eGhazi: Same BS IC story: different day

Josh Gerstein and Rachel Bade:

The furor over Hillary Clinton's use of a private email account grew more serious for the Democratic presidential front-runner Friday as the State Department designated 22 of the messages from her account "top secret." [. . .]

"These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent [and they weren't sent by Clinton imo - BTD my emhphasis] ," Kirby said in a statement.

Sound familiar? It should because it is the same story I've been writing about since this nonsense started. See in particular State v. IC classification battles:

Now what does this mean? It means the Intelligence Community, represented here by the IC IG, disagrees with the State Department's determination on the classification of certain information contained in the Clinton e-mails. In their opinion, the information should have been designated classified and should be so designated now. But State does not agree.
Now what were those "classified documents then? I reviewed some that got through. As you can see, the IC is full of crap.

What about this batch? I think we can safely say that the bulk of these are news stories discussing drone strikes. Gerstein writes:

The messages deemed "secret" also vary widely. One from Feb. 25, 2012, appears to discuss U.S. drone operations in Pakistan."This is hitting the news, with Taliban or HQN [the Haqqani Network] claiming responsibility," State policy planning chief Jake Sullivan wrote to Clinton. The message originated with the U.S. Ambassador in In Pakistan, Dick Hoagland. Nearly all the text is deleted, but press reports that day described the crash of a drone in North Waziristan.

U.S. drones in Pakistan are operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, but the program is officially covert and therefore classified, even though President Barack Obama has acknowledged it publicly.

In short it is just more crazy crap from IC - news articles are Top Secret!! seems to be the theory.

But leaving aside the overclassification issue, there is just a little problem for those who want to take Clinton down with this nonsense - she didn't transmit any of the information - just received it. And the issue is not a private server - after all the State's unsecure email system would not be appropriate for "classified" material either.

As you have heard from me often, if anyone is in trouble, it will be career State officials like the current Ambassador to Bahrain, William Roebuck, Timothy T. Davis and William J Burns.

So if you want someone to get it in eGhazi, you'll have to get Roebuck first, because Hillary did not disseminate anything:

1. Clinton "knowingly removed" nothing. Hell, she didn't "unknowingly remove" anything. She was the recipient not the sender.

2. None of the information was "determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security." at the time of removal.

3. As Secretary of State, Clinton could have determined the information was not classified and removed it. She had that power.

So this is the same nothingburger repackaged. There is no there there.

< Friday Open Thread | Iowa >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You know (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 01:25:07 PM EST
    the more I see the more I think Hillary actually released this bogus story to the press. The over the top reaction of people on the GOP side has been downright hysterical and talk about when the actual email is going to be released how idiotic the entire screeching GOP is going to be.

    Would that posts like yours were the (none / 0) (#1)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 09:44:49 AM EST
    order of the journalistic day, but sadly, that is not the case.  Average Joe and Jane, who get their news from the networks or their local newspaper, and who often only have time to grab the headlines, are not getting the punch line, only the set up.

    And this, I am also sorry to say, is one of the reasons there is some hesitation about Clinton-as-president: not because she's done anything wrong, but because a Clinton presidency will be an endless series of (faux) scandals and (pretend)smoking guns and investigations and hearings and the actual business of the country will suffer.

    This is why the notion that Clinton will be better able to "get things done" than Sanders is flawed, because it doesn't seem to take this factor into consideration.

    I want a Democrat to win, no question; I also want a Democrat to be able to function.  What eGhazi and the endless Benghazms the right is having over it foreshadow does not give me much confidence that a Clinton presidency is likely to have more success and less dysfunction than a Sanders presidency would.

    And the loop returns to "can Sanders win?" and we're right back where we started.  It may well be that Clinton can beat Sanders, but I think the headlines we're seeing today are the tip of the iceberg that will be placed in Clinton's way in a general election.  Can she overcome that to beat the GOP?

    That's a scarier question, considering what Average Joe and Jane will be subject to over the next 10 months.

    Thats what the rightwing (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by leap on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 10:27:14 AM EST
    has been doing to Obama since 2008. So, we ought to be pretty much used to this crap, albeit sick of this crap.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 10:31:04 AM EST
    let's see IRS, Benghazi and then there's probably others i don't even remember.

    I saw (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 10:50:16 AM EST
    Someone mention the White House Travel office...

    It's just (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 10:54:24 AM EST
    what the GOP does. They are trying to scandal their way into the presidency because they have no other way.

    This argument (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Kmkmiller on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:05:27 PM EST
    Is really in the same ballpark as punishing a rape victim....

    Clinton brings it on herself doesnt she? So says the Bernie supporter.


    Or the (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:08:38 PM EST
    wife who's husband beats her. Well, she asked for it. Apparently Hillary "asks for it" just by existing.

    I don't know about anyone else (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Kmkmiller on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:13:32 PM EST
    But when a woman is unfairly attacked by the establishment (and Bernie supporters generally agree this is an unfair attack) she should be rewarded not denied advancement in her career.

    Stop, Bill & Obama... (none / 0) (#129)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:35:49 PM EST
    ...have been unfairly attacked along with just about every prominent democrat to ever run for office.

    That line of thinking is because the HRC people are insisting she can get more stuff done, without acknowledging the right's demented fixation on the Clinton's.  She is the one making the claim, that is in no way a fact.

    To compare her to a rape victim or women who are actually held back because of their gender is not only ridiculous, it doing a lot of actual victims a great deal of disservice.

    I would hardly call someone with HRC's resume a victim of sexism.  This notion that she is being attacked specifically because she is a woman is completely ignoring that she is the perceived front runner to the Presidency and that her last name is Clinton.  

    The notion that the establishment's front runner is being attacked by the establishment is funny.


    If you think the GOP will (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:14:38 PM EST
    suddenly see the light and stop with the faux scandals if Sanders wins, well, then you are hoping for a miracle. The Republicans will find a way to gin up nonsense about whoever wins the Democratic nod. If either Sanders or Clinton wins the presidency the GOP will go nuts.

    The advantage for Clinton in all this is that she has been pelted with this nonsense for more than two decades. She knows how to handle it. And since we are all so used to these fake scandals with her, it tends not to stick.

    Sanders, on the other hand, is fresh meat to the GOP hyenas. And he has zero experience being the focus of rightwing hatred. It matters not if the accusations are exaggerated or outright false. As we have seen with Clinton and Obama over the years, actual facts and truth matter not one whit.


    Also just btw (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Kmkmiller on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:22:10 PM EST
    When it comes to a functioning democrat please explain how this message:  "you're corrupted by wall street if you don't agree with me" wins over the senators and representatives you will need in congress from both sides of the aisle?

