never made such a comment.

    Really, you have highly and falsely insulted him and should apologize.


    Jim (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 06:00:28 PM EST
    I'm talking about your leading candidate for the GOP nomination.

    It will be interesting (none / 0) (#25)
    by mm on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:34:31 PM EST
    to observe how far they are willing to take this political witch hunt.

    If history is any judge, republicans will be willing to burn the State Department to the ground in order to get Hillary Clinton.

    So indict everyone for the last 12 years.



    The fact is that state department officials with (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:26:09 PM EST
    a very broad brief simply cannot do their jobs if they cannot communicate over unclassified networks. Maybe many folks here have no idea what a PITA networks secure enough for classified data are - the officials would essentially only be able to communicate with their own team of cleared individuals, which is the opposite of what the state department should be doing. So I can see why they have running disagreements with security agencies about what data should be classified and what should not, and a 'culture' of handling things a certain way.

    You either have a state department whose business it is to communicate, or you don't. Seems to me the usual suspects are always on the side of more restrictions in everything. 'Why do we need a state department at all?' will I'm sure be the next question.


    Sec State Kerry (none / 0) (#14)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:36:08 PM EST
    Has stated he works under the impression that all of his e mails are read by hackers.

    If that is the case, he is not putting any classified information in his e mails, I trust.

    So, are the government e mails secure? If not, please do not send classified information through e mail.

    And maybe have clearer definitions of classified, and what exactly is e mail allowable.


    it varies (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:52:57 PM EST
    Regular government email is no more secure than your gmail account. There are special secured networks at different levels for secret and higher classified information

    The AP article linked, describes it, quoted below

    Clinton also had access to a classified messaging system, but it's not widely used at the State Department. Most department officials in Washington and at embassies have on their desktops a classified network that goes up to "secret" level. A small number of State officials, including the secretary, can use a third system that goes up to "top secret" level in special secure rooms.

    But even the middle-tier "secret" network is cumbersome for many in the agency, said officials who would not be quoted when discussing internal security policies. Only a few top officials in Washington are able to read classified emails outside the department's headquarters. Most ambassadors can't open their accounts from home. Officials in the field may have no access at all.

    Lots of State Department information is meant for use, sharing and interaction with foreign officials, the vast majority of whom aren't authorized to receive classified U.S. material.

    Yes (none / 0) (#20)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:59:21 PM EST
    I read the article, and to me , it appeared that it was "inconvenient" to use the secret network.

    Well, either the culture had best change in the State, and also perhaps make it a little else inconvenient, provide  more terminals for secure transmissions.


    My preference would be to change the culture of (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:22:28 AM EST
    the security state, but if things go your way instead, I'm sure there are several contractors willing to gobble op the several hundred million dollars it would take to make the state department and all of its field offices as secure as the pentagon and military bases. And we can just stop pretending we are interested in working with other countries in a diplomatic way.

    Everybody did it! (none / 0) (#28)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:23:15 PM EST

    A great defense. It would have been even better if she had not claimed to have not done it at all.

    The issue is the policy (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:55:25 PM EST
    in effect at the time.  If everyone was doing it, then that helps to establish at least the de facto policy.

    Perhaps in part (none / 0) (#81)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 03:43:58 PM EST

    In the end it's the de jure policy that lands you in the slammer. Note the prior prosecutions.

    No violations of de jure policy (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 03:47:19 PM EST

    No violation for setting up a personal server.  No violation for receiving emails that are later determined to be classified.

    Those are the present facts.


    with a Christian background (none / 0) (#36)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:19:56 PM EST
    With a Christian background,

    everybody I know is trained to regard themselves and others as sinners and liable to err.

    so, when we read of HRC and her email situation . . .
    and we think HRC is a sinner and liable to err like all the rest of us humans . . . and you just make the guess that she did not follow the law by neglect or being careless . . .

    Cheney and his friends broke the law by outing Valerie Plame and I am mad at him and them for that . . . Cheney hurt people . . .

    If you sin and/or err and/or break the law, how do you respond when you are confronted with the fact that you have done so?

    Well, HRC is being confronted with the fact and she isn't doing very well in the mea culpa area . . . we aren't confronting the Bush admin officials and we don't really know how well they would do at admitting error and wrong . . .

