Sorry, Hillary Clinton fans: her email errors are definitely newsworthy

[RiverLover]

Sorry, Hillary Clinton fans: her email errors are definitely newsworthy
The Guardian
8/1/15



The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and its supporters has spent the last week trying to paint the continuing scandal over Clinton’s private email server as a partisan persecution with no significance to the presidential race.

But anyone who cares about government transparency, overclassification and cybersecurity should care Clinton’s email scandal – including her strongest supporters.

Put aside the House’s Benghazi committee and Republican attempts to turn every Clinton misstep into a Great Benghazi Conspiracy. There’s plenty of legitimate reasons this remains a disturbing episode, and it’s a wonder Clinton’s camp isn’t more forthcoming with the media. Whether her supporters like it or not, this is a story, and it’s going to continue to be a story as emails continue to be released over the next year.

First, there’s Clinton herself. She repeatedly denied having classified information in her emails, yet now we find out there are likely “hundreds” of emails containing it (more on that later). One of her closest aides, Philippe Reines, excoriated Gawker months ago for claiming he was using a private email address to conduct state business during his tenure at the State Department, yet he apparently just turned over 20 boxes of emails containing just that. Does the public not deserve an explanation about these seemingly false statements?

Using private email for public business is also a tried-and-true tactic to evade public records requests, no matter what Clinton defenders might say. And it is beyond question that it worked, as Foia requests filed for these emails were stonewalled for years and only thanks to the attention are now just starting to trickle out. It may be part of the reason why Clinton’s State Department had a “dismal” record on transparency, which is certainly an issue a lot of non-Republicans care about....


Read more here~
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/01/hillary-clinton-email-errors-newsworthy

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Democratic primary voters and general election voters will have to litigate this.

That's how we roll in America...

Oh, the term "fan" is insulting and disrespectful. I am a Heat fan, a Dolphins fan, and a Mets fan...I am a supporter of a political party and the candidates in it whose causes I support.

[RiverLover]

9. There will also be other (real) litigation, the timing of which could be deeply damaging.

Racketeering lawsuit aside, there are still those pesky Freedom of Information lawsuits.

The Clintons have "earned" $139 million since 2008 though, so they can afford good lawyers, along with their $600 haircuts.

The bad press will only escalate though with those cases. Its all such a shame. I'm sure we have Dems out there without such shady backgrounds, we should have more choices to represent the Democratic Party. Thank goodness for Sanders & O'Malley. We can still hold our heads high.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I resent the that you impugn my character...

I resent the that you impugn my character but the resentment is tempered by the fact you could never muster the intestinal fortitude to do it to my face.

[RiverLover]

12. I didn't refer to you at all, I replied to you but didn't talk about you.

And yes, I would reply the same to you in person, but I'm not insulting you, just the person you aren't a "fan" of, but rather "support".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. You strongly implied the Clintons are gangsters.

You strongly implied the Clintons are gangsters:

There will also be other (real) litigation, the timing of which could be deeply damaging.

Racketeering lawsuits aside.

RICO statute defined

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.

You are accusing them of Tony Soprano like mendacity, on the basis of an action initiated by Larry Klayman, and I support them as do many Democrats so you are ipso facto accusing me and them of supporting gangsters.

[Turchinsky]

186. Hmmm... now you're attacked because she attacked Clinton

instead of you? Pretzel logic?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Your embedded link re: "Racketeering Lawsuit" takes me to a legal action

Racketeering lawsuit aside, there are still those pesky Freedom of Information lawsuits.

Your embedded link re: "Racketeering Lawsuit" takes me to a legal action initiated by Larry Klayman:

Klayman is known for his litigious battles with the Bill Clinton White House in the 90s. His government watchdog group Judicial Watch (which he established in 1994) brought a reported 18 civil lawsuits against the administration, alleging ethical misconduct and criminal activity.[16][34] In one case, a federal judge ruled that Clinton violated the Privacy Act when he released personal letters[35] between him and a female White House volunteer. The woman had appeared on national television accusing him of making improper sexual advances, and Clinton claimed he released the letters to discredit her.[36] The judge determined this was an act of criminal intent, but that ruling was called "inappropriate" by the appellate court.[37][38][39][40]

In the Clinton-era fundraising scandal known as Chinagate, Judicial Watch was awarded nearly a million dollars in attorney fees against the U.S. Department of Commerce.[28]

Klayman represented Gennifer Flowers, who claimed to be one of Bill Clinton's mistresses, in a defamation suit against Hillary Clinton.[41]

