State Dept. Disagrees That Clinton E-mails Contained Classified Information

While some will claim that:

. It is not in dispute that her cache of 30,000 e-mails contained classified documents from as many as five U.S. intelligence agencies.

This claim would be false. For one the State Department disputes it:

In a statement Tuesday, State Department spokesperson John Kirby noted that the two e-mails determined to have contained top secret material were "not marked as classified" when they were sent between State Department employees and ultimately forwarded to Clinton.

The two e-mails, from 2009 and 2011, were identified before they were made public as part of the department's monthly releases of Clinton e-mails. "While we work with the Director of National Intelligence to resolve whether, in fact, this material is actually classified, we are taking steps to ensure the information is protected and stored appropriately, Kirby said. [My emphasis]

To be clear, the State Department has already stated that is disagrees with the IC IG on this. I covered these points in a previous diary. The upshot was State disagreed with the IC regarding whether the information was in fact classified, even NOW.

This is an intergovernment agency food fight. All of this is in dispute. What's not in dispute is that the information was not marked classified when received by Clinton. (It now seems clear she never sent the information, just received it.)

As Clinton said: "“What I think you’re seeing here is a very typical kind of discussion—to some extent disagreement—among various parts of the government over what should or should not be publicly released."

The story has not changed. That's still what it is.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Send Good Thoughts to Jimmy Carter >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Arethere no Bernie devotees at TL? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 10:41:53 AM EST
    [see DK comments re this post.]

    I love Bernie (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by CST on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    But his supporters... I could live without a lot of them.

    The truth is there are a lot of angry white men out there.  And not all of them are fiscal conservatives.


    DK and the Bernie support (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 02:07:32 PM EST
    Is rapidly approaching the scorched earth policy when Obama was their Messiah in 2008.

    We'll see how long it takes for Clintonsupporters to be banned (if there are any remaining at DK).

    The Boston Globe poll putting Bernie ahead of Clinton in  NH for the first time has splashed blood into the DK waters and it's simply sickening.

    Having said as much, if Clinton can't  take Iowa, and the NH polls hold, it's over early I suspect.


    You really think it would be over for Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 02:09:36 PM EST
    Then? Because I don't. It looks like after NH that's when Bernie fizzles hard.

    Geez I dunno MT (none / 0) (#27)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 02:25:10 PM EST
    But I do see loads of parallels to 2008....
    Another cool guy for white progressives to go ape for.....
    Another Not-Hillary.
    25,000 people at rallies.....
    Bernie overtaking her in polls for the first time....

    I can't imagine she will overcome the racist label she got in 2008 -  so much of the black vote may stay home. Carson now leads her by 4 in NH I think.

    The white male Progressive crowd ( and their girlfriends) are all Sanders.

    Hispanics? Dunno, maybe she can make up ground there, and maybe with older white women on the Dem side.

    I cannot see blue collar white males pulling the lever for her. Men simply do NOT give up power to a woman. They far more easily give it up to a man, even a black or Hispanic man. But to a woman? Dunno.

    I'm in PA, so I will be curious to see what the white male blue collar crowd does re Clinton here. Stay home, I fear.

    I think its  2008 Redux on the Dem side, and the latest cool guy I.e. NOT HILLARY has the advantage.

    Given Sanders eschews PAC money he'll likely be buried by Trump or whoever on the GOP side, but that would just be classic progressive nose-spite-face I guess!

    Love to be proved wrong! Changed my citizenship to vote Dem and support Clinton all the way.

    Just don't see it happening for Hillary.


    The X factor may be the debates; (4.50 / 2) (#30)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 02:49:39 PM EST
    haven't seen anyone really talk about what effect those may have on the numbers, but I'm guessing they will be a factor.

    I do look for more media - including social media - association of Sanders supporters with those DFHs from Occupy as a way to chill the Sanders support; I'm already seeing some of that, including here.

    At this stage, I don't want to write anyone off, and I frankly don't know why we would want to, not this early on.  I want to see the Dem candidates on a stage and take their measure individually, and as they play off and against each other.  I don't want this to be a coronation, nor do I want this to be just about protest.  I think that if we, the people, want a candidate who is responsive to our issues, we have to leverage our votes accordingly.  If we like the Sanders platform, but don't think he's electable (they keep calling him a "scruffy septuagenarian socialist" - I guess that's the polite term for an older Dirty Fking Hippie), then we have to get the person with the best chance of winning to take on those positions.

    I really don't want to keep hearing that Sanders has peaked and is now falling in Iowa, or that Clinton is "losing" to Sanders in NH; I want to hear about issues - and maybe I'm just not paying attention, but I kind of feel like Clinton's just fallen off the map - it's way too quiet on her end - what's she doing?  Polling on the Sanders positions?  

    Charlie Pierce has observed that Clinton is doing exactly what she did in 2008

    It is increasingly apparent that Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign has the same problem that it had in 2008. It is far less nimble than it ought to be. Watching that campaign respond is like watching an aircraft carrier try to turn itself around. It is too easily wrong-footed. It is too easily caught by surprise. It responds to the unexpected sluggishly, if at all. It cannot seem to find in itself the ability to expect the unexpected. Seven years ago, I maintain, it simply never was quick enough on its feet to respond to the political dynamic created by the Obama campaign. This time around, it has seemed unable to respond either to the sudden popular strength of the Sanders campaign, or to whatever impact the Trump Effect is having on the process as a whole. (Which is something similar to the effect of ipecac on the human body, as nearly as I can tell.) That the HRC campaign moved so effectively to short-circuit an action by the Black Lives Matter movement without entirely alienating the movement is evidence that somebody at HRC HQ at least is reading the newspapers.