    HRC is running for pres and Rice is not . . .  HRC is running for pres and Bush admin officials are not . . .

    we don't have any strong interest in hearing how good the bush admin officials are at admitting wrong when confronted with the evidence or fact of wrong-doing or lawbreaking--though we already know that about half of them are crooks and liars, based on how they handled a dozen other things, from Valerie Plame to Katrina to Iraq.

    If any bush admin officials who sent intel on unsecured email servers run for Pres, let me know and lets ask them about keeping the law . . .

    Your entire premise fails because (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 06:55:08 AM EST
    Clinton has not broken any laws; she has nothing to admit to or apologize for, so why are you demanding that she do so?

    As for what other, former government officials did in previous administrations, it is being pointed out not to justify anything that's happening now, it's to show how hypocritical conservatives/Republicans are about demanding accountability and investigations and criminal charges because there's a Clinton involved and they don't want her to be president.  When millions of e-mails were being sent over private, RNC servers by members of the Bush administration, there could not have been less interest by Republicans or the people who supported them.  So what's different now?

    Well, there's a Clinton involved, so the Clinton Rules must be invoked.  

    I don't know what you're reading, but you sure don't seem to be checking out the numerous citations and links that shoot holes in the breathless theories of Republicans desperate to find a way to destroy Hillary Clinton.

    Finally, no one here needs a disingenuous religious lecture, especially one that invokes Christianity to justify more hypocrisy and ignorance of the actual facts.


    there is a law (none / 0) (#43)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:32:41 AM EST
    there is a law that says to not store classified material at an unauthorized location.   Does that include your email server?  If so, Clinton and a bunch of bush admin officials probably broke the law.

    There is also the destruction of evidence question/problem . . .

    You folks might recall that a few months ago, I stated I was not happy with the law that would make it a crime to clean your computer or its history or whatever and linked to the story of a guy who was convicted .  . . and one or more of you responded that the law was a good law . . .

    Do you now remember that law or shall I find the posts and the actual law and link to it as well?

    Oh, I see now right here what it is and says . . .

    Clearing your browser history can be deemed 'obstruction of justice' in the U.S.

    What could land him 20 more years in prison -- where he has been since his arrest -- are the charges that he deleted video files from his computer and cleared his browser history in the days following the attacks. . . .

    As a result of this alleged behaviour, Matanov was charged with one count of "Destruction, Alteration, and Falsification of Records, Documents, and a Tangible Object in a Federal Investigation" --  which carries with it a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. . .

    Do you now believe that there is such a law?  Does it apply to wiping clean the email server with a cloth?

    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act

    Matanov's is the latest, and perhaps most high-profile, non-corporate court case to spark conversation around a U.S. law known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

    Enacted by Congress under President George W. Bush in 2002 following the Enron scandal​, the law essentially makes knowingly destroying or concealing any record that could be part of a federal investigation punishable by up to 20 years behind bars.


    discussion of the computer file law (none / 0) (#44)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:34:59 AM EST
    "Prosecutors are able to apply the law broadly because they do not have to show that the person deleting evidence knew there was an investigation underway," she wrote. "In other words, a person could theoretically be charged under Sarbanes-Oxley for deleting her dealer's number from her phone even if she were unaware that the feds were getting a search warrant to find her marijuana. The application of the law to digital data has been particularly far-reaching because this type of information is so easy to delete."

    the Feds want your data . . . (none / 0) (#45)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:38:20 AM EST
    Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Hanni Fakhoury agreed, telling The Nation that the U.S. government wants and believes it deserves access to all online data for policing purposes.

    Speaking about Kernell's case, he said that the government's "underlying theory" is this:

    "Don't even think about deleting anything that may be harmful to you, because we may come after you at some point in the future for some unforeseen reason and we want to be able to have access to that data. And if we don't have access to that data, we're going to slap an obstruction charge that has as 20-year maximum on you."


    Clinton appears to have goofed . . . (none / 0) (#47)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:53:03 AM EST
    Clinton has repeatedly denied that she ever sent classified info.

    "I am confident," she said last month in New Hampshire, "that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received," Clinton said.

    the state department IG says otherwise.