Bill Clinton needled Klayman during a presidential press conference in 1999.[42]

Klayman represented Jared Paul Stern in his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against the Clintons, Ronald Burkle, and the Daily News.[43]

Klayman filed a FOIA request, seeking access to Hillary Clinton's e-mails during her tenure as Secretary of State.[44]

In March 2015, Klayman filed a racketeering lawsuit against Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton Foundation, alleging Hillary Clinton sold access to U.S. government officials in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation.[45]

Do you believe Mr. Klayman is a credible source and where do you believe is the gravamen of his complaint that the Clintons have run afoul of the Racketeering And Corrupt Organization (RICO) statutes?

Thank you in advance.

[RiverLover]

15. It took you to The Hill. And I'm talking about more bad press coming our way

for our leading candidate. It ain't good, and it isn't a proud time.

If she had just been transparent & normal, with a business email for state business, this wouldn't even be an issue. And it isn't like other Secr of States, they had both personal & .gov email. She used personal email for ALL of her e-correspondence. It's just shady & she set herself up for this.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. You linked to a cause of action initiated by Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, a conspiracy theorist and WND columnist who has been at the margins of the conservative movement for decades, is behind a dubious lawsuit accusing Hillary Clinton of racketeering. Klayman is utterly lacking in credibility, having filed numerous far-fetched lawsuits targeting the Clintons over the years. He has also repeatedly suggested the Clintons "orchestrated the murders of several of their associates in the 1990s."

According to The Hill, Klayman has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, accusing Hillary Clinton of using her private emails "to sell access to other officials in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has already rejected a motion by Klayman to hold Clinton in contempt of court for not providing her emails in response "to a request seeking information on leaks about U.S. use of computer worms and viruses to set back Iran's nuclear program," according to Politico.

While The Hill notes that Klayman "launched dozens of lawsuits against former President Bill Clinton's administration," the paper leaves out the relevant context that he is a discredited conspiracy theorist.

Klayman is the founder and head of Freedom Watch. He also previously led the conservative group Judicial Watch. In his capacity as a "legal crusader," the Washington Post described his "record in public interest cases" as "incalculably terrible."

In the 1990s, Klayman reportedly filed at least 18 lawsuits against the Clinton administration, accusing them of various conspiracies, and has filed "hundreds of lawsuits against federal agencies, White House officials, Cabinet secretaries, judges, journalists, former colleagues, foreign governments, dictators, presidents," his own mother, and The Washington Post.




http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/25/discredited-conspiracy-theorist-larry-klayman-i/203042

[MBS]

21. yes, exactly.

With her long experience fighting off the Republican witch-hunts, and her broad experience in both the executive and legislative branches of government, her presidential ambitions AND with the Obama White House's clear directive to executive-branch staff on use of government email servers for official business, I'm still flabbergasted that she would make such an obvious political blunder. She should, instead, have gone out of her way to carry out her State Dept duties, including especially her correspondence, strictly by the book, and as clearly and transparently as possible.

[karynnj]

146. agree

It would not just have been the right thing to do, but politically the safest.

It is more likely that embarrassing stuff wil come out now than could possibly have come out by FOIA requests would have found on a SD account.

Note her first action was to demand the SD put everything in the emails she gave them out. In essence, that is a dream that even the best attempts by partisans to get embarrassing stuff by FOIA could ever have gotten. Then tere is the bonus - they then point out that this was what she let us see.

It will be sad if our best chance is to hope the Republicans do not find a credible candidate.

[MBS]

154. It's the fact that this PREVENTABLE issue could damage our chances

in 2016 that bothers me the most. Really, what were they thinking?

[mylye2222]

197. They were thinking they would have a free pass on it

IMO .

[HappyPlace]

200. Yes

That's what it is, alright.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

156. Strictly by the book? lol...laws, rules, regulations are for common folk...they don't apply to royalty...dontcha know?

Go Bernie Go!!

[sufrommich]

33. The Comment Is Free section of the Guardian isn't actual news,it's name is

based on the saying "comment is free but facts are sacred".Basically anyone can post there and many love to repost the stuff there as a "Guardian article".Comment Is Free is frequently trolled:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100225278/revealed-how-i-posed-as-a-left-wing-nutjob-on-the-guardians-comment-is-free-and-got-away-with-it/

And the Men's Rights movement lives there:

http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/2011/04/comment-is-anything-but-%E2%80%9Cfree%E2%80%9D-at-the-guardian/


There is literally no connection to the actual Guardian other than they allow this section to be a free for all page where anyone can post with no journalistic standards getting in the way.Be aware that when anyone posts a Comment Is Free "article" that they aren't actual articles.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. I was referring to Post 9 where my interlocutor suggested the Clintons are racketeers...