    Issues, people, issues.  Focus!  Let's not get ahead of ourselves.


    I'm all for issues but (none / 0) (#33)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 02:59:08 PM EST
    I want to see what if any progressive legislation Sandrs has sponsored that has actually been enacted, and so far can't find much.

    I've seen some that got through that he co-sponsored with Clinton or others.

    But on his own I think he's been ineffective.
    Still looking.


    Actually (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 03:03:28 PM EST
    I have seen her responding to the Trump effect. Either he missed it or what you're quoting is dated. She's gone on the offensive this week and pretty much stayed there.

    Yes, she handled the BLM movement masterfully.

    I don't know that the debates will change any minds or not. Bernie debated Michelle Bachmann. You should watch it and I would be interested to see what you think.


    I Read That... (none / 0) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 02:59:15 PM EST
    ...more as a projection that anything based on something.

    HRC has great polling numbers, yes, even against everyone else, all of which are men with one exception.

    Please explain the 'racist label she got in 2008', because I do not know what that means.


    On the racist label (none / 0) (#39)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    Re the racist label, I recall 3 major gaffes (perhaps there were more) that contributed to the racist label in 2008.

    The first was a remark Bill Clinton  made after the SC primary in which he seemingly dismissed Obama with a comparison to Jesse Jackson.

    Then there was Hillary Clinton with her "as far as I know" response to a question re whether Obama was Muslim v Christian...

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/14/476539/-HillaryClinton-com-spreading-Obama-Muslim-smears-an d-other-racism

    Of course her prompt response "of course not!" Was largely ignored by the media (especially DKos) in favor of the delicious firestorm of her suspicion he could be Muslim.

    Then there was the RFK Gaffe whereby Clinton seemingly wished for Obama's assassination....


    Anyway it's remarkable that the Clintons, with 30+ years of public service largely to the benefit of minorities, were so easily smeared as racists, but there you are.

    I do not believe Hillary Clinton can overcome that in these primaries and sense the black vote may largely stay home (Bernie is certainly not attracting much)...

    And I believe that will have a significant effect to her not being able to beat the Bernie/young white progressive surge that we see occurring now.....

    Love to be proven wrong. Changed my citizenship to vote and proud to support Clinton.



    Maybe I am an Outlier... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:05:43 PM EST
    ...but I don't see it and you are the first person to suggest she has race issues, including the media, to which you provided three bits, none of which I am seeing a racial aspect, other then then Obama was part of the equation.

    She doesn't have a race problem, good gravy, for someone who claims to be on her side you basically dug up garbage from a site you have been slamming all day and had to go so far as attributing something to do with Bill 8 years ago, to Hillary.

    That is just plain odd.  'proud to support Clinton', well I guess we have different definition of support.


    Well (none / 0) (#53)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:24:33 PM EST
    I could have provided many more than three "bits" as you say.

    Take the trouble to look it up yourself and there are many links beyond DK.

    She had an enormous race problem in 2008 after SC. Arguably she never recovered.

    It's hard to gauge at the moment as the only poll I've seen has Carson up on her by about 4, but so are others on the right , so it can't be said at the moment that this is all race oriented.

    But if you don't think the Clintons were painted as racist in 08 you were not paying attention.

    Good "gravy".


    Got It... (none / 0) (#103)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:37:38 AM EST
    ...this infamous racist label painted on her is such a problem that no one but you has brought it up.

    I, and many others, were not paying attention if that is the metric for paying attention.  It's a non-issue so far, which is not what you are inferring.

    I Googled it, nothing about race except how she has responded to RBM, which has been all positive.

    I think your support for her is a cover so you can try to introduce a topic no one else anywhere has discussed this campaign cycle.  But who knows, I do know people who support candidates don't dig up 8 year old non-sense form a site they proclaim is anti-Hillary, which is also odd that you seem to live over there and yet you are the one who is pro-Hillary.  It doesn't add up if you truly want HRC to win, none of it.

    Being behind someone inb the polls who is black is not proof of anything other than people in one state like the other candidate.  If that were true, it would mean she doesn't have a race problem in every other state were she leads against the same candidate.  

    The idea that she has never recovered is complete BS.  She was well above everyone a few months ago, she is not doing as well but it has nothing to do with race.  If there was an "enormous race issue" she surely recovered if you use the polls from Jan-June of this year.  But we both know, she doesn't.


    The Clintons never made any racist gaffes (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by RCBadger on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 12:37:03 AM EST
    I think it was more that the Obama campaign decided that any and all criticism of him was racist.

    yep (none / 0) (#106)
    by sj on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 12:51:50 PM EST
    The Clintons never made any racist gaffes (none / 0) (#89)
    by RCBadger on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:37:03 PM MDT

    I think it was more that the Obama campaign decided that any and all criticism of him was racist.

    Apparently I just uprated your very first comment (I didn't recognize your handle). :)

    That "racist label" ... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:51:17 PM EST
    ... was only believed by a few who wanted to vote for Obama and/or hated her to begin with.  Her numbers among AA voters are very high.

    I think she (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 02:13:20 PM EST
    could survive losing them both but it would certainly bruise her up a good bit.

    That being said Bernie's numbers seem to be going down in Iowa. And I really have to wonder about having a rally in LA when the CA primary is not until June.

    Bernie has a serious shot at winning NH but I don't see him being able to pull it out in Iowa since that is a caucus.


    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#28)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 02:29:00 PM EST
    But when I look at polls since March-April, Bernie is going one direction and Clinton the other.

    It is another love affair for Progressives.
    As we have seen.