    Dems are already distancing themselves from Bernie's plans.


    Reword to Match Reality Please (none / 0) (#130)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:39:09 PM EST
    You're more likely to be corrupted by wall street if you take millions of dollars from them for what is essentially nothing.

    Anne (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 09:47:06 AM EST
    truly you don't believe they won't do the same thing to Sanders?

    With what? Socialism? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 11:01:14 AM EST
    Come on...if you can't admit or see that this will be non-stop Clinton-hunting, your eyes must be closed.

    I'm not saying she can't win or she shouldn't win, I'm saying that this is why people still have doubts about her.

    It doesn't matter where it comes from, it's that it's coming.


    It's (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    not that we don't see, it's that we refuse to kowtow to the forces of BS. If we are forced to discount a perfectly qualified candidate because of the "inevitable" sheetstorm  then we are being denied our rights as citizens.

    It's a very slippery slope for Democracy if we allow the fear of

    an endless series of (faux) scandals and (pretend)smoking guns and investigations and hearings
    to limit our choices.

    Speaking for this HRC supporter, my eyes are wide open to the dangers you have mentioned, but the thought of somehow knuckling under to it is unacceptable to be.


    Really... (none / 0) (#131)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:00:36 PM EST
    ... its gone from Clinton supporters claiming that she can get more done and Sanders people responding why they believe that is a false narrative, to not voting for a perfectly qualified candidate because they are scared of republicans ?

    I mean seriously, Clinton people acting like Sanders people are nuts, yeah OK, just don't forget the theme in this thread is people are not going to vote for HRC because they are kowtowing to republicans.

    No one is looking at Sanders for any other reason that he is the path of least resistance, but, but, but, nothing he wants can get passed because it will be too hard ?

    Pick a mem and stick to it, is Sanders the easy or the hard choice, I am so confused with the pretzel twisting.

    Maybe, just maybe, people like Sanders for what he is saying.  But we already knew this, but no one wants to discuss that, it's much easier just to say that everything about this campaign is related to Clinton's gender, not the actual important stuff.  For that, many fans of Clinton agree with Sanders, they just don't think he can get it done, which is the very argument you are making for HRC, don't not vote for her because of the republican opposition.  

    Maybe, don't not for Sanders because or republican opposition, it not like anyone fundamentally disagrees with his major policies...


    It will be something you can not even imagine (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:32:48 PM EST

    But it will be something.


    I think that's (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:57:21 PM EST
    What the "But....but....Clinton!"  crowd don't want to understand.  People who want to believe bad things about HRC without proof, are going to do it anyway.  Everybody else will shrug and say, "Eh."  We'very heard it all, up to and including, accusing her of murder.  We have no idea what will be coming for Sanders, and we all know how far they are willing to go.

    When Bill Clinton took office (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    in 1993, the only scandal about him was his affair with Gennifer Flowers. Seems downright quaint compared with what was later accused - Whitewater, Vince Foster, the murder list, on and on.

    And yes, the Lewinsky affair in itself was a scandal and self-inflicted wound that let the right lend the air of legitimacy to all of their other accusations.

    I'm as sick of made up Clinton scandals as anyone else, but the made up scandals about Obama or potentially Sanders are no relief.


    IMO (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 01:17:48 PM EST
    the solution is to completely discredit the GOP. You would have THOUGHT the mainstream media having been burned by them so many times would not spew their garbage but that seems to be wishful thinking.

    As long as the GOP exists or anybody listens to them it is not going to matter who we nominate. As we've seen time and again they're not above flat making crap up.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    Senator Sanders will not be immune to Republican attacks. And, of course, they will not be limited to attacks on his policies or be based on truth.  His democratic socialism, is already socialism, and we know where that is headed.

     Senator Sanders has said that he is not actively involved with organized religion; adding his belief in connectedness, each believing in God in his own way.  For me, a welcomed pronouncement, one that the nation probably has not heard openly since the presidency of Thomas Jefferson.

      None of these ideas and beliefs would deter me from supporting Senator Sanders if he was my choice in the primary, or if he is the nominee.  But, it would be naive to believe that Senator Sanders will be treated by the Republicans as he is now because there are no lies they can conjure up--trying one after another hoping that something sticks, even a little.  


    The hell of it is that it's always something (none / 0) (#88)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:44:41 PM EST
    with these people, always.  They are like a dysfunctional Rumpelstiltskin, who can't ever spin the straw into gold, but keeps feeding it into the spinning wheel, convinced that he is seeing glimmers that mean that any moment now, he's going to be sitting on a pile of solid gold.

    The truth is that I think I have election campaign fatigue, and the reality that we still have 10 months to go just makes me want to go off the media grid.  

    All I want is for Democrats to prevail in November; the stakes are maybe higher than they've ever been, and we simply cannot allow the GOP the credibility to make this a nail-biter.  We can't.  

    I don't know who's going to be the nominee, but it would not be an exaggeration to say that I pray the party can somehow put together a ticket and a team that will leave the GOP in the dust.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 11:05:09 AM EST
    they'll use that and he has a long history of writings etc. There's a reason Karl Rove is running ads supporting Bernie in Iowa. He's doing the same thing Claire McCaskill did in MO to the legitimate rape guy.

    And yeah, you've got 50% of the public according to Gallup who won't vote for a "socialist" so there's that.


    Starting with Socialism, Anne (none / 0) (#26)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    It isn't what the people on this blog believe & know to be true, it is the built-for-attacks situation that a Sanders candidacy puts front & center: Socialist and avowed Tax-Raiser for starters.  (Plus: Whether we like it or not, Pew Research--as reported recently & broadly on the airwaves--found that the quality beyond Socialism that Americans do not yet appear to be ready for--Atheism.)

    Again, it isn't whether we agree or not OR what is the principled position or not, it is about the practicality/very likely reality of setting up a candidacy having those qualities and seeing a Trump or other demagogic Republican candidate win the White House.  For me, the thought of a 6 to 3 or even 7 to 2 Republican-dominated Supreme Court as a result of this election is unthinkable.  But, considering the American electorate's known values background and composite together with the age of the present Supreme Court Justices, that outcome is quite real IF we blow our chances with a candidate that presents the probability of being the weakest electoral candidate in modern history (with the exception of polar opposite Barry Goldwater.)

    The thought of jettisoning HRC for the mirage of an earthly nirvana is foolish ... especially when one considers the human gains that have been made to date and the likelihood that a substantial number of those living improvements will be in the target of Repub political shooters.

