"I have friends that are in the FBI and they tell me they’re ready to indict." He has "FRIENDS?"

[Miles Archer]

https://www.facebook.com/topic/Tom-DeLay/103132026394029

Tom DeLay: Former Congressman Says He Has Been Informed That FBI Is Ready to Indict Hillary Clinton

"I have friends that are in the FBI and they tell me they’re ready to indict," Delay said on the "The Steve Malzberg Show," discussing Clinton's use of a private email server while in office.

[riversedge]

1. Why do you bring this RW crap to DU? Shame on you.

[Miles Archer]

3. It's a FUCKING POLITICAL DISCUSSION WEBSITE

[h1]SHAME ON ME?

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, HIT THE "ALERT" BUTTON, PUT ME ON IGNORE, OR ALL OF THE ABOVE.

"WHY" DID I "BRING THIS" HERE?

BECAUSE IT IS NEWS AND I FELT LIKE POSTING IT, THAT'S WHY.

I DON'T OWE YOU AN EXPLANATION. GO AHEAD...HIT "ALERT."[/h1]

[riversedge]

5. Even Sanders said Enough with this email crap-and you go find a RW crapper and post it here.

Yes it is shameful.

[LiberalArkie]

28. Riversedge, now when we hear or see someone saying that about HRC, we know it

came out of Tom F#%^$%^ Delay's mouth. And for me that is what I will say when I see it on FaceBook.

[frankieallen]

45. you don't think Sanders would be trilled if Hillary got indicted?

With Hillary gone, it would be President Sanders!

[TipTok]

70. Trilled you say?

Anyone? ...

*taps mic*

Hello? Is this thing on?

[Human101948]

6. It is not news...it is Tom DeLay trying to get some attention...

I have friends who say that Tom ingested too much malathion.

[trueblue2007]

56. i have friends that say posts about Tom Delay do not belong on DU

[Orrex]

7. I'll bet you're an absolute peach to know in real life

[font size="10"]HAVE A GREAT DAY![/font]

[pintobean]

11. Did you see the profile

and the reason he's not eligible to serve on juries?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=308711

[Orrex]

14. Well, IT'S A FUCKING POLITICAL DISCUSSION WEBSITE, so why not?

[FSogol]

19. Flying spittle must cement the Caps Lock key.

[Hortensis]

33. Tom "The Hammer" Delay 5 days from Iowa caucus?

On Facebook?! Shame on you, OP, for bringing this blatant right-wing slime here.

[FSogol]

35. I wasn't the op.

[NCTraveler]

50. The imagery made me laugh.

[Hortensis]

64. No, of course you weren't. Which is why I addressed

whoever that was. Still in the car squinting at a smart phone.

[FSogol]

67. Ok. Hard to tell around here sometimes. n/t

[Hortensis]

81. I think I responded there because I loved your comment.

Shoulda said so, and do.

[FSogol]

82. Thanks.

[trueblue2007]

54. GREAT idea !!!

[Nye Bevan]

9. I know, it's like starting a thread about what Trump thinks of Bill Clinton's sex life.

Oh wait, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141298369

[Aerows]

49. Oh my.

[marble falls]

13. Its about DeLay, not Clinton!!!!!! "Clinton" is a McGuffin....

Replace "Clinton" with "Obama" and "e-mails" with "counterfeit birth certificate".

[malaise]

2. Shouldn't he be in prison

he was not only indicted, but also found guilty.

[HereSince1628]

4. Unlike Andy Dufresne who needed to sneak in a hammer into Shawshank

Tom Delay -is- The Hammer, what prison could hold him?

Tom Delay's political life is certainly characterized as swimming in shit.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. Overturned n/t

[madokie]

8. Hey Tom

go back to your bugman business and you'll feel better about yourself

[sharp_stick]

10. Fuck him

and his friends.

[Vinca]

12. I have friends in the extermination business that say don't trust a rat.

[spanone]

15. fuck you tommy

[patricia92243]

16. I think the OP is sincere. I saw this article on Facebook and wondered about it. I'm glad to see

that it seems to be an untruth - but I wanted more informed people than me to verify it.

I think we are doing Hillary a disservice by NOT pointing out its error.

IMHO

[gratuitous]

40. I agree

Sometimes you hear these things, and the first response is

It's useful to see these rumors a-borning, so you can respond to people passing them around. Oh, the FBI is closing in on Secretary Clinton, you say? Was that the Tom DeLay trial balloon? You should know better than to repeat anything that scalawag says.

[MissB]

48. Yeah even the Oregonian had an article on this today.

The source? NY Daily News. Another low for the Oregonian.

[trueblue2007]

57. I think the OP is NOT sincere.

I saw this article on Facebook and wondered about it. ~~~~~> THEN I KNEW IT WAS CRAP.