    I thought I could  venture back to DKos, but it's pretty clear non-Bernie supporters are unwelcome there.

    What a shame. We like to pat ourselves on the back as inclusive on the left, but DKos is as hostile and tribal as any red state hate-site. Very depressing.


    Well (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 02:56:32 PM EST
    first of all Obama had African Americans and white "progressives" back in 2008. This time Bernie ONLY has white progressives. He's going to have problems making in roads in minority communities because he's been in Vermont his entire political career. Hillary has a long standing relationship with the AA and the Hispanic community.

    That being said if we don't nominate the most qualified women to ever run for office in the history of the country the Dems are saying they don't want a woman and they're just as bad as the GOP. Women are fine to serve in support roles but can't be let near the head office.

    Bernie goes down in a landslide because the only people who are going to show up to vote are the same ones in his rallies.


    That's Pretty Off (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 03:17:08 PM EST
    That being said if we don't nominate the most qualified women to ever run for office in the history of the country the Dems are saying they don't want a woman and they're just as bad as the GOP.

    Being more qualified doesn't in any way mean the better choice.  The idea that not electing Clinton makes democrats the same as republicans, is silly.  It means what it means, voters preferred someone else.  

    If not electing the most qualified makes a statement, well then most elections/primaries are making some sort of statement, maybe that being the most qualified doesn't guarantee you the job, that there is lot more going on than just having the experience, cough, cough Perry.


    No (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 03:41:50 PM EST
    but twice we will have run a woman and twice if we don't nominate her will have chosen a man over a woman it is going to send a message to women and not a good one at that. There's a lot of misogyny going on right now and it's the same that was going in 2008. Once a woman starts to run it starts to bleed out of the pores of some of these so called progressives.

    Bernie's supporters (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Politalkix on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 06:21:25 PM EST
    would have been excited to nominate Elizabeth Warren. Actually EW was their first choice, so this is likely not about misogyny but policy.

    Someone like Kirsten Gillibrand would have been a stronger GE candidate than HRC. What will people in the left do if no Democratic women run when HRC decides to contest a race?


    Do tell? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    Does that Bernie Supporter Spokesman position come with a badge or at least a hat? ... anything?

    Too much (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:29:11 PM EST
    sexism coming from them is what I see. There's no way they would have supported Warren if Bernie was in the race or probably have moved over to O'Malley.

    I Think a Little More... (none / 0) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:09:47 PM EST
    ...analysis would be wise, then she lost therefore Dems are like the GOP in regards to women.

    Obama simply offered something she couldn't, hope.  He didn't deliver, but to make about man versus woman because there is a man and woman in the race is pretty simplistic.

    I am not disagreeing with the misogyny aspect, but right now here biggest foe seems to be the press, which seems like her name is behind it more than her gender.  My opinion of course.


    Look (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:22:02 PM EST
    I know they're not completely like the GOP in respect to policies for sure but when it comes to general attitudes of some grass roots I'm sorry to say there's a lot of the same.

    When have we ever had a true (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 03:21:26 PM EST
    social Democrat elected President?

    Once anyone to the right of a Clinton or a Dwight Eisenhauer runs in this country, mindless, irrational red-baiting bleeds out of the pores of so many so called liberals -- with the actual pumping action often controlled by Wall St, K St, and the Pentagon..



    Agree (none / 0) (#35)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    Though it's funny you should mention that....just this Am on DKos I read a comment insisting that Sanders is a minority "hero".

    They are delusional.

    Our own Red State.

    It's a real shame.


    Honestly (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 03:06:00 PM EST
    it's kind of creepy how much many of them are like the tea party. The same attitude towards women and now they are dinging on minorities too because they are not voting for Bernie.

    And then today Trump goes after Bernie and Bernie has no response to what Trump says.


    "Women" meaning Hillary, of course (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 03:24:56 PM EST
    or do they give other women rough treatment at Kos?

    For instance, are they as misogynistic towards Elizabeth Warren over there?


    the point (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:33:16 PM EST
    is not that they are (or are not) "as misogynistic" toward Elizabeth Warren as toward Hillary Clinton

    the point is that they are misogynistic at all


    Hillary (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 05:21:14 PM EST
    and any other woman who doesn't "toe the line". I'm sure Warren would probably get the same treatment if she was running for President though. Hillary was just fine until she started running for president.

    Kos loves Warren (none / 0) (#114)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 05:29:56 PM EST
    No, Bernie is the poor mans Elizabeth Warren. She would rule DKOS if she actually ran for President,
    And she might be getting in the race anyway

    No (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 05:33:46 PM EST
    she is not getting in the race. She doesn't have the established contacts to fund raise in enough time and she has said a million times she's not running.

    Yup (none / 0) (#40)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 03:34:58 PM EST
    Tribalism is a scourge on both sides!

    All the more reason for me ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:31:35 PM EST
    smott: "[J]ust this [morning] on DKos I read a comment insisting that Sanders is a minority 'hero'. they are delusional. Our own Red State. It's a real shame."

    ... to maintain my own personal moratorium on DKos, which has been in place since the 2008 primary season. The only time I've set it aside is to listen to a few of BTD's podcasts, like his most recent one with Joe Conason.

    Other that that, I'm more than happy to ignore both that site and the starry-eyed loons who inhabit its threads. I haven't missed them at all. If those jackasses disagreed with what you said, they'd hunt you down and bombard your e-mail inbox with all sorts of hateful personal invectives. Honestly, who has the time to engage in that sort of reprehensible bullschitt, except people who otherwise don't have a life of their own?



    We the Judean People's Front have no truck with (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 03:27:41 PM EST
    that damnable People's Front of Judea..