    The New York Times editorial today says it quite well in its whole-hearted, strong endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President (Democratic Presidential endorsement.)  


    Here's what puzzles me. Why (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 01:43:58 PM EST
    would voters for whom Christianity is so important support Trump?

    The best question of the week:) (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 01:49:43 PM EST
    For some, it seems, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:11:49 PM EST
    their Christianity is more of a political Christianity, and they look for a bodyguard for their beliefs rather than a real believer.

     Ronald Reagan is instructive in that he rarely, if ever, went to any Church.  His championship of family values was not rooted in a demonstration of the values of his own family, with visits to the White House more frequent by Gorbachev than some of his children and grandchildren.

     And,  the twice divorced, thrice married Trump,  says he never asks God for forgiveness of his sins because he never does anything wrong, and seems unfamiliar with the Bible, at least the 2 Corinthians, is given more leeway  than Trump Tower needs in a windstorm.  Whatever standards there are, they are elastic or overlooked--for the possibility of a political friend in the White House.

     Trump brags that he could even kill someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose a vote. He  calls Jerry Falwell, Jr., the Reverend Falwell, when he is not a reverend.  Values of hate, intolerance, fear and resentment of modernity may not be far below the surface of their brand of faith. Or, the shallowness justifies the end, and end times.


    Oculus, 6 months ago (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:27:42 PM EST
    I wrote a comment here, basically, stating that you can forget every issue being bandied about (including religion) , save one; that one was the universal, bipartisan, over-the-top, disgust, even hatred, of the current crop of Congressional (House & Senate) representation..... From Both Parties. I even went so far as to predict a possible coalition between some Tea Party Members, and, some "Bernardistos." The glue holding them together would be the total & complete rejection of the status quo.

    They feel that one fact alone is responsible for, virtually, all our problems, from the criminal wealth/income inequality, to the huge negative poll numbers, "right track/wrong track."

    The problem is that only one Candidate recognized it early, and, capitalized on it.


    Bernie has been in Congress (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:34:12 PM EST
    for many years. Kind of like accepting that Rubio is an outsider.

    If that's your take I gotta plagiarize sj (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:04:35 PM EST

    I bet you grasped my meaning. (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:23:23 PM EST
    Trump is an "outsider."  Bernie isn't though he has many fine qualities.

    Here, I'll try it one more time, (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:46:18 PM EST
    in another form.


    It's the message, not the geography.

    Trump has tried this numerous times before; he's the most inside, "outsider" ever born. He had, rightfully, been tossed out with the leftovers in years passed. But, like I stated ad-nauseum, THIS YEAR, the voters reached critical mass in their outrage.

    And, that's why This Year Bernie's message resonates, and, why, Donald's does also.


    But (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 02:00:10 PM EST
    He appeared with a bible his mother gave him!

    Maybe he even had a vision of a tower (none / 0) (#50)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:31:28 PM EST
    A Trump-like tower on the campus of Liberty University ... "Can you imagine the yuuuuge-ness of that building" said Trump to Falwell, Jr. as they shared munchies or sipped something ... And, yes, Falwell, Jr. could really imagine it and see it, and glimpse the sweet $$$$$ signs that go with it ... And, so, Falwell Jr up & endorsed Trump very publicly.

    <Giving credit where it is due: A Repub party activist acquaintance of mine wryly suggested that kind of lure may well have been involved, because it is thought to have been employed in Trump's other inside-party chats.  The acquaintance, btw, does not take well to Trump.>


    I'll try and answer (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:21:52 PM EST
    First of all Christianity is a religion of salvation. Trump is viewed as changing and being saved and that makes him acceptable.

    Secondly, Christianity is seen as being under attack by the Left and "secularism." Trump is seen as the person who will roll back the advances of its enemies. Trump is seen as a defender of the faith who will block immigration by Muslims and will attack them overseas.

    Thirdly, a large number of supporters are Scot-Irish, a group that provided a large number of settlers in the Southeast and in the Virginia's. These people were, and are, well known to be clannish and they see the huge numbers of immigrants of any stripe as enemies. Trump promises to shut the door.

    Finally, jobs that moved them off the owner's land and into the middle class came late to them. They have viewed with their own eyes factories opening in their home towns and then leaving in 20 years or so to move to Mexico, China or somewhere else. Trump pledges to bring the jobs home.

    Trump appeals to all of these.

    Plus, to a larger or smaller degree, they have heard Republicans politicians promise to "fix" things. They see that the "insiders" haven't fixed them and that the relationships the elites of both parties enjoy are mutually advantageous. This is very visible.

    You should remember that it was the "visibility of things" brought by TV in the 50's to  all blacks, but particularly in the South, that helped launch the civil rights movement. As the song said, it is hard to keep'em down on the farm when they have seen gay Paree.

    Finally these are pragmatic people. Being poor teaches you how to make do. How to do without. They have heard hundreds of what they think of as completely stupid remarks from many sources, but especially media, politicians and educators. This has led to a complete and utter disgust with these people as a group. They don't care if Trump says nasty things about these. In dact, they enjoy it.

    Will Trump sustain? Will he be elected? I do not know. But I do know this. If he does and then doesn't make good on his promises then God help the Republican party and the country.


    ha! 'Clannish'. I guess that's one word for it (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:40:14 PM EST
    All groups are clannish (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:55:31 PM EST
    I suggest you watch "West Side Story" or try to join a country club.

    clannish or Klannish? (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:36:01 PM EST
    Yeah, that is some riddle, Batman (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:32:30 PM EST
    Trump mocks religious people and has been very, very pro-choice back in the day.....

    I think you are assuming that because they (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:39:09 PM EST
    said they have said they are all about Christian values, they are all about Christian values. It has never been about that. The Donald has exposed the farce, and for that I applaud him.

    et al again (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:40:54 PM EST
    shooter - And events are proving you right.

    MKS - As a group you will find them pro life and pro strict drug laws... As individuals,not so much. Hypocrisy?? Yes.

    ruffian - The problem is, define "Christian Values." You will find their definition doesn't match those of Liberty U any better than they do the "conservative values" of National Review.


    I think Obama was really set back on his heels (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:53:51 PM EST
    by the ferocity of some of the attacks on him, from birther stuff to the 'he is so over exposed - how dare the POTUS be on TV so often?"  and probably 100 other things I have forgotten about. I think it prevented him from going around and using the bully pulpit as much as he should have been doing, making he argument for his policies. Since the bully pulpit is the strongest argument I have heard for a Sanders presidency, I really hope he is ready for those attacks.

