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

DVRacer

(707 posts)
Mon May 9, 2016, 08:19 PM May 2016

Ok I have been reading up on the Email saga and still unsure what magnitude it really is.

I know a lot of folks here are broken down on this issue based on whose camp they belong to. I just want to know for myself how real or imagined the fallout will be. I have read everything that I can find on the web from every angle and with the filter of my Navy Intel experience have come to a few questions and very few solid answers.

1. Who had authority to approve the use for State Department officials to use a private email server system?

2. What were the systems administrators plans to comply with FOIA?

3. Why was a permanent IG not in place during Secretary Clinton's tenure, and why was one appointed immediately following her departure?

I believe the person that will ultimately take the biggest "hit" will be Patrick Kennedy and that is because he failed our President. In his handling of all of this, Secretary Clinton will also be hurt. My overall question is what will be the magnitude 2.0 - 9.9

This release today makes wonder how deep this will end up.

http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/2606311312.html

Mr. Kennedy would be the FBI interview I would of everyone involved like to be a fly on the wall for. I think his will be most telling.

If a response to this is left I would prefer it be based on which camp you are in and fact based.

I supported Bernie in our primary and now support Secretary Clinton as we move forward towards formal nomination. I just honestly don't want things to blowup later on and have it shoved in my face by family that would love to gloat.

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ok I have been reading up on the Email saga and still unsure what magnitude it really is. (Original Post) DVRacer May 2016 OP
The primary is ongoing. We won't be moving toward General until Convention. nt silvershadow May 2016 #1
Right! NWCorona May 2016 #2
That wasn't what I asked I make that personal leap on what I have witnessed so far DVRacer May 2016 #3
I will try to answer your questions Samantha May 2016 #12
Thank you for that very honest response. DVRacer May 2016 #15
Regardless of what anyone may tell you, you should do your own reading and form your own opinion Samantha May 2016 #18
"Jill Farrell - Judicial Watch". UMMMM.... JaneyVee May 2016 #4
Unfortunately they are the ones heading up the case DVRacer May 2016 #5
So then wait for actual reports, not Judicial Watch Press Release propaganda. JaneyVee May 2016 #7
Do you have any answers to the questions I asked? DVRacer May 2016 #9
JW is under the supervision here of Clinton-appointed federal judge Emmet Sullivan. grasswire May 2016 #14
Depends at what case you are looking at nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #8
I bring up the FOIA case because without it we would have maybe never known the setup. DVRacer May 2016 #10
I know nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #11
I have seen in action what you say concerning the different levels of "justice" it saddens me. DVRacer May 2016 #16
We have a classic of this here nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #17
That would be the CIVIL CASE nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #6
You quit on Bernie? RobertEarl May 2016 #13

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
12. I will try to answer your questions
Mon May 9, 2016, 09:11 PM
May 2016

but in the interest of full disclosure, I am supporting Sanders. I also think whether Ms Clinton is indicted or not will have zero impact on Sanders' success or failure as a candidate. Should for any reason she drop out, the DNC will drop kick a New Dem or Third Way politician in so fast, it will make both our heads spin. Other than that, I have followed this issue closely because I have a keen interest in national security issues, and I wanted to know the truth, independent of political spin.

Your questions:

1. Who had authority to approve the use for State Department officials to use a private email server system?

2. What were the systems administrators plans to comply with FOIA?

3. Why was a permanent IG not in place during Secretary Clinton's tenure, and why was one appointed immediately following her departure?


My responses:

1. I believe the answer is no one since the very strict rules were outlined in print, Hillary Clinton signed a statement saying she was aware of the rules and would adhere to them. Barring a wholesale, legitimate change in those rules which applied to everyone (I am not aware any such thing happened or is every likely to happen), she committed to performing her work through the official State Department system with its security protections in place. I have read there were other channels for Top Secret communications a limited number of people could access for superlative top secret information. I believe she at times accessed that system.

Additionally, President Obama had a specially designed security system for his Blackberry (I believe) and it had cost a lot of money, and was difficult to do. So someone with the authority did okay this, Hillary requested the same thing, but was turned down because of the cost for one thing, and because it was decided the President and only the President would be allowed to work outside the boundaries, using the safeguards put in place for him. I do not know, pertaining to your question, who had the authority to authorize this, others here might know.

2. Many FOIA requests sent to the State Department were answered with "We have no records." That was literally true as far as information on its system, but the many people at the State Department did not know Hillary was storing her work on a private server. So the proverbial excrement hit the fan one day in court when a judge who knew there had to be records in the case under review at hand was told the State Department responded to its FOIA request "We have no records." The judge knew there had to be records, and ultimately in Round 2 the reason was reported that the records were stored by the Secretary of State on her home server. (Fireworks go off here). There are now a number of lawsuits over this and I believe rightfully so.