    Sorry, missed your point? (none / 0) (#60)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 05:02:27 PM EST
    I ignore for the most part also.
    However I think it's important to note that Clinton-supporters are being shunned now as they were in 2008.

    I believe it is worth noting.  The progressive left on DKos is all Bernie and it's scorched earth for dissenters.

    As it was before.


    As my favorite Persian proverb says: (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:15:07 PM EST
    "Dogs bark, and the caravan passes."

    I'm content at this point to let the dogs at DKos bark themselves silly. They certainly don't define the left. Their actions are only a reflection upon themselves.

    In politics, those who demand that it's either their way or the highway, are often among the very first to be shown the door and told to hit the road. It's a great way to self-marginalize.



    We need less condidate "supporters" (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 03:40:28 PM EST
    and more issue and policy supporters.

    Let the Right with their backward-looking culture wars and post-sixties, post-civil rights era pathology revel in identity politics.


    At some point, you still have to choose the candidate who best reflects your own hopes and aspirations for our country and its people, and / or can implement those policies which you do support.

    And I, for one, happen to favor a number of policy positions on quite a few different issues, and it's unreasonable for me to expect a single candidate to agree with me on everything right on down the line.

    Further, merely holding fast to a given policy position isn't going to amount to anything, unless you can elect someone to public office who can offer the best opportunity to make things actually happen.

    Throughout the years, I've found myself favoring other candidates over those whose own stated positions on issues were probably much closer to my own than what was offered by their electoral rival's, simply because after talking with them, I concluded that they lacked the personal temperament and / or discipline to get anything accomplished in the public arena.

    I mean, what's the point of a candidate who favors single-payer health coverage, if he or she shows an inability to get along with other people, and tends to burn his or her bridges?

    I'm not going to support someone who thinks that his or her sole job requirement as an elected official is to rage against the establishment and denounce the hypocrisy of our times. Hell, I can do that all by myself!

    I'm a results-oriented person, and I expect the candidates and public officials whom I choose to support to be the same. And to be truly effective in the public arena, you have to be able to play nicely with all the other children in the sandbox when it really matters.



    I want to understand (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:01:19 AM EST
    Why are they so angry? Someone posted in Armandos diary about uber white liberals feeling betrayed by Obama. It really struck me. What is that about?

    I'm surrounded by uber white conservatives and they say such horrible deceitful things about Obama, I live in a very different social bubble. Because people around me repeat so many hate filled lies about the President and I'm always wincing, I am far removed from this other group of whites that feel betrayed. Maybe there is no such dynamic though and someone in Armando's diary is just a bonehead d*ck, that would be really odd though.....snark.


    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CST on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    A lot of them are the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

    Because they are broke and have been left behind by the economy.  There are some legitimate concerns that a lot of people are being left behind, and unfortunately some of them see attention being paid to women and minorities and think it means they are being oppressed, without recognizing WHY they are receiving attention.  All they see is what is in front of them and a lot of times that's not pretty.

    I'm not particularly worried though.  The "disillusioned" group showed up after the first election.  If anything Obama's second term has brought some of them back into the fold, IMO.  I think that sometimes certain groups of people are very loud and it can inflate their actual influence/numbers.  But there are real economic concerns, and Obama did not solve them, and the occupy wall street crowd isn't going to turn to the GOP for answers.  They think Hillary is too corporate.


    This seems to fit the vibe (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:37:30 AM EST
    And I do see a lot of occupy references in sig lines and screen names.

    My Non-White Friends... (none / 0) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:53:09 AM EST
    ...have a running joke that whenever something happens to me that I have a problem with, they say, "Write a letter", because apparently to many that is what we(white guys) do for even the most inane perceived wrongs.

    What makes it so funny, is I write a lot of letters.  They think that it's so funny, while I think it's odd not to voice your opinion.

    My point, as a white male, my mentality is I am not going away quietly, and while I don't do political letters, it's the same thought process.  I am going to let people know when S is not on the up & up, and don't call it privilege/entitlement just because you don't.  But they still do.

    FYI, I in no way agree with the guys above, but I understand why they are doing it, they feel slighted and they ain't going down without being heard.


    oh there is plenty of legitimate anger (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:58:50 AM EST
    Out there, I don't mean to discount that.  But it matters how you choose to express that anger.

    Well (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:08:52 AM EST
    they didn't listen to what Obama was saying or deliberately closed their ears. They saw what they wanted to see and now they are angry at him for not doing what they thought he said. And then there were some things he actually said but did a 180 on while in office.

    Post racial didn't happen (none / 0) (#11)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:20:33 AM EST
    guilt not assuaged.

    uber white liberals feeling betrayed by Obama

    Either that or delusions about opportunities in the new world economy that do not comport with the reality.

    BTD - forgive the ot post.


    There (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:03:54 AM EST
    are but not the nutty kind that are at DK apparently.

    What there are are people who (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:35:20 AM EST
    agree with, support and want someone to advocate for, many of the positions that Sanders is running on, so it's less about being devoted to the person and more about being devoted to particular positions on the issues.

    For me, at least.

    Many of us wanted someone to get into the race who could run from the left, and push Clinton in that direction, so it puzzles me that people who also purported to support a more populist, left-leaning platform seem to now want Sanders out of the race.  It's gone from, "we need someone to challenge Hillary from the left" to "Oh, he can't win and he's fading, and he's going to get obliterated once the primary season starts."

    In my opinion, the sooner he gets out, the sooner Clinton starts tacking to the right, so as I see it, the longer the challenge continues, the more time there is for her to have to solidify her positions more to the left side of the spectrum, the better.