    As long as the GOP holds the house (none / 0) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:17:46 PM EST
    As long as the GOP holds the house It doesn't matter who wins. Neither will anything accomplished if t requires congressional assent.

    It's a sad fact we must deal with. Do I think Hillary can win? Yes. Do I hink Bernie can win? Perhaps. Its Shakespeare's theme in Troilus and Cressida. The courtly knight represented by Hector v the Machiavellian Achilles. The audience appreciate Hector's values, but instinctively wants Achilles at their side in battle, because they believe Achilles will do what it takes to win.

    I will vote for whoever gets the nomination, I don't think either will get any cooperation from congress, so their mostly minor policy differences don't matter much to me. I  give Hillary the edge in winning the election for now.  


    Whatever the truth is (none / 0) (#3)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 10:23:48 AM EST
    could the timing be any worse?

    Here we are, on the eve of the first primaries, and, the FBI investigation is not only not winding down, they've just added 50 additional ("temporary") agents.

    The Liberal Media, if there even is such a thing, are like the 3 chimps: They're not seeing, hearing, or, saying, anything......deafening silence.

    The Right Wing Media is having a field day. They're saying the White House, and, Clinton people are walking around like Zombies, nervous, lips sealed. Their "sources" are telling them the FBI will go ballistic if, after their exhaustive, meticulous investigation, Obama's Justice Dept. manages to squash pending indictments.

    In the end, what really matters is what, eventually, comes out of the voting booths. So, if Hillary is truly squeaky clean, whoever is in charge of managing her P.R should be drawn & quartered.

    This has been the worst case of crisis management I believe I've ever seen.

    What have you been watching? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 10:54:57 AM EST
    Her campaign didn't get to decide when this news would be released.  And I ended seen her people all over this.

    I'm more curious about the political endorsements that Rep. Keith Ellison and the Sanders campaign said are coming this weekend.  Maybe I was wrong and they'll drop Elizabeth Warren out tomorrow....


    The right (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 10:29:58 AM EST
    wing media is setting up that when nothing happens they are going to say it's a "coverup" because instead of admitting they were lying the entire time about all this.

    Diane Feinstein says the stupid emails are going to be released so everybody can see what the GOP has been yammering about for months now.


    C'mon, NY Shooter (none / 0) (#28)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    When the NYTimes--known for its faulty critique related to the email matter--writes such a strong, long editorial in support of Hillary Clinton for President as it did today, the tone-down on the major networks is already starting to kick-in.  After all the still-influential newspaper <among journalists et al, especially> has set a new tone today ... complete with presidential-looking portrait leading to the editorial.

    Key factors also: Clinton supporters in Iowa are not fair-weather, as almost all polls show in the past month.  They are the strongest committed to their candidate, bar none.  Recent polls show about a 10 point advantage in that particular aspect when compared with her Democratic challenger.  The reality is that most caucus-goers in Iowa who are registered Democrats have been around the block a few times ... and, in any number of surveys, they do not relate to the email issue ... way down the list.  

    I seriously doubt anything is zombie-esque. This is not said in a mere wishing sense (as I have some involvement in the campaign), but the only taken-aback kind of scenario really involves the unwarranted braggadocio of Issa and his types.  The only thing to hold in check now is the question of how many Iowa "Independents" register as Democrats to undermine the situation ... or will they not be able to resist weighing in where their hearts may be ... the Repub caucuses.

    Don't panic. That's goofy.


    Although the NYT editorial (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:16:02 PM EST
    endorsing Hillary Clinton does include:

    Some, like those about Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server, are legitimate and deserve forthright answers.

    Of course, oculus (none / 0) (#43)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:13:05 PM EST
    The NYT will always make & re-make their points.  Ex: There is the small jab at husband Bill Clinton ... brilliant but "flawed" as the Times would say (mayhaps to appease Ms. Dowd.)  

    So, my take from the style of editorial--in its fullness & forthright, clear endorsement--is that the NYT almost downplayed their own critique about keeping a private server, etc. that they had made for months.  The editorial, in that sense, placed in proper perspective the now relatively minor issue. That perspective is appreciated.


    Yes, to help with (none / 0) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:48:30 PM EST
    MoDo and Frank Bruni, too.    The NYTimes reiterated that they supported Mrs. Clinton, twice, in her senate races, and the presidential bid in 2008.  

    Purely anecdotal (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:06:30 PM EST
    But NOT ONE of my conservative friends on Facebook has even mentioned anything about this.  And trust me, some of them never let a chance to hate on HRC go by.  Either they are all busy and not on Facebook today, they aren't paying attention, or they know it's nothing.



    It hasn't been mentioned? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 03:43:24 PM EST
    That means that your friends aren't idiots.

    It also means that the cunning plan has not completely succeeded.

    The plan was to keep partisans tied up, focused on this, talking and writing and ranting about this issue...

    While the Republican Party was taken over by complete and total ***s.


    Let's not get carried away (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 04:22:28 PM EST
    That means that your friends aren't idiots.



    I think the timing (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 03:48:05 PM EST
    Is what will lead many people to dismiss it.  

    Not Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 05:20:05 PM EST
    He went there this morning. . . .

    He's not dismissing the email issues now, as he famously did in the first debate, to applause.

    Huh. On the eve of the caucus, he's calling the Clinton email issue "serious."


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 05:37:14 PM EST
    I saw that.  But don't say he's a politician.  IMO it sounds desperate and will not help and might actually hurt him.

    Yes, he said a "very serious issue," (none / 0) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 05:39:31 PM EST
    ..."there is a legal process in place,"  But, he does not want to politicize the issue, he wants to focus on issues of the middle class. So, yes, he does not want to talk about this, for as he said before, people are tired of these "damn emails."  So there is that.

    Ah, except (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 06:02:52 PM EST
    His people are all over the news touting this "very serious issue" line (but then following up with the "let the legal pricess... "  

    Smart.  Sanders gets to look above the fray, but still gets across the "you can't trust her".


    Yes, indeed. (none / 0) (#111)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 06:09:34 PM EST
    The old strike that...the jury will ignore that last comment.  Bernie has been around awhile.

    He is being too cute by half (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 09:25:44 PM EST
    But, after all, it is the day before the caucus AND he surely is a politician.  Like anyone who runs for office, he has to take advantage of any openings.  Should Hillary Clinton succeed tomorrow, I'll probably forget it ... no use in holding grudges when you don't need to do so :)

    That's okay. For both of us, I won't forget (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 10:55:48 PM EST
    because I'm Irish.  We're still holding a grudge about what the Brits did centuries ago.