    Apparently the US sec of state could not tell which info was class or not at the time she included it in emails . . .

    That would make her incompetent and probably a liar . . .


    No (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:58:55 AM EST
    the state department IG does not agree. The IG is trying to retroactively classify emails. However that little detail seems to be continually lost on our resident concern trolls.

    oh, well, zaitz is a troll . . . (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:20:24 AM EST
    Yes, at this point, you are trolling. (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:16:22 AM EST
    You do not seem to realize that Reuters is not an authority, nor are any of the other outlets.  The State Department, however, is an authority, knows far more about the many details of how its people can and cannot communicate and handle information than the media ever will.

    From the coverage, it is clear that very few in the media actually understand the issues involved, and are concentrating mainly on whatever is the most dramatic headline.

    You are cherry-picking bits of information that you think are relevant without having a basic understanding of the difference between the public and the private sector and what each agency is and isn't allowed to do.

    All of the ground you are attempting to turn into mud has been covered, ad nauseam, which is why no one is interested in discussing it with you.


    do you wish (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:22:05 AM EST
    do you wish to explain why the Reuters analysis is in error?



    Do you wish to READ the post (none / 0) (#68)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:53:58 AM EST
    BTD wrote that addresses your issues?

    You don't have to agree with his assessment, or his conclusions, but for the love of God - you do love Him, right? - please stop beating this horse: it's dead.


    He won't stop (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 04:11:24 PM EST
    as long as people respond. D@mn me, I knew that and I still fed it.

    Actually this one seems fine (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 04:14:24 PM EST
    with responding to himself

    D'oh!!! (none / 0) (#125)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 03:01:07 AM EST
    So many right-wing piñatas here, sj, and so little time. Let's put our bats down, and I'll mix us a pitcher of margaritas.



    "I'm not dead yet... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:01:05 PM EST
    Anne thanks (none / 0) (#113)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:05:27 PM EST

    I was not aware that BTD had written a post specifically on the topic of the recent Reuters analysis and I thank you for pointing me to it.

    However, after reading the analysis of BTD, I think that that analysis is demonstrably poor . . . as for instance, in this area . . .

    BTD writes,

    >Treated what way? Confidentially? Or routed through >classified systems? I think it is the former, not >the latter. I do not believe foreign governments >generally have the expectation that their >communications with the State Department will be >routed through classified secure systems.

    Foreign governments which give to the USA information that they also and at the time consider to be "given in confidence" expect that the USA will treat that information as classified.

    It surely happens that as part of some conversations, some French fellow and some American fellow may refer to or discuss publicly known events, such as terrorist attacks or the praiseworthy and heroic action of some Americans in stopping the fellow who got on the train with the intention of shooting up some people.  Information which is already pubicly known can't be a matter of a confidential communication, except perhaps in certain details, if there are details related to say, spies and their activity as related to a publicly known event or action.

    I am sure that some French gov people discussed with American gov people their thanks for American aid with the fellow on the train . . .  No one supposes that such thanks or even general discussion of the Muslim attacker is confidential and classified.

    However, there are times in which some foreign gov has learned things by their intelligence agencies which they wish to share wish US officials . . . and they share such information confidentially and expecting it to be classified . . . and subsequent to classification, or due to automatic classification, to be treated in secure ways.

    How obvious.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by sj on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 04:08:17 PM EST
    At least you acknowledge that you are a troll. You have made (so far) 14 comments without relying on facts currently in evidence. Instead you have linked to already debunked speculation in order to spew your nonsense.

    So how close is your bridge to jim's?


    you consider (none / 0) (#115)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:08:36 PM EST
    You consider the posting of BTD on the topic to be a serious and adequate "debunking" of the reuters analysis?

    If the analysis of BTD constitutes an adequate debunking of the Reuters analysis, why isn't it--either directly or indirectly, either quoted or paraphrased--being shared by the HRC campaign as its answer to the conclusions drawn by the Reuters analysis?


    did you see Presumed Innocent? (none / 0) (#119)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:01:50 AM EST
    Did you see "Serial Mom"? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 03:08:01 AM EST
    ok (none / 0) (#52)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:14:26 AM EST
    I am not immune to evidence and reason and reasoning.