    It is going to drive people stone crazy if, as the nominee, she gives any ground to a Republican base that is proving on a daily basis that it has completely lost touch with reality.


    I think there are two camps of Bernie supporters (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CST on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:42:01 AM EST
    (maybe more than that, but for the purpose of this)

    One wants to see the Dem party tack left.  One hates Hillary Clinton.  They aren't mutually exclusive, but there is a group of Bernie supporters who certainly fall in the latter group.

    I don't think you, or I, or the people on TL really fall into that second camp.  But I imagine there are some commentators on DailyKos that do.

    Case and point - the whole e-mail fiasco.  Those that want the Dem party to tack left are concerned with things like economic policy.  Those that hate Hillary Clinton think she's going to be in federal prison because of some e-mails by the time the Dem primary is over.  It becomes even more ridiculous when you consider a lot of those people are probably Snowden supporters.


    I think (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:46:56 AM EST
    she's talking about the particularly nasty bunch of supposed Bernie supporters over at Daily Kos. Of course some of them are Republican trolls pushing Bernie.

    Thank you, BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    That's exactly what I've been saying in yesterday's Open Thread, while urging a few misinformed people to re-read your two prior posts here at TL on the subject.

    Alas, when it comes to the Clintons, there are some who will endeavor to believe only what they want to see and hear, and will knowingly and willfully disregard any and all facts to the contrary.


    My random thoughts (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 12:48:55 AM EST
    A win by Sanders in NH isn't going to take Clinton down. Sanders doesn't have a chance, unless Clinton were to get into huge trouble over something. And then another Dem would step in and be better than Sanders. In some respects, I put Sanders in the same boat as Trump, i.e. distractions who aren't going to win any nomination. I think the email "scandal" is hurting Clinton and is probably going to continue to hurt her. Almost no one in the masses knows or cares about what the State Dept. thinks on the emails.

    Thank you for keeping it clarified (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 09:21:25 AM EST
    And I like Jesselyn, she's on my hotlist. I understand the point she hopes to make. Maybe it could be better made by pointing out how ambiguous the classification powers and processes also are.

    Anyone who saw the documentary, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    "Silenced," would understand what a rabbit hole politics has made of the Espionage Act.  The personal and financial consequences that have been visited on good people, because the powers that be wanted them silenced, were immeasurable - to the point where I would say the real crimes were committed by the government and not against the government.

    Oh Yeah (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 01:25:42 PM EST
    How David Petraeus just walked away too.  There is no justice in this area at this time.  The Powers that Be do what the hell they want when they want.

    When we do it, it's criminal. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 01:26:23 PM EST
    When government does it, it's Policy.

    Mishandling classified info (none / 0) (#64)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 05:35:42 PM EST
    The Obama administration has prosecuted more individuals under the Espionage Act of 1917 for improperly handling classified information than all previous administrations combined.

    NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ's claims that he "mishandled" classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, "a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials" despite no "evidence he intended to distribute them." Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.


    Clinton = Snowden (none / 0) (#2)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 09:27:17 AM EST

    I know lawyers gotta make an argument but c'mon. That DKOS post misses a crucial element IMO - intent.

    It misses a lot more than that (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CST on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 09:29:25 AM EST
    Intent, scale, impact, stature - if the secretary of state thinks something shouldn't be that classified, then IMO they should be able to make that call.

    The inteligence community apparently doesn't. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 11:22:01 PM EST
    And that's really what this whole e-mail kerfuffle is all about. The IC sees an opportunity to assert what it sees as its ultimate authority over the disposition of all State Dept. communications.

    For its part, the State Dept. -- which predates the security establishment by a good 150 years or so -- sees the NSA intelligencia as encroaching on its turf, and is pushing back.

    Thus, the kerfuffle.



    Trey Gowdy (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 10:27:54 AM EST
    had a literal meltdown over this. So apparently he really does not care anything about Benghazi (we all knew that already) but it's all about hoping there's something personal in there the GOP can use in a general election.

    Howdy should relax (none / 0) (#24)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 02:11:11 PM EST
    Sanders polls are rapidly over taking Clinton.

    If he was smart enough to sit back (which he isn't) Bernie will do his work for him and take Clinton out of the race.


    In (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 02:14:34 PM EST
    NH but Bernie went down in IA. He seems to have maxed out in Iowa at about 25%.

    Sure hope you're right (none / 0) (#29)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 02:31:04 PM EST
    But I sense 2008 all over again.
    25K rallies. Bernie has the energy.

    Well (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 02:58:58 PM EST
    so did Howard Dean and it didn't translate into actually winning anything. Every mistake the Dean campaign made in 2004 seems to be getting a repeat with Bernie.

    The GOP has started attacking him though and he hasn't responded. So I'm sure he would get rained down upon in a general election.


    Here's hoping (none / 0) (#51)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:11:31 PM EST
    That Bernie is Dean II!

    Look at where most of his rallies are (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 06:32:50 PM EST
    the 2 in the NW were also where the majority of his house parties were (irrc). He's bringing out most of his base plus some. If you remember 2008, once HRC got rolling, she also pulled large crowds/rallies. Right now, she is focused on the retail politics of Iowa/NH and rolling out policy. 2 Different styles. I'm thinking things change down the road . . . It is August after all.

    I'd really like to know what Sander's plan is if he wins the nom. How will he fight the insane crap the GOP will throw at him . . . ? Rallies won't cut it. And Obama didn't raise a crap load of money off 'the people' . . .


    The right wing attack machine (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 06:37:01 PM EST
    would puree Bernie.

    I also agree about Hillary.  About her campaign not being nimble, it's August.  Of 2015.  Most people are not even paying attention to this.  I don't think she is concerned about email gate or Bernie.