[leftyladyfrommo]

17. This all over the news this morning.

People see these headlines and believe it. I don't think that they realize just how bad this source is.

[TipTok]

18. Meh... Not their call...

DoJ will likely be more accomodating.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

29. If laws were broken

They shouldn't be accommodating.

[TipTok]

31. Notice that word 'should'...

You aren't wrong but at that level politics trump legality as we have seen time and again.

Worst case for the clintons is that an aide has to fall on their sword but Hillary will come out untouched.

I am looking forward to the statement of justification from the DoJ when they make the call though.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

32. Knowingly sending classified information

on an unclassified network is excellent justification for an indictment.

[TipTok]

37. You aren't wrong...

... and if it was your average minion I am confident that the process would move forward.

That would be a career stopper for 99.9% of govt employees.

I just don't have faith that politics won't come first in this specific case and with this specific person.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

38. Agree 100% n/t

[zipplewrath]

39. The key word being "knowingly"

Proving that part will be extremely hard. Just because they "should" have known doesn't establish that they did. Without that, prosecution will be difficult. Especially if there is still an ongoing dispute between State and the CIA about what is and is not classified.

[TipTok]

41. From the NY Post...

"In one email, Clinton pressured Sullivan to declassify cabled remarks by a foreign leader.

“Just email it,” Clinton snapped, to which Sullivan replied: “Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it.”

In another recently released email, Clinton instructed Sullivan to convert a classified document into an unclassified email attachment by scanning it into an unsecured computer and sending it to her without any classified markings. “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” she ordered."

http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/

[zipplewrath]

43. New York Post and Fox

You realized you are referencing a Post and Fox news based article right?

Somehow, highly classified information from SIPRNet, as well as even the super-secure JWICS, jumped from those closed systems to the open system and turned up in at least 1,340 of Clinton’s home emails — including several the CIA earlier this month flagged as containing ultra-secret Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Programs, a subset of SCI.

And this paragraph makes no sense. There is no such thing as "ultra-secret" and no one who intentionally circumvented classifications is going to continue, for 1340 emails, well after the secure systems were working again.

Far more likely, they attempted to excise unclassified portions of classified documents and send them on the unclassified systems. At this point it is highly likely that there is now a pissin' match between State and the CIA about whether they successfully and correctly did that. Which brings us back to the "knowingly" part.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. Unless Hillary had access to the classified network in her home

which is highly unlikely, of course they would have continued to send her classified info on her unclassified system.

This isn't something that someone does "accidentally" - it takes a conscious effort to move classified down to unclass.

[zipplewrath]

60. Yes

It takes conscious effort, and even then one can make mistakes. And those mistakes are predictable and why the private server crap should never have been authorized.

[Kingofalldems]

63. Oh, I get it alright.

[TipTok]

65. Ok...

Anything else to add?

[Kingofalldems]

66. I think when you posted something trashing a Democrat

from a site owned by Rupert Murdoch spoke loud and clear.

[TipTok]

68. If any of it is factually untrue...

... I would appreciate the additional information so as to clear up any confusion.

However, if you just don't like the facts I can't really help you.

That seems to be a running theme from the Hillary camp. They don't even deny most of this stuff, they just claim that they are being persecuted because someone had the nerve to mention it.

Probably sexists...

[Kingofalldems]

71. It comes from filthy right winger Raymond (Benghazi!!) Fournier.

And his pals at Fox news. Here's another 'factual' story:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/09/11/judicial-watch-releases-new-report-on-benghazi/

Who do you think you are kidding?

Facts, my ass.

[TipTok]

72. I say again...

Please point out which of those facts, relating to this story, are incorrect.

I am genuinely interested and would be willing to change my position if new data presents itself.

As before though, if you just don't like the facts and find them inconvenient... I can't help.

You seem to place a lot of worth on the letter after the name. I'd encourage you to look at the person and not just the party.

An ethical and honest conservative is better than a dishonest and criminal liberal and visa versa.

Something like the following should be pretty easy to determine if it happened or not. Binary... Yes or no...

'In another recently released email, Clinton instructed Sullivan to convert a classified document into an unclassified email attachment by scanning it into an unsecured computer and sending it to her without any classified markings. “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” she ordered."

[Kingofalldems]

73. I look at Fox news, who uses Fox news pundits as their source.

If someone hired by Fox/Breitbart says it, it's a historical fact that it won't be true.

Last paragraph is just something Fox wrote. How do YOU know it is factual?

Maybe over in the Cave it might be considered fact though, not here.

[TipTok]

74. Are you suggesting that not a single fact ever put forth...

... by FOX or the Post was ever true?

Are you sure you want to stick with that?

For the third time... Which part is untrue? I really am curious and would shift my point of view given new info.

What have you got? The tantrum is cutting it.

[Kingofalldems]

75. They exist to get republicans elected. As a DU member, you should know that.

Which part is true?