3. A stall started to occur about appointing a permanent IG. Then it started lasting longer and longer, and it was quietly said Hillary was blocking it because she did not want anyone looking over her shoulder. That is what many speculated; I have no links. I do believe that though. I do not know why there is not one now unless Kerry didn't want one in place either.

My opinion and not a fact with links:

I believe Hillary Clinton was running her own rogue state department and she did many things she did not want people in the official State Department or the President to know. While it has often been said she did this for convenience, my opinion is that she did this because she did not want much of her work disclosed. Work stored on the State Department set-up could be viewed by many employees; work stored on home server, not.

There has been much information posted on the web, specifically I am thinking of the emails Wikileaks spilled, and I do believe there is no question that Federal laws have been broken. And while there may not be evidence of deliberate intent to break the law, I see no wiggle room for anyone to state unequivocally criminal negligence has not occurred (also a crime).

I sure I will get flamed for answering your honest, sincere question with my honest, sincere opinion but your politeness in the way you asked deserved an answer.

Sam



DVRacer

(707 posts)
15. Thank you for that very honest response.
Mon May 9, 2016, 10:08 PM
May 2016

I concur with many of your assumptions. I hope to not be mocked for what I feel may end up a larger problem than others think. I got an outline of what may lie ahead from someone that disturbs me that has been around smaller issues such as these. I hoped to have a real conversation about the scope and ramifications of what legitimately may be ahead.

Bernie was my first choice and I feel you maybe correct about the powers that be moving forward if this turns south.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
18. Regardless of what anyone may tell you, you should do your own reading and form your own opinion
Mon May 9, 2016, 10:16 PM
May 2016

There is so much propaganda floating around now, it is almost impossible to form an accurate opinion without doing one's own research. I hope you do that.

Funny you threw in that last line. I learned something also that is very disturbing to me and there is nothing I can do about it. I believe that feeling of hopelessness is setting in for many people. I know the answer is to fight back, but it seems the whole establishment is better armed.

Good luck to the both of us in finding our ways. It was my pleasure to talk to you.

Sam

DVRacer

(707 posts)
5. Unfortunately they are the ones heading up the case
Mon May 9, 2016, 08:33 PM
May 2016

When it comes to accountability to FOIA they are the plaintiff. I can't change that but hiding from FOIA is serious to me. I want to have accountability in every level of government just as I did when Bush and his pals were at that level.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
7. So then wait for actual reports, not Judicial Watch Press Release propaganda.
Mon May 9, 2016, 08:37 PM
May 2016

They keep the suspense of drama going in order to keep the donations flowing.

DVRacer

(707 posts)
9. Do you have any answers to the questions I asked?
Mon May 9, 2016, 08:42 PM
May 2016

I'm not looking for an argument about who brought the case.

My other problem is what precident does this set for future administrations. I have seen the Whitehouse switch parties several times in my life could you imagine any republican Secretary of State doing this and you being ok with it.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
14. JW is under the supervision here of Clinton-appointed federal judge Emmet Sullivan.
Mon May 9, 2016, 09:19 PM
May 2016

Do you also have nothing but disgust for him?

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
8. Depends at what case you are looking at
Mon May 9, 2016, 08:37 PM
May 2016

the FBI is not concerned whatsoever on the JW civil lawsuit on FOIA, they are more concerned on the handling of classified information,

Myself I am too cynical anymore, but this is not unlike what Patreous did, when he turned his intel book to his lover slash biographer.

Will she face the music? Nope, in oligarchies the well connected never, ever face the music, but will this lead to a lot of fun as her as POTUS? I am betting on drama, lots of it.

And to those who have made this partisan... I have a few choice words, because anybody who is a low cog in the machine who did even one of these, would be facing prison time.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
11. I know
Mon May 9, 2016, 08:51 PM
May 2016

but it is best to keep them separate, since legally they are maintaining that fiction. That said, either could lead to whatever end result. But I made my peace, that this is not a subject that can be discussed on a hyper partisan site. It is going to lead to even more cynicism, and if there is enough to charge... well I just don't expect it.

We cover from time to time local courts. And it is amazing the extent the local prosecutor at times will go to prove the guilt of somebody not with the resources of the well heeled. Some of those cases would have never reached even prelims.

So I have gotten even more cynical about the whole thing... called the US Justice System. Ideally everybody is equal, but at this point we have 3 systems The one the poor and lower middle class faces, The one the upper class and wealthy face, and the one the inside cogs in the machine face. They are very different.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Ok I have been reading up...