    Did you catch her twitter feed during the debate? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 06:55:56 PM EST
    some of it was pretty funny (saw it after the fact). She seems to be keeping current with what's going on, just doing her thing until it's time to turn it up. Also, if she pulls off the first states . . .  Bernie is prob done. Seems spending August 2015 doing retail might be a good move? After all, those are the people that prob care the most right now. . . .

    My big concern right now in Aug 2015 . . .  will I have enough energy later to take Rox down for kite flying at the marina with the new kite group down there :) and getting my after school program together . . .  I am glad Sanders is getting some nice energy and large crowds. Shows the enthusiasm for a more 'left world'.


    The right-wing attack machine (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:51:35 PM EST
    can only puree Bernie if the people believe what it says and if Sanders isn't given equal time to repond.

    The rw noise machine called Bill Clinton a communist for crissake, what more could they do to Bernie?


    Well (2.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:54:10 PM EST
    that's the problem. Sanders is not going to be given equal time to respond.

    You mean (none / 0) (#126)
    by sj on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:57:58 AM EST
    in your opinion Sanders is not going to be given equal time to respond. And in your opinion equal time is the only possible solution.

    Your opinions have long since slid right over "analysis" and landed right in "knee-jerk". But while your comments are repetitive and devoid of real content at least they are short.

    So there's that.

    In any case, it's payday. And when your dismissive comments annoy the cr@p out of me again, I'm all set to donate to his campaign.

    So, carry on.


    Do you (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 12:05:28 PM EST
    really think in this day and age that the press is going to give Sanders equal time to respond to the GOP? He's not going to be able to buy air time to respond because he would refuse PAC money. While that is admirable it also would allow for him to not be able to respond to many attacks that would be rained down upon him.

    That's not my opinion. That's the unfortunate political reality.


    Okay (none / 0) (#128)
    by sj on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 12:12:25 PM EST
    you are still in the boring stage and haven't yet hit the "annoy the cr@p" out of me stage. Do you want a play by play or should I just wait until I hit the donate button?

    CaptHowdy: "I also agree about Hillary.  About her campaign not being nimble, it's August.  Of 2015.  Most people are not even paying attention to this.  I don't think she is concerned about email gate or Bernie."

    ... she likely wouldn't have voluntarily turned over the Clinton Foundation's server to the Justice Dept. without a subpoena. I think that essentially, she's looking at both her political scolds and her media critics and calling their bluff.

    Regarding Bernie Sanders, and speaking as a Clinton supporter, I'm grateful that he's in the race, and no, I don't think he should drop out. He's a realist, and is likely under no illusions regarding the odds of him ever being elected. But he certainly sees the bigger picture and the emerging trend line, and so he's working very hard to move Democrats farther to the left, because quite frankly, that's where we really need to be right now.

    And should Hillary Clinton emerge as the eventual nominee, Sanders and others such as Elizabeth Warren will have likely made traditional liberalism fashionable once again, especially as many voters look at the intolerant and soulless clusterphuque that's become America's conservative movement and compare the two. So they really need one another, and that's why they're taking great pains to avoid criticizing each other in this primary campaign.

    Anyway, those are my thoughts.


    I have asked (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 06:53:34 PM EST
    that question about standing up to the right wing attack machine and the response I get is oh, Bernie should just ignore that. Nobody takes the GOP seriously. Eeeek.

    Oh, so you've spoken to Bernie's (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 07:45:54 PM EST
    campaign advisors, have you?  If not, I guess these people you've been talking to are just people you know.  

    Do you seriously expect us to believe that because some people you've asked about this, about how Bernie will handle the RW attack machine, are saying he should just ignore the GOP when they go after him, that that's what he would do?  That his campaign advisors would actually give him that advice?

    This is just ridiculous on its face, and I have no idea why anyone would actually accept this as  having any basis in reality.

    I think what bothers me most about what you've said is that it's just you setting up a completely false premise so you can disparage Sanders and trivialize his efforts.

    It's an insult to people's intelligence, and I wish you'd find some other way to make your points.  


    While I agree with a lot of that (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 07:51:21 PM EST
    its also true that Bernie has never ran a negative ad in his life.   And at least to me seems rather singularly unprepared for the relentless onslaught of sh!tstorm that would hit him in the face.

    He is a socialist.  Think for a moment where they would go with that.  Alone.


    Sanders doesn't seem to me to be (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:10:28 AM EST
    someone who wilts in the face of criticism - he's been at this a long time, after all.  

    The messages he's getting out on social media - I "liked" his Facebook page, so I get daily posts from him - are about where we need to go and who's responsible for us not getting there yet: Republicans.  

    If he's ultimately going to fail to get the nomination, then the purpose he's serving, and which we should all happily let him serve, is to build a wave of public support for a decidedly liberal and progressive agenda.  What I'm hoping is that by the time it's clear who the nominee will be - and I assume it will be Clinton - she may have no choice but to ride that wave.

    The news coverage last night was as atrocious as ever: breathless - and incomplete - coverage of the e-mail situation, combined with Sanders-beating-Clinton-in-NH.  Having watched for some time now the media shaping the narrative to tell the story it wants to tell, I can see they are up to it again, only it's getting worse.

    I guess when you own a network or you're a media personality making millions, what do you care if the coverage you provide results in the election of crazy people who will negatively affect the lives of the majority of Americans, right?

    I am back to shouting/mumbling/kvetching at the TV; I'm at the point where I don't ask my husband to change the channel from the car p@rn he loves to watch (restoring cars, selling cars, and so on) when it's time for the "news."  