It is words written down by one of Murdoch's hacks.

So prove anything there is true please.

Why didn't the repubs bring it up during the 11 hrs of testimony?

[TipTok]

76. Are you suggesting that the author...

... would directly attribute a written quote, in a national newspaper, to Hillary Clinton knowing that it could instantly be proven wrong if it was falsified.

Something that could be instantly verified as either a yes or a no with untold numbers of people, just like you, waiting for the chance.

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

I get the feeling that you aren't comfortable with facts if they don't conform to the way you'd like the world to be and you need to vent onto anyone inconsiderate enough to bring them to your attention.

That's gotta be a tough way to live. Bad for the blood pressure.

What a shame...

[Kingofalldems]

77. I get the feeling you have judged Hillary Clinton guilty and look for

anything to confirm this attitude.

So prove the 'facts' you claim which BTW only seemed to show up on Murdoch sites. Is the media covering for Hillary?
Again I wait for your proof.

[TipTok]

79. Why don't you get your crayons...

... And some poster paper and make a list of approved news sites and writers and I'll give it a look over later.

Nothing that is going to challenge you or make you feel icky...

Fair?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

42. No, it isn't hard at all

The level of data they're saying was in the email, SAP data, is on a completely separate network; it's among the highest data classification there is. In order to have access to that data, a user must go through an "indoc" process, during which they are briefed on how to handle it, how it can be disseminated, how it must be marked when disseminated, etc.

There is no way to "unknowingly" get the information from a classified network, transfer it to an unclassified network and then send it.

As for the dispute between State and the CIA about what is or isn't unclassified, that doesn't even figure in here - if it's SAP data, it's on a SAP network, which is highly classified. When it comes to classification authority, the State department can classify their own products as they deem necessary. However, they don't have the legal authority to declassify something that was classified by another agency.

[zipplewrath]

44. However

it is possible to attempt to "excise" unclassified information from classified information. And there can often be arguments about whether one has done is "correctly".

Even when having been trained, there can still be disagreements between trained individuals.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

46. That's why only classification authorities should excise the data

Part of the training on handling classified information is to not try to pull unclass info from classified.

Even bits and pieces of unclassified information from different sources, when combined, can become classified.

[zipplewrath]

59. However

The reality is that most people authorized to handle classified information are also authorized to create classified documents. That, unfortunately, also leads to mistakes. It's why the "private server" crap should never have been authorized. A data spill was literally "inevitable". It was also highly predictable.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

61. Exactly n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. Tom, just because your friends' shirt says FBI doesn't mean they are actually in the FBI.

[geek tragedy]

21. who cares what his cellmate thinks? nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

24. I wouldn't trust anything Tom Delay says

But if this were a regular employee, their employment would be terminated and criminal charges would be a definite possibility, especially given the classification of the information. Not Hillary, but whoever sent the classified emails.

Someone had to take affirmative steps to take classification markings off of the information, sneaker-net it to the unclassified side, and send it.

Taking off classification markings doesn't make information unclassified.

[oregonjen]

25. I thought grand juries indict?

[Bradical79]

26. lol, I'll believe it when it happens.

Not a moment sooner.

[Octafish]

27. Tom wants his fellow VRWC goons to know he's still connected.

GESTAPO is as GESTAPO does.

[cwydro]

30. What a crock.

Tom Delay???

[WinkyDink]

34. Hmmmm. "Friends." "FBI." "Tell." "Indict." Quite a few lies packed into one little sentence!

[Gothmog]

36. Tom DeLay is an idiot

[NCTraveler]

52. If I want to know what that piece of shit has to say...

I'll......

Damn....

I actually can't think of anything this shitty.

[trueblue2007]

53. who cares. why are you posting REPUKE information ?????

[Kaleva]

55. Fox Mulder and Dana Scully are fictional FBI agents

[Agnosticsherbet]

58. The origin of the story is Newsmax, a right wing lying propaganda site.

Hot Tub Tom Delay A scumbag.

Discus why anyone should post the raving of a scumbag lying Republican diarrhea ass wipe?

[Contrary1]

62. It's Newsmax.

Enough said.

[Rex]

69. And what do his friends help him get away with? We already know GOPers tried to sabotage HRC

presidental run by influencing a Congressional hearing. That is a fact, not CT. I wonder how many Cheney moles are still left in the DoJ.

[Kelvin Mace]

78. He lost me at "I have friends..."

I know Mary Sue fanfic when I see it.

[lindysalsagal]

80. You don't indict a former first lady/sec of state if you're in the FBI. Period.

She'd have to be shooting people with a rifle on video to get indicted.

Even crispy and shrub were never indicted.

The GOP doesn't own the FBI. They can't do anything to embarrass the U.s. without a direct order from the president.

It's a ludicrous notion. And I'm no Hillary supporter.