    Would you mind sending me the link to read from a news source we both regard as reasonably reliable? cnn, abcnews, cbsnews, nbcnews and sometimes also msnbc news if there is such a thing?


    You really (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:17:36 AM EST
    should just read what BTD wrote in the post. Honestly he answers all your questions but you keep positing these discredited theories.

    would you feel bad (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:23:54 AM EST
    Would you feel bad if I have read his "post" and I found his analysis unpersuasive for reasons I gave and which seem to lack substantial refutation so far?

    does reuters count with you? (none / 0) (#53)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:17:14 AM EST
    Scroll (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:48:09 AM EST
    to the bottom of the article and you will find the truth (my emp.)
    Leonard, the former ISOO director, said this sort of information was improperly shared by officials through insecure channels more frequently than the public may realize

     it's so common they have a name for it
    The difference in Clinton's case, Leonard said, is that so-called "spillages" of classified information within the .gov network are easier to track and contain.
     All you Hillary haters are screaming the "store is on fire" for what is essentially just a "clean up in aisle 5".

    That is (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:21:05 AM EST
    an old story that has since been debunked. The story did not understand that it was retroactively classified information and was saying if it's classified now it was classified then which is not the case.


    And one of those emails they are claiming is classified has already been released to the public. So if you go online and read that email you are guilty of reading classified information and if you talk to anybody about it you are guilty of disseminating classified information according to your own silly standards.


    Great picture of Hillary though (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:23:19 AM EST

    us rules are (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:27:38 AM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:37:56 AM EST
    that is an old and debunked story. What you're positing is that foreign countries are knowingly sending classified information over an unclassified system. Do you realize how patently ridiculous that is? So apparently all foreign countries that exist in the entire world don't know that you don't send classified information on an unclassified system.

    Pure bunk.


    old and debunked? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:59:02 AM EST
    >That is an old and debunked story.

    It is on the reuters website with a date of 8/21/15.

    >What you're positing is that foreign countries are >knowingly sending classified information over an >unclassified system.

    Friend, you appear to be so ignorant as to not know the meaning of the term, when used by those with security clearances, of "foreign government information."  The term refers not to info that foreign gov officials send among themselves on unsecured channels, but to information given to, say, a us secretary of state by her British or Russian or French or Iraqi counterpart, while also given to her or him in confidence.

    Such material/information/statements are to be automatically regarded as classified, if not otherwise publicly known, even if only to protect the idea that the French secretary of state or that equivalent person can share info and ideas with the US sec of state in confidence . . .

    >Pure bunk.

    Yeah, the reporters who write for reuters are fools and I am a troll who read their reports and links to them . . .


    So, now Reuters is the final arbiter of ... (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 01:44:15 PM EST
    ... what gets classified in the State Dept., and not the folks at the State Dept. themselves? Again, this was internal email traffic, and any need for retroactive classification of the hard copies provided to the State Dept. by Mrs. Clinton occurred when FOIA requests to see them were first filed by members of the media.

    The media keeps accusing Mrs. Clinton of changing her story, when hard truth be told, she's actually been remarkably consistent in her recountings and recollections. Rather, it's the media itself -- in concert with GOP congressmen -- which has been consistently and collectively guilty of shapeshifting the parameters of their own coverage, moving the goalposts on Mrs. Clinton repeatedly in order to keep the spotlight relentlessly upon her.

    Along the way, they've studiously avoided any mention of similar and relevant past conduct by others, which would otherwise tend to undermine their increasingly specious claims that there's somehow a there there regarding Mrs. Clinton and her emails. Their resolute maintenance of this sort of obvious double standard is the so-called "Clinton Rules" in action, on steroids.

    It is a fact that Mrs. Clinton's immediate predecessors at State, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, also had private email addresses with which they conducted affairs of state respectively. Yet that doesn't seem to matter here.

    Further, Mrs. Clinton is the only one of the three to have fully complied with the government mandate to turn over all SD-related emails for archival purposes. But that, too, apparently doesn't matter.