I was referring to Post 9 where my interlocutor suggested the Clintons are racketeers based on a complaint by Larry Klayman

[sufrommich]

39. OK,I just think it's important to understand that anyone calling

this crap an "article from The Guardian" should know better.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. Thank you for pointing that out.

As the ancient Chinese proverb goes "having a conversation with a wise person is worth reading a thousand books."

[still_one]

87. Anyone basing their argument on Larry Klayman, just lost the argument

[7962]

64. Klayman has also won FOIA suits against the Bush administration too

He's an equal opportunity when it comes to filing lawsuits

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. He is a confirmed Clinton nemesis.

Larry Klayman is a confirmed Clinton nemesis. If you believe he is impartial when it comes to the Clintons there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. There would have been a time when I would have been astounded to see Larry Klayman cited approvingly on a progressive board but that was a long time ago,




I will add that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" is an illiberal sentiment.

[7962]

76. Oh, I know he is.

I was just stating that he isnt JUST a RW guy chasing after poor Bill & Hillary. He was responsible for the lawsuit to access Cheney's Energy Task Force notes among others. And many Snowden fans would likely approve of his NSA lawsuit, which he also won.
I'm tired of the Clintons having their own set of rules when it comes to just about anything. While I intend to support whoever my party's candidate is, I still hate it when politicians start to think that they arent bound by the same rules as the rest of us. And with what Bill got away with, I imagine thats what made them think they CAN do anything.
But nothing short of being caught with a bloody knife in hand will derail her in '16. And even THAT might not do it

[still_one]

88. Actually I suspect he has severe mental issues, just like Orly Taitz

[A Simple Game]

50. The words "fan" and "supporter" are synonymous.

Your fake outrage at being insulted is at best humorous.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Fan is the diminutive of the word 'Fanatic'

Your attempt to patronize me is at best a fail.

[A Simple Game]

59. And your failure to use a dictionary is sad. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. Not as a sad as your attempt to denigrate and disrespect your interlocutor from the anonymity of...

And your failure to use a dictionary is sad. n/t

Not as a sad as your attempt to denigrate and disrespect your interlocutor from the anonymity of a computer modem.

[1StrongBlackMan]

74. My Friend ...

push "skip track", as breaking down the term, "FANatic" is a complex argument, and as Momma 1SBM counsels, "When someone tells you who they are; believe them!" ... Some screen names are appropriate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. Fan is synonomous with supporter but that is not the same.

Fan is a diminutive of the word fanatic, and fanatic implies the person has a slavish and unwavering devotion which at its root is superficial.

[thesquanderer]

92. Fan is derived from fanatic, but...

...in actual common usage, it does not have the same meaning or carry the same connotations. It is less extreme.

[Agschmid]

150. +1

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

173. Yes, I'm a football fan, but I'm not fanatical about my team. OTOH, I'm fanatical about Bernie, so I wouldn't just say I'm a Bernie fan.

[DanTex]

2. One of the positive things about Hillary having been persecuted by the GOP for two decades now

is that the public has gotten used to these faux scandals, and she's built up a political immunity to them.

Basically, she's un-swiftboat-able. The public has come to understand that the GOP is constantly trying to pin things on her, and the reaction is, as it's always been, meh. Emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, meh.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Except for with ...

Basically, she's un-swiftboat-able.

Except for with a relatively small and insular group found, mostly, on anonymous political message boards of the internet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. If you read this thread closely...

If you read this thread closely, my friend, her detractors are not content to argue she may have been less than diligent in her e-mailing habits but they have to argue she's John Gotti in a pantsuit, by innuendo of course.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. True. n/t

[JoePhilly]

73. OK, that was funny.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. I was going to use Michael Corleone or Tony Soprano as examples...

I was going to use Michael Corleone or Tony Soprano as examples but they are fictional characters, similar to the caricature Hillary Clinton's detractors on the left and right have made of her.

[Adrahil]

128. Ha! HRC? Fugeddaboudit. ;)

[zeemike]

44. And by a much larger percentage of the populous

Who don't trust her according to the polls.







Pollster Trend

Unfavorable48.1%
Favorable43.8%
Undecided
Neutral
Not Heard Enough
Refused
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. Gee ... 24/7 media presentation of "SCANDAL!!!111!!!!" ...

results in trust-worthy questions in the public?!? Who would have guessed?