    I think most sensible people (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:20:07 AM EST
    agree with pretty much all of that.

    So true about the "nooze".  I now only watch for comic relief.

    I can't even stand to watch MSNBC anymore.  

    Except for this-

    I guess when you own a network or you're a media personality making millions, what do you care if the coverage you provide results in the election of crazy people

    Ask yourself this,  considering what is now considered nooze who will give us more stuff to talk about, a sober serious person who works on and cares about real issues or a crazy person?


    No (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:30:17 AM EST
    doubt the media is really bad these days. The thing I wonder is exactly how effective are they? The things they report on like email and polling really don't seem to relevant to people's everyday lives.

    There is always a first time (none / 0) (#85)
    by Politalkix on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 10:45:42 PM EST
    First Roman Catholic President-JFK
    First Black President-BHO
    First Soshulist :-) President-Bernie

    The trick is not to cower thinking about what your opponents are going to do but just do what you care for!


    Uh huh (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 07:22:28 AM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 07:33:34 AM EST
    let's see. When Obama ran there was 20% of the electorate that said they wouldn't vote for a black person. Right now there's 53% that won't vote for a socialist. So I think the math is against you on that account.

    There will be a gay president (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:02:12 AM EST
    before there is a socialist president

    Young people (none / 0) (#116)
    by Politalkix on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:12:57 PM EST
    that will be a powerful voting bloc in 2016 did not go through the red scare brainwashing that older generations went through during the MacCarthy era. They are better educated, better travelled, have more friends in Europe, Latin America and Asia than their grandparents generation-so they will also be harder to brainwash.

    If soshulism helps yound people get low cost college education and provides other securities of life, they will vote for it.


    I'm trying hard to imagine (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:19:03 PM EST
    what point you are attempting, aparrently, to make by misspelling socialism.

    I probably don't have evoungh European friends or something.


    Trying to make it foreign sounding (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Politalkix on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 07:26:48 PM EST
    as the right wing noise machine will do. I thought the misspelling was a well accepted method to make fun of right wing paranoia
    link but I may be wrong.

    Well (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 08:20:24 PM EST
    all I can tell you is that Trump went at him today and it was crickets. I asked some of his many supporters over at Dkos and they said he shouldn't respond. So FWIW that's what I'm talking about.

    I don't think they are even (none / 0) (#105)
    by sj on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 12:49:19 PM EST
    people she knows. As near as I can tell, she recharges her Senator Sanders sneer machine by visiting DKos. Then she's got her daily quota of disdain fertilizer to spread here.

    It's not even noon. Likely I'll be making another donation to his campaign soon.


    Dkos (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 01:13:29 PM EST
    is somewhere to stay away from regarding Bernie. And yes, they are particularly ugly and sexist and all kinds of things. So unfortunate.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:07 PM EST
    It sounded like DKos is where you go for a fill up.

    I can't believe anyone would think that (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 07:07:12 PM EST
    especially with Clinton in the race as a daily reminder . . .

    It's (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 07:08:56 PM EST
    the mindset that Bernie doesn't have Hillary's problems so the GOP won't attack him or something. Completely clueless.

    Hard to imagine (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 07:13:16 PM EST
    an actual mind with that "set".   Anyone who would suggest or agree with that is at risk of drowning in the bathtub.

    The collective intelligence of the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 07:36:24 AM EST
    was what the GOP actually shrank to a size that could be drowned in Grooooover Norquist's bathtub.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 07:15:06 PM EST
    well just backs up your statement that he would get pureed.

    As far as "just ignoring it" (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 07:18:45 PM EST
    I think president John Kerry tried something like that.

    Yep - wonder what the version of The Birthers (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 09:07:12 PM EST
    would be for Bernie? A red scare of some sort  probably.

    Gowdy please (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 06:30:36 PM EST
    GOWDY not Howdy.

    I don't see him getting out or Clinton tacking... (none / 0) (#42)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 03:41:51 PM EST

    There is simply an enormous,  deep hatred of Clinton on the left (of course on the right too which goes without saying )...

    Anyone NOT Clinton has a chance. Anyone. It's why there exists the term "anyone but Hillary".

    And we are seeing that now in the talk about Biden. Biden? A multiple-primary attempt failure with an embarrassing plagiarism background.  Embarrassing.  Yet he is talked about like he has a chance.

    Clinton is hated enough on the left that Bernie has a serious chance.

    Hate is powerful.

    The thing (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:04:02 PM EST
    is though are there enough? I understand your concerns.

    I dunno Ga (none / 0) (#48)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:06:26 PM EST
    As long as Sanders polls are going up and Clintons are going down, I am assuming we have 2008 Redux.

    Except without a candidate that could actually win.


    FWIW (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:39:42 PM EST
    It's the NYT and the author is Adam Nagourney but here it is.

    "I understand why people are making the comparisons," said Joe Trippi, a Democratic consultant who managed Mr. Dean's campaign. "But in a lot of ways Sanders is not as strong as Dean was. We coalesced the left and the progressives, with a split field."

    "One problem Sanders has is, yes, there were Democrats in the party who believed Dean was unelectable," Mr. Trippi said. "But it's a much smaller proportion of Democrats than today who think Sanders is unelectable. There is almost a pervasive sense of, he is never going to be president. That makes it much harder for him."


    And while there are similarities in the crowds both men draw -- overwhelmingly white, for the most part liberal activists -- this is not the Democratic Party Mr. Dean was seeking to lead in 2004. The party is younger and more ethnically diverse now, in a way that Mr. Sanders's crowds are not. The liberal wing of the party, or what Mr. Dean liked to call the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," has undergone its own maturation over the years, its ambitions readjusted after it watched Mr. Dean lose and President Obama turn out to be something short of an unfaltering ideological ally.