    And if Sanders was the outraged sort (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 11:00:36 PM EST
    that he says he is, he would be outraged by so many aspects of what the government is doing, such as declaring documents as classified retroactively.  

    His behavior increasingly has been at odds with what I respected about him, at the start of the campaign.  He's looking crass as well as cranky now.


    Pffft (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 08:28:32 AM EST
    Cranky.   I knew there was something I liked about him.

    I want him to say "get off my lawn" so I can use it as a ringtone.


    Yes, we are holding that grudge. (none / 0) (#128)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:19:44 PM EST
    Not just holding it, but passing it down from generation to generation. Shoot, my family won't even drink Bushmill's because that is the whisky the Protestants drink. We are a Jameson's people. :-)

    Not the only one (none / 0) (#112)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 08:09:11 PM EST
    Saying that,

    Sunday on CNN's "Inside Politics," White House correspondent for The New York Times Peter Baker explained that Democrats are concerned about the investigation into Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's email server that she used while Secretary of State.

    Baker said, "Her problem at this point is not the Republicans. her problem is the FBI and the Obama Justice Department and what Democrats are quietly absolutely petrified about is that come summer, you know, you find an indictment of people around her, of her, a request for a special prosecutor, something that just basically turns this into a complete disaster for the Democrats in which it's too late to change horses."


    Wow (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 08:16:59 PM EST
    The White House correspondent for the New York Times said this?!?

    I am absolutely stunned.   I has to be true.  Everything I thought I knew must be questioned immediately.


    Well (none / 0) (#114)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 08:20:48 PM EST
    Either people in the Democratic circles are telling him this,

    Or he might be completely making the whole thing up

    Take your pick


    This is rumor (none / 0) (#115)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 08:26:36 PM EST
    Some unnamed Democrats tell a reporter they are concerned....and that is evidence of what?

    This isn't even a rumor of wrongdoing.  It is a rumor about people being concerned.  So what?

    Facts do matter, here.


    Please (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 08:31:01 PM EST
    How hard do you really think it would be to find some one "in democratic circles" to be "concerned" about this the day before she is going to win the Iowa caucus.

    Calling it a rumor is an insult to rumors.  It pure bullsh!t.


    Sorry, sir, I deeply apologize (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 11:09:50 PM EST
    and will not make that error again.

    MKS, can you provide any information (none / 0) (#118)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 09:58:12 PM EST
    or cites that, if Baker really did report this, it isn't accurate?

    Oh, I am sure (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 10:05:14 PM EST
    some Democrat is worried about something that has not happened yet.....

    And that means, what?


    MKS, what's your take on this article? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 10:43:48 PM EST
    I know it's from the NY Post, the former IG was under Bush, etc., but I thought some of the information in the article was interesting. Feel free to tell me/us point by point how it's all wrong.


    Here's an article on the MSNBC/Halperin interview. Feel free to explain how this is all BS too.


    Here's a WaPost article. Let us know how this is goofed up too.



    I gave you the benefit (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 11:04:01 PM EST
    of the doubt and clicked on your links.  Won't do that again.

    In order:

    An opinion piece from the New York Post??  A very anti Clinton paper.  And an opinion from a former Bush official speculating on what is going on?  Really?  You thought this editorial would have  a patina of credibilty?

    Next, Halperin.   He is a hack.  And he is basing his opinion on the body language of unnamed Obama people....Halperin's interpretation of body language?????   You think that has any value at all.  

    And, third, Cilizza?  He is always saying how bad things look without regard to the truth of the matter asserted.  And, he is just repeating the information that Armando addressed above.

    You have no facts cited of consequence in any of these articles.....Just media hacks hoping for more gossip....but not having anything concrete yet.

    Facts do matter.  But I guess you think rumors from unsourced people really count.  


    MKS, as you usual, you just attack (none / 0) (#127)
    by Green26 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:25:09 AM EST
    it's impossible to have any discussion with you. You only believe what you want to believe. Everything is political and partisan to you. Not possible to have any legal type discussion with you. Your view seems to be that every commentator who doesn't agree with you is a hack.

    Nothing I cited or linked was cited as fact, except that some commentators were saying that they were hearing from their sources that the investigation was developing, or whatever similar term you want to use.

    What's your excuse regarding the MSNBC announcer who said the same thing. Is he a hack too?


    When you cite (none / 0) (#132)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 03:13:54 PM EST
    authors who are impliedly asking us to believe them when the are supposedly telling about us rumors they have heard....then their credibility matters.

    These people are, since you are a lawyer, acting as percipient witnesses, and asking us to believe them.  Thus, credibility is relevant.

    MSNBC announcer.  You mean Halperin. He was the one I said was a hack.  And he was the one who said it was his observation of the body language of unnamed Obama people that led him to make certain conclusions adverse to Hillary.  

    Interpretation of body language????  Please do not bother us with such tripe again.....


    More on Halperin (none / 0) (#133)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 03:25:02 PM EST
    I have really disliked Halperin for years. He used to be with ABC (he is now on MSNBC.)  His deal is to bend over backwards to present the fair and balanced view of conservatives....

    In other words, he aids and abets the conservatives' ability to remain fact free--they  just have a different view entitled to equal consideration.   Why the earth might really be flat after all.....


    MKS, my view is that you often attack because (none / 0) (#136)
    by Green26 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 08:12:04 PM EST
    you are unable to address or refute comments. Okay, try this one. I'd like to hear what hacks these 3 people are.

    "When discussing the contentious national debate about whether Clinton broke the law, host Joe Scarborough alluded to government sources telling him the FBI's Clinton email investigation was "far more progressed" than they are letting on.

    Scarborough said that he and co-host Mika Brzezinski "have been hearing it from the top officials in the Obama administration for actually several months now... and [guest Nicolle Wallace] is hearing the same thing: that this investigation's far more advanced than we the public know."



    There is nothing to refute (none / 0) (#137)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 08:58:43 PM EST
    when the talking heads are just speculating.

    Do you know who Scarborough is?  He was an Impeachment Manager.


    MKS, why don't you try to address the (none / 0) (#138)
    by Green26 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:38:01 PM EST
    issue or the discussion, instead of just attacking everyone.

    Here are a few questions for you. Is the FBI investigation of Clinton serious or not? Is it a threat to her or her candidacy or not? Why is it taking so long? Why is the FBI head personally involved? Are there a lot of agents involved or not a lot of agents involved? Have you seen the latest emails that the State Dept withheld? Okay, neither have I. Now please don't try to tell us what's in the emails. Do you think there's any chance that Clinton aides were taking top secret information off secure networks and emailing the information to Clinton? If it's true that Clinton didn't have a dot.gov email address, how in the heck was she doing State Dept business, and what in the heck was she doing with his nose in her Blackberry much of the time? Just looking at non-sensitive information?