[zeemike]

62. Well it was never a guess for me.

And she has not even got the nomination yet.
But I am sure when she does it will all stop and those numbers will reverse themselves.

[askew]

54. The email argument isn't swiftboating because it is actually true.

She put in a homebrew server to get around .gov email, turned over a selected number of emails and then wiped the server clean. She lied about why she used the personal email. Her aide lied about not using personal email to conduct .gov business.

And these lies feed into the narrative that she is untrustworthy which is why her honesty #s are in a free-fall and her unfavorables are underwater.

Hillary supporters are deluded if they think these #s are just going to bounce back. They won't. And she is close to unelectable with those #s.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

63. Time for Hillary supporters to turn their eyes to Bernie.

[askew]

67. I prefer O'Malley.

He's better on the issues I care about most - immigration, gun control.

But, Sanders is 1000% above Hillary.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

144. 1000% above Hillary?...is that all? haha. O'Malley's much better too, I'm just not sure bout him on racial injustice. But I'm certainly open to what he has to say, Biden too if he runs.

[Thor_MN]

86. Bullshit.

The server she was using was professionally set up for the use of an ex-president and had government approved security. Your description of it as a "homebrew server" is patently dishonest.

You are searching for anything to attack a democratic candidate. How is that different than a paid GOP troll?

Please explain why Clinton is beating EVERYONE in polls, yet you claim she is unelectable with her current numbers. One does vote against a candidate in elections. And those are the numbers you are bleating about.

Let's let the GOP trolls come up with the negative attacks. If your choice of candidate (I don't have a choice yet) has to resort to negative issues, what does that say about your choice?

[Walk away]

107. It would seem that you are unaware that she would HAVE to have a private email server...

because anything that had to do with her international charities or any messages regarding or connected to her political aspirations have to be separate from State Department email servers.
But I'm sure that you are not so ill informed as to have an opinion and post it when you don't understand the entire issue! Therefore, I have to assume you are purposefully smearing a candidate from the Democratic party.

[JaneyVee]

3. Which laws were broken?

This rightwing bs on du in typical.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. When all you have is a hammer the whole world looks like a nail.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. RICO statutes, according to the seminal poster, please see Post 9

Thank you in advance.

[jeff47]

95. FOIA, and several executive orders were "broken"

By having her own server, the State department said documents (emails) did not exist when they did exist. That "breaks" FOIA.

Storing classified information on an unclassified system breaks several executive orders. These executive orders form the basis of our classification system, because Congress punted the job over to the Executive branch in 1947.

[Metric System]

4. Wasn't the information in the emails classified after the fact?

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. That doesn't go along with the narrative so ... Shhhh! n/t

[Romulox]

41. "undecided", remember?

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. Yes. Undecided ...

which isn't defined as "Unable to smell B.S."

BFWIW, I am leaning towards O'Malley ... And Bernie supporters like you, is my primary reason for NO LONGER considering Bernie. And I am not alone, among Black folks, in that decision.

[Romulox]

48. I hope you aren't fooling *yourself* with that claptrap. Because NOBODY else is fooled. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. LOL ... Keep it up! You are showing exactly what I am talking about! LOL. n/t

[Romulox]

53. You've been a "centrist" since the first time you've posted here. Nobody "made" you that way.

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. My {clutch pearls and cover the kiddie's ears, folks} "centrism" ...

Last edited Sat Aug 1, 2015, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)

is unrelated to the fact that I strongly agree with most of Bernie's message; but, I cannot/will not get with him because doing so would validate and empower his supporters, with whom I can never get with.

[BooScout]

157. come sit beside me....

I'll discuss politics with you any place any where and we will both enjoy it.

[Comrade Grumpy]

166. You're not going to vote for the candidate you like because somebody on the internet gave you a sad?

Okay. Sure.

[1StrongBlackMan]

169. Well ... yeah. I'm can't support a candidate because ...

doing so would put be in association with people that have demonstrated that they have no respect for me, or my interests. After the primaries is where the real work begins.

[bravenak]

183. Yep.nt

[ismnotwasm]

177. That was an extremely rude statement

What is "a sad", in this context anyway?

[ismnotwasm]

176. Dude..

You really need to stop, I say this in all sincerity. There is no reason to declare for a candidate if one is undecided, or hide the fact if you HAVE decided. Quite frankly O'Malley is gaining quite a bit of traction with the undecideds around here and elsewhere from what I can see--the primaries will be more than Hillary and Sanders. I'm taking a good long look at O'Malley myself.