    Hmm thanks for this (none / 0) (#59)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    But... if there's a pervasive sense he can't be elected, what the heck do we make of the polls since April?

    Well (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 05:17:29 PM EST
    there's always been this thing floating around where Bernie's max support is about 30%. So he's got a long way to get to 30% from 0 and also there are some reports where he has already maxed out.

    If her campaign were more nimble (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 03:43:59 PM EST
    as someone said above, they would take this statement of hers
    As Clinton said: ""What I think you're seeing here is a very typical kind of discussion--to some extent disagreement--among various parts of the government over what should or should not be publicly released."

    and run with it, opening up a broader discussion of government secrecy. that is what I would like to see anyway.

    they only become secret when an outsider (none / 0) (#74)
    by ding7777 on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 07:08:16 PM EST
    wants to read them

    "Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton," Kirby said Tuesday. "They were not marked as classified."

    it seems the MSM would rather publish anti-Hillary headlines instead of fighting for the emails to be made public


    It seems to me most people (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 03:58:52 PM EST
    have processed this story.  Something big would have to happen for it to seriously effect her campaign.

    Around the edges, give the haters and talking heads something to yap about.  Sure.  Not much else.  IMO.

    That's (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:03:01 PM EST
    what I think. At this point it would have to be a smoking gun to really alter anything.

    Don't disagree (none / 0) (#50)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:10:07 PM EST
    But how to explain the polls since about May?

    Sanders is drawing 25K at rallies.
    That ain't nothin'.

    Couple months ago Sanders was at 8%.
    It's scary.

    I really sense Clinton MUST win Iowa and NH or this could just run away from her.


    I don't think all those coming to (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:44:06 PM EST
    Bernies rally necessarily mean to vote for him.   If he was around I would definitely go hear him.  I would not vote for him.

    Well (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:54:31 PM EST
    like Howdy says you can't count on everybody who actually goes to those rallies to vote for him. Secondly are all those people in LA going back to their white suburbs and then doing nothing else? I mean even 25,000 is small potatoes when you're talking about LA with the millions of people that live there.

    here (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 05:12:54 PM EST
    you go new IA poll Clinton 58 Sanders 32. Hillary has a 32 point gender gap with women and splits men 50/50 with Hillary. So if those demographics continue it is going to be nearly impossible for Bernie to pull off a win in IA.

    Good news!! (none / 0) (#79)
    by smott on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 07:26:40 PM EST

    Daily Beast Spy Satellite Secrets (none / 0) (#71)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 07:02:55 PM EST
    Eventually the truth will come out. But it might take a while.

    Daily Beast has a new piece claiming the worst,
    the Inspector General assessed that Clinton's emails included information that was highly classified--yet mislabeled as unclassified. Worse, the information in question should have been classified up to the level of "TOP SECRET/SITK/NOFORN," according to the Inspector General's report.


    This is (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 07:07:54 PM EST
    old news. It is the same warfare between state and the IG that has been going on over the same four emails that were apparently emailed to Hillary.

    BREAKING: Via the Carter Center, ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 04:47:36 PM EST
    ... comes the following public statement from former President Jimmy Carter:

    "Recent liver surgery revealed that I have cancer that now is in other parts of my body. I will be rearranging my schedule as necessary so I can undergo treatment by physicians at Emory Healthcare. A more complete public statement will be made when facts are known, possibly next week."

    My thoughts and prayers are with President Carter and his family.


    shocked (none / 0) (#63)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 05:19:31 PM EST
    Is anyone surprised that the state department would back Hillary on this, at least for public consumption.  At least until Obama decides to throw her under the bus.

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CST on Wed Aug 12, 2015 at 08:25:24 PM EST
    will not throw Hillary under the bus, not when she's the front-runner for the Dem nominee for president.

    He cares about his legacy, and he cares about the direction of the country - that much is clear from the last few years.  No way he is going to risk all that.  He's not up for re-election, I'd think he'd stand in front of the bus if it meant another Dem president.


    Why Would the State Department... (none / 0) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:20:59 AM EST
    ...not jump on the right wing hackary train ?

    The assumption in your statement isn't backed by anything other then the silly notion that she must have something to hide because she is a Clinton.

    For the record, even if the docs were classified, and I am not saying they were, she received them.  And as we all know, the receiver of emails doesn't choose what is sent.

    I am positive Obama is damn proud of what he did from 2008-present.  The idea that he is going to tarnish that over right wing hackary is beyond ridiculous.  In case you forgot, the economy was in the cr@pper, unemployment was extremely high, there wasn't health care for all, GWB's democracy plans in the ME failed in spectacular fashion. and on and on.

    Hillary doesn't have to worry about republicans running on so many issue because of Obama, all they have is ISIS, which is result of their ME seeds of democracy, and their go to social BS that they run on every single election.

    IOW, thanks to Obama the republican ain't got jack to run on.  He cleared a path for Hillary making her win an almost certainty.  He isn't going to throw that under the bus because republicans think there is something to hide.


    Ironically (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:47:49 AM EST
    at one time he might have rolled her under the bus to get approval from the GOP but I certainly can't see that happening now. He learned at some point that PPUS was a loser for everybody.

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 07:22:01 AM EST

    site violator (none / 0) (#94)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 07:26:48 AM EST

    Geez Howdy, (none / 0) (#100)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:30:21 AM EST
    you beat me by four minutes this morning.  Mine was on screen first but then you beat me on time.

    The early worm (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:43:38 AM EST
    gives the bird