    Because the "issue" (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:44:57 PM EST
    you raise is just unsubstantiated, unsourced, fact-free gossip.

    You don't cite facts--just link to articles, generally from conservative sites, that traffic in b.s. GOP talking points.

    The GOP has always tried to smear Hillary with false rumors.  That has gone for generations.   It is a stupid exercise in futility to discuss the latest GOP talking point that is as always based on some false rumor.  It is akin to discussing whether Hillary really killed Vince Foster or whether Huma Abedin is an ISIS spy.

    You do realize how your approach smacks of McCarthyism--demanding that we disprove the latest unsourced rumor?  


    MKS, you are just afraid to address any issues (none / 0) (#140)
    by Green26 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:03:46 PM EST
    or questions. I support Clinton. I try at times to have a legal discussion. You just attack, or bob and weave. Pretty weak. I have always thought that about you, but now I'm convinced. Many of my cites are from the Wa Post and NY Times, as well as other mainstream sources. I don't read any conservative sites. In fact, the only political site I visit, other than through googling, is TalkLeft.

    McCarthyism. You are a joke.


    I don't believe you support Hillary (none / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:10:04 AM EST

    Sorry, I just don't.

    And of the three original links you provided, two were the National Review and the New York Post...Those are conservative publications....and I don't care what they opine.

    You want to engage in gossip that hurts Hillary.  No sale.  Come back with some facts, if you can.

    A legal discussion.  My word, counsel, you do know what speculation and conjecture are, right?  That is not a legal discussion.   Our She-Bear and Armando do that pretty damn well.  Not looking for others....  


    Bernie's October Surprise (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 11:39:50 PM EST
    And he walks on water because he does not engage in negative campaigning.

    The fact that (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    Sanders has said that there is a "legal process in place which should proceed and not be politicized," is very telling, I think.  He could draw some blood and he chooses not to. I think this may have been one thing discussed when he met with Obama a few days ago, so he knew this was coming.

    Also telling is Obama's comments to Politico last week.  He HAD to know that this was coming, yet he still made his comments.  If Obama didn't know, he would have been much more guarded with his praise.

    And while the timing is not good for the caucuses, it was released on a Friday afternoon - a typical news dump day. And while it is online on all the major and minor news outlets, it's not the screaming lead anymore.

    What I have yet (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:00:41 PM EST
    to hear anyone say is that the .gov email addresses were more secure than Hillary's server.

    I would not be surprised if the .gov addresses had long ago been compromised.   That email system is not the way classified information is handled, or supposed to be handled, in any event.


    What I heard this morning (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:02:02 PM EST
    That even if this stuff was classified at the time, she and her staff would not be receiving that information on their .gov email.

    Meaning? (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:18:40 PM EST
    I am not sure I follow.

    I understand that much of the emails at issue were sent to her.  


    Meaning (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:35:19 PM EST
    That if those emails were classified at the time, they would have (or should have) NEVER been sent to her staff (nor her) via their State Department email addresses, and NEVER would/should have been sent to her via the email that was stored on her private server.

    If someone is to be in trouble, it would not be her.


    Makes sense to me (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:49:05 PM EST
    But I am not a right winger that long abandoned any attempt at reason.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#44)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:15:36 PM EST
    Thank you, Thank you.

    Someone finally gets it. It is illegal to send classified information via e mail. PERIOD.

    So, what I do not understand is the Clinton camp pushing out a defense that nothing on her server was MARKED CLASSIFIED. Nothing in a e mail would ever be marked classified, because then, the sender , and receiver ,would both immediately know that laws were broken. So I truly do not understand why saying this construes any sort of defense. Only a moron would send classified information in a e mail, and then mark it classified.
    Now, from what I understand, and have been able to piece together, is that Madame Sec never used the special rooms assigned to read and send classified cables and information. She would have either read the information to her or...have them e mail to her. From what I hear, it was mostly Mills, Abedin and Sullivan who forwarded the higher classified information to her

    But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.

    Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

    It's unclear whether the talking points themselves contained classified information. Typically, talking points are used for unclassified purposes (e.g. speaking with the media). But in some cases, the material contained in such memos may still be sensitive -- especially if the report originates from intelligence agencies.

    Now someone who went to the steps of using a private server and personal e mail address  at her residence for State Department communications....well, it is not a stretch to see her telling her senior staff to print out the classified cable, and place the contents in a e mail to her, sort of exactly what was described in one of her e mails to Sullivan.

    I believe that this is the track the FBI is following up on ( in addition to State Department actions and Clinton Foundation donations), and that would place Abedin, Mills and Sullivan in extremely hot water. And their boss, because they would not have taken these actions independent of her.

    Regardless, I believe all of this will come out shortly, one way or the other.

    What is striking is the State Department stopping the court ordered hand over of Clinton e mails, until after South Carolina and New Hampshire primaries. They were ordered to complete that task by the end of Jan 2016, but it appears the dog ate the homework, and a blizzard, and well, the balance of the mails, many most likely again at the higher classification level, (they are being sent to multiple agencies for review) will be returned per the FOIA request late.

    Finally, all of this classified information, was stored on a private server, with a personal e mail address for years, against government regulation. All of this alone displays monumentally poor judgement and a blatant disregard of the rules and importance of the Secretary of State position.


    debunked (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by mm on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:01:17 PM EST
    But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.

    the State Department said a review showed that the document in question was sent "apparently by secure fax, after all," and was never was sent to Clinton by email.

    Lol (none / 0) (#70)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:04:51 PM EST
    Just notice how easily that thought came to Madame Secretary,

    Well, break the rules, I need it.

    We will see


    you are making another assumption (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by mm on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:10:42 PM EST
    There is no evidence that the talking points were classified.

    "It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," said spokesman Brian Fallon in a statement.

    And State Department spokesman John Kirby said officials see no indication the document was ever sent to the email account Clinton used, which was hosted on a private server.

    "We did do some forensics on that and found no evidence it was actually emailed to her," Kirby said at a daily news briefing on Friday. "We have found no indication that the document was emailed to former Secretary Clinton. There are other ways it could have found its way to her for her use."

    Kirby also said the fact that the talking points were initially set to be sent via a secure system did not necessarily mean they were classified.

    "Just because something, a document, is on a classified system doesn't necessarily make the document, the content, necessarily classified," he added.