    Still further, Gen. Powell not only apparently violated department protocols by not turning over all SD-related emails at the conclusion of his tenure, he also destroyed those emails. That fact is also somehow conveniently overlooked by the media in its collective rush to judgment of Mrs. Clinton.

    Finally, senior members of the late Bush administration not only regularly conducted government business using private email addresses, their work was being stored on the Bush campaign's own servers in obvious circumvention of federal archival guidelines. Is that a relevant fact in this discussion? According to the "Clinton Rules," no, it isn't.

    When the Justice Dept. began an investigation in 2007 into the suspiciously timed firings of eight U.S. attorneys by the White House, over 5 million administration emails mysteriously disappeared from those same Bush servers, even though much of that correspondence was under federal subpoena. Are we presently hearing any recollections in the media about that? No, we sure aren't.

    And back then, did we hear any of the same Republicans who are presently squawking about State Dept. emails, raise a similar hue and cry over what appeared to have been a conscious and deliberate act on the part of someone in the White House to obstruct a federal investigation?

    Of course not. Rather, they tended to dismiss the investigation as nothing more than a partisan witch hunt, never mind that it was Bush's own Justice Dept. which had commissioned the inquiry.

    So, here's my three-fold prediction. First, the Justice Department will eventually determine that no wrongdoing occurred in either the initial storage of Mrs. Clinton's emails, or their subsequent handing by the State Dept. in response to the FOIA requests.

    Second, when that conclusion is rendered, it will merit only a relatively small article in the New York Times and Washington Post that will be buried in each paper's midsection, so as to not draw widespread public attention to the likelihood that the media has been cloaking us with a relentless stream of bong smoke on this matter for the better part of a year.

    And third, that FBI conclusion will not only merit little or no mention at all on either Fox News or any of the right-wing and GOP-friendly media sites and blogs, those particular sources will continue to refer to this matter as a so-called "Clinton scandal," a la Whitewater and Vincent Foster's suicide.

    And those Republicans who are compelled to respond to the dismissal of their partisan narrative will no doubt insist that the entire Justice Dept. inquiry was nothing but a whitewash.

    And so it goes, and will likely continue to go. Because after all, it's all in accordance with the "Clinton Rules," you know?



    supposedly . . . (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 03:41:42 PM EST
    Supposedly the intelligence community as a whole has a set of rules which governs in general the usual facts or things to be classified . . . and if we go by those rules, then, confidential communications from other heads of state or secretaries of state of their equivalents is to be automatically regarded as classified . . .

    Do you affirm or deny it?

    and reuters says that there are 30 threads in which such confidential communications were discussed.

    Are you denying either of these facts?

    I am sure that Bush and Cheney and Powell and others did a lot of wrong and stupid things.  I am half-happy about some of his Supreme court choices, but otherwise, the Bush presidency seems to have been disastrous . . .

    I am not sure if we should suppose that Bush stole the election or that God gave it to him . . . or both  . . .

    Why do you wish to remind us of the fact that Bush and company were crooks?  Do you think I do not already believe that?

    The Bible has a saying "Trust not in princes."

    HRC's story has changed from she did not transmit any classified material via her email to she did not transmit any that was marked classified or that she knew was classified.

    OK, well, going by the basic rule re "foreign government information," then, HRC would have to be ignorant and incompetent for that defense to fly.

    You believe that by reminding me of disappearing emails re the firing of the US attorneys that that somehow exculpates Clinton?

    Where I am from, why not just admit the wrong done . . . though I suppose you could take the Bush approach . . .

    "Mistakes were made."


    The IC is not the final arbiter here, particularly over the State Dept.'s own internal communications. And as an institution, the State Dept. has been around one hell of a lot longer than the IC.

    Further, Mrs. Clinton hardly needs ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:54:24 AM EST
    ... any "exculpating," given that the present Justice Dept. inquiry is non-criminal, she hasn't be charged with any crime, and she's not the target of any investigation except in your own very fevered imagination.

    False dichotomies (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:16:35 PM EST
    The fact that you have trouble with facts and logic doesn't mean she's either one.

    Nor is the "sin" of unprotected email (none / 0) (#101)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:26:43 PM EST
    mentioned anywhere in the ten commandments.

    This thread just got a lot weirder.