    I can wait (none / 0) (#74)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:16:19 PM EST
    The FBI is handling this, they will interview the senders of the e mails, and ask them where they got the information from.
    Then go to the Intelligence Agencies involved to determine when the information was deemed classified by them  

    This was (none / 0) (#92)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:03:32 PM EST
    a document that was obviously created by the SD for the use of the Secretary, she has the absolute  right to declassify such a document, besides it's highly doubtful that "talking points" were meant to be classified in the first place.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:16:29 PM EST
    Since, by definition, "talking points" are things to be disseminated outside the agency.

    I think you're missing a crucial point (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:21:17 PM EST
    The Intelligence Community did not mark these emails "Classified" until three years after Clinton left the State Department.

    And yes, this will all come out as Dianne Feinstein has already said she's expects them to be released.

    "The latest revelations that Secretary Clinton's emails include classified information lack the same key information as previous reports," Feinstein said in a statement Friday.

    "First, the 22 emails the State Department has labeled classified are part of seven separate back-and-forth email chains, and none of those emails chains originated with Secretary Clinton," the California Democrat continued.

    "It has never made sense to me that Secretary Clinton can be held responsible for email exchanges that originated with someone else," Feinstein, who has endorsed Clinton, added.

    "And second, none of the emails sent to Secretary Clinton have the mandatory markings that are required when classified information is transmitted."

    "The only reason to hold Secretary Clinton responsible for emails that didn't originate with her is for political points, and that's what we've seen over the past several months."

    "I expect the final emails in this voluntary disclosure process to be released by the end of next month, at which point I believe we'll see that none of the information in question originated with Secretary Clinton or was marked classified."

    Well (none / 0) (#47)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:29:07 PM EST
    We will have to disagree on that point, I believe some were born classified, and some were actually transcribed from classified documents received at these secure terminals , specifically by Mills, Abedin and Sullivan.

    Just have to wait for the FBI investigation to conclude.

    From the AP

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton's home server contained closely guarded government secrets, censoring 22 emails that contained material requiring one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes three days before Clinton competes in the Iowa presidential caucuses.

    State Department officials also said the agency's Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research bureaus are investigating if any of the information was classified at the time of transmission, going to the heart of Clinton's defense of her email practices.


    Proof? (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:49:31 PM EST
    I believe some were born classified, and some were actually transcribed from classified documents received at these secure terminals , specifically by Mills, Abedin and Sullivan.

    Let me try:

    I believe those documents were actually the secret recipes for KFC chicken, Neiman Marcus cookies, Osama bin Laden's favorite hummus, and, based on time travel, all the winners for the next 50 Super Bowls and Oscars.

    See how that works?

    Here's the funny part - people who hate Hillary Clinton because they think she's cunning and basically an evil mastermind.  Yet, then those same people turn around and want to argue that she was SO STUPID as to deliberately send classified information, not just once, but thousands of times, even though she knew she was going to run for president and she knew that is the probably the most targeted politician in history, with every single person looking for dirt on her.



    Attachments (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:29:14 PM EST
    Emails sending information.   You have heard of attachments, no?

    And? (none / 0) (#49)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:31:08 PM EST
    What about attachments?

    You are not allowed to send classified information  via e mail, PERIOD.

    Classified information needs to be sent via special secure terminals.


    The point being (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:33:43 PM EST
    that attachments could be marked classified.  You know, documents could be marked classified.  And someone could send those as an attachment.  

    You apparently argue that Hillary is arguing that the email, in the body itself, was not marked classified, and that no one would ever do that....


    No, No, NO (none / 0) (#53)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:38:39 PM EST
    And NO.

    Never ever can classified information be sent via e mail. Whether it is in the body of the e mail, or a attachment.  

    Classified information needs to be sent via secure devices

    Per the Washington POst

    One need look no further than Clinton's own e-mails for evidence of this problem. In February 2010, Clinton's top foreign policy adviser e-mailed that he was unable to send her a statement by former British prime minister Tony Blair because someone had entered it into the State Department's classified system, "for reasons that elude me." Clinton responded incredulously: "It's a public statement!" Yet her adviser was unable to access it, let alone send it to an unsecured e-mail address.


    You are just making things up (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:38:10 PM EST
    You are filling in the gaps, putting it charitably, with your own biased speculation.  For example, you state:

    Now, from what I understand, and have been able to piece together, is that Madame Sec never used the special rooms assigned to read and send classified cables and information. She would have either read the information to her

    I do not care what you "understand."  Typical Issa made up facts......


    No (none / 0) (#55)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:42:50 PM EST
    Not at all,

    It is from information I have read over the past month. I have refrained from posting here regarding this topic, as most (actually all I believe) cannot look at this factually, and legally, they are too emotionally involved.

    But all of the articles consistently claiming that  no e mail was marked classified, I just couldn't see that 1 more time. ONLY a moron would place a classified stamp on a e mail , it immediately places them in violation of US law. At least , if the transcribe the information from a classified document to a  e mail, they can claim they never knew it was classified. It will all come out in the wash


    You are trafficking in baseless speculation. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:58:55 PM EST
    Again. (Sigh!)

    Let it play out (none / 0) (#69)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:03:46 PM EST
    And we shall see what was baseless. Basically it is all the information I have gathered from reading news reports

    Well, I think you (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:48:47 PM EST
    are so biased you read the defense in only  a certain way.

      I am assuming they are also referring to the attachments.  If someone sends her a N.Y. Times article as an attachment, it would not be marked classified. So, if it is later marked classified, which I have read is an actual instance with these emails, then it was not marked classified at the time.


    It all depends (none / 0) (#63)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:53:26 PM EST
    Upon who sent her the e mail, and most importantly, the timing of when the information was deemed classified.
    You are correct, if the information was deemed to be classified after the article was written , and received by Madame Secretary, then there should be no repercussions, other than those for storing the email in a private location
    Which again points to the negligence and poor judgement in originally deciding to use personal e mail and a private server.

    And I thought the GOP (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:44:45 PM EST
    talking point was that Hillary should have been using a .gov email address instead of her own personal email.   Glad you admit that argument is bogus.

    You have no idea, none whatsoever, if she read cables or accessed the classified information in other ways.  You are just inventing a story line based on your "belief?"  Lord love a duck.


    You are correct (none / 0) (#58)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:47:53 PM EST
    She should have been using a government e mail address
    AND the government system.
    By circumventing both she opened State Department information, some classified, others not, to all sorts of surveillance and hacking.
    Poor judgement  

    I go back to my original comment (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:53:11 PM EST
    When she "opened herself up" to surveillance and hacking by using the .gov address, as you state, you are assuming the non-secure .gov system, which is not designed for classified information, is more secure than her private email.  What proof do you have of that.  Your unbiased "belief."

    Really?  We have all kinds reports that the .gov system has been hacked.

    You guys are using quite a bit of sleight of hand in making these dishonest arguments.


    Typo: When she opened (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:55:04 PM EST
    herself up....by "not" using the .gov..... (or by using her private email.)

    The gov address (none / 0) (#65)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:56:35 PM EST
    AND the private server.

    She should have used both. Avoiding the gov address was to circumvent FOIA requests, not for any additional  security, lol.


    So, the whole email contorversy (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:09:09 PM EST
    is about avoiding FOIA requests, and not about a security?

    Well, that does shift the story line, now, doesn't it?

    You do know that the vast majority of her emails on her personal server were sent to or received from .gov addresses?  Right? And those emails would be in the State system?  And subject to FOIA.....

    Your argument that the purpose of the private server was to avoid FOIA makes no sense.  


    Please (none / 0) (#73)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:14:49 PM EST
    Stop already. Yes, it was to avoid FOIA requests.
    Do you know how FOIA requests are handled. When a news organization wanted to see all of Madame Secretaries e mails, and requested such, why do you think they did not respond for 3 years.  3 YEARS.
    Because they didn't have them. Departments do not search every employee to see who sent them a e mail, that is preposterous. They go to the senders out box, and review those e mails. Except the State Dept couldn't do that with Madame Sec, she had them all, as designed.
    So finally 3 years after she left office , the State Department got around to asking Madame Sec for her e mails, they could not comply with all of the FOIA requests they were getting.

    Not entirely true (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:18:18 PM EST
    Departments do not search every employee to see who sent them a e mail, that is preposterous. They go to the senders out box, and review those e mails.

    Not exactly how it works.


    That is how (none / 0) (#78)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:22:03 PM EST
    My department does it, when the request is for all of a individuals e mails. When it is regarding a specific topic, then people generally involved with that topic are asked to search their own  e mails.

    But that's not all that gets done (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:32:53 PM EST
    Asking you to check your emails is only one step, but because humans can't or don't remember where they store things, they can and will also do things like image your hard drive, image your network drive, etc. And then, they will do sampling and see if there are other people they should look at - so if there were tons of emails come from her private email account, that would have raised a red flag, and those would have been requested. This isn't as simple as they asked for her email and she didn't give it up/

    Lol (none / 0) (#85)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:39:23 PM EST
    Not my Department. So much of FOIA is subjective, many times the individual actually makes the decision as to whether the e mail meets the criteria or not. Sometimes they can send it a designated FOIA for determination. But I have not seen the diligence towards FOIA that many presume is there.

    so if there were tons of emails come from her private email account, that would have raised a red flag, and those would have been requested.

    In her case, they couldn't determine what came from her address , because they all came from a different server which State had no access to. Which is why all of the FOIA requests are now hitting at one time, 3 years after they were originally filed. If State could have addressed these immediately when filed, the political damage would have been mitigated (assuming there is no criminal culpability)


    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:46:40 PM EST
    As someone who works in e-discovery, I'll make sure to tell my boss we need to change it like you  THINK it works in your office - just rely on people to turn over all relevant emails.

    Having done of those cases, you have my sympathy. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:35:59 PM EST
    Why would (none / 0) (#90)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:48:24 PM EST
    You want to change your process.
    I just described the way it works here. Not a lot of time and money placed in FOIA request department.

    seems like her plan didn't work (none / 0) (#76)
    by mm on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:18:39 PM EST
    How did she "avoid" the FOIA?

    Sigh (none / 0) (#79)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:23:14 PM EST
    Eventually, she didn't. Eventually , she turned over her e mails to the State Department.

    Less 25k that she deleted.

    Hmmm, maybe she did get around some of that FOIA after all.....


    just curious (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by mm on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:33:51 PM EST
    How many previous Cabinet Secretaries have had every single one of their daily routine day to day emails subjected to FOIA?

    Why would she ever expect such an unique and unprecedented event?


    your logic escapes me (none / 0) (#80)
    by mm on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:27:46 PM EST
    Remember when the screaming was all about how she "wiped" her server?  (see Ed Henry, FOX NOOZ for details)

    True, I do not know how (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:21:59 PM EST
    FOIA searches are done at State.

    I do have experience with e-discovery with large corporations.  Searching a system for emails sent to or from a particular person is not that big a deal.  I am assuming that it is similar at State and that searching their own servers for both senders and recipients is something that can be done.  


    Can't resist (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 10:40:07 PM EST
    ...you are assuming the non-secure .gov system, which is not designed for classified information, is more secure than her private email.  What proof do you have of that.  Your unbiased "belief."

    Uh, you are not allowed to make your own determination of which is best.


    They (none / 0) (#42)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:54:41 PM EST
    were hacked in 2014, probably not the first time

    He used to say (none / 0) (#31)
    by Kmkmiller on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 02:09:38 PM EST
    He was sick and tired of this story.

    Sure, but (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 02:11:02 PM EST
    He's in a tight election

    I know (none / 0) (#56)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:44:40 PM EST
    You don't, but there maybe others who actually appreciate a different perspective on a issue.

    It is not a different perspective (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:00:56 PM EST
    it is biased political invective based on invented facts....

    It is a perspective based on pure (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:43:05 PM EST
    speculation and imagination about what classified information looks like and how it gets form place to place. So no, I don't need it.

    Rules don't apply to her. (none / 0) (#102)
    by thomas rogan on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 08:12:22 PM EST
    She used a private email server, storing it in a basement.  Even after she left office.  She had "missing" emails when she gave them back, "wiped" or no.  It is the Democrat Obama who does not release the content of the 22 emails, not some "vast right wing conspiracy".  If She had followed the rules in the first place this question would have never come up.
    Admit it.  If Hillary pulled out tomorrow Warren would step in and Sanders would throw his support to her.  You Democrats are only sticking with her because of her stubborn ambition, dating from the 1992 "two for one" days, and her refusal to get out of the way.

    Actually, Thomas, the primary reason ... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 07:16:21 PM EST
    ... we're sticking with Hillary Clinton is the fact that you and your fellow wackadoodles over in the GOP have obviously taken your leave of both reality and common sense, and are simply too cuckoo for cocoa puffs to be trusted with the reins of government any more.

    Actually (none / 0) (#135)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 07:23:15 PM EST
    That is a little over the top, and incorrect

    The country has given the reins at the State government level and in Congress