Be nice.

[A Simple Game]

58. As someone who has a good understanding about the controversy could you tell me

how Hillary communicated with regards to classified information? I assume a SOS would often have a need to discuss classified information.

As she claims to have not used her personal email for classified or sensitive information just how did she communicate such information.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. I have no idea ...

I DO, however, know that the people receiving those communications were, and those charged with judging the propriety of her communications are, not overly concerned.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. You can not send Information that is marked classified at the time on a yougov server in any case.

You can not send Information that is marked classified at the time on a yougov server in any case. That is often missed or ignored and perhaps deliberately so. There are other ways of transmitting that information via the internet that have more layered and encrypted security.

There are actually three levels of security.

That's the elephant in the room.


...

My information is from memory and I believe it to be correct. It can be verified by a google search.

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. The nformation attached to those emails were marked afterwards, were they not? n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. I am not a government e-mail expert but neither are most of my interlocutors.

I am not a government e-mail expert but neither are most of my interlocutors. That being said it is my understanding that there are different levels of transmitting classified governmental information and Secretary of State Clinton availed herself of those when it was necessary and none of the information Secretary Of State Clinton received or sent on her private e-mail address were classified at the time. Furthermore there is a turf battle between State and the Inspector General over what should and shouldn't be labeled classified with the Inspector General seeming to argue for more e-mails being classified.

Hindsight is better than foresight and Hillary Clinton would have been better off with a yougov address...That's why i have said , ad nauseum and ad infinitum, I am willing to let the voters hash this out...

I will add if she was up to no good she never would have never put her plans on the net and create a paper trail. This makes the argument to me moot.






The best person to ask here is adrahill , he worked for DOD!

[jeff47]

111. No. None of them were _marked_ classified.

That doesn't mean the information was not classified. Just that it was not marked.

A classified document has a set of headers, footers and paragraph markings to label which information is classified. Not having those markings does not mean the information is not classified.

Hypothetical example: I send an email with the sentence, "John is sending us great intel". The identity of spies is classified, even if I don't put the correct markings in the email. If the email is later released via FOIA, that sentence will be redacted and classification markings will be added after-the-fact.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. As I have said, ad nauseum and ad infinitum, I am content to let the American voters litigate this

If you believe she has broke the law you can contact:

Loretta E. Lynch
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

[jeff47]

117. And part of that litigation requires understanding what is actually going on.

And claims like "classified after the fact" are false. Yet you are proud to shout them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

127. I will ignore the ad hominem attack as it shows the weakness of my interlocutor's argument

As I have said, ad nauseum and ad infinitum, I don't arrogate to myself the right to usurp the role of voters in deciding who is fit and unfit for office. They, in their collective wisdom, will decide if Madame Secretary's e-mail practices made her unfit for office and whether my characterization of when the information was classified is of moment or no moment:

And so far the voters, especially Democratic ones by staggering margins, feel her actions are not disqualifying:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-bush-vs-clinton


I know those results are a source of great consternation for you and others who feel as you do and that hectoring the supporters of Hillary Clinton on an anonymous message board somehow has a palliative effect.

[jeff47]

132. So....you don't bother reading anything that contradicts your worldview.

Clearly, that makes you the best to "litigate".

You'll note I never referenced polling. Instead, I tried to correct the false statement you are repeatedly making.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

136. I am willing to submit my judgment and my understanding of events

I am willing to submit my judgment and my understanding of events to a plebiscite. I don't have the right to take that away. Let the voters decide.

I can not convince you to see things my way nor do I have the right to commandeer you to.

[jeff47]

160. Because truth is measured by popularity.

Guess the Earth is only 6000 years old.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

167. I have given this a lot of thought while I was in the real world; the gym!!!

Some of the supporters of Senator Sanders are not content with liking Bernie and disliking Hillary which is their right but they want to compel the rest of us to like Bernie and dislike Hillary and that betrays an authoritarian impulse.

Now that I understand that everything makes sense.

[jeff47]

168. It's always best to project your beliefs on to other people instead of asking them.

That way, you aren't left with uncomfortable conversations. Add in changing the subject or throwing polls in their faces, and you can settle into a nice, comfortable zone where you don't have to examine any of your opinions.

Hint: I don't give a fuck if you like Clinton. What I give a fuck about is lying to cover for her. Because that will bite us in the ass when Koch PACs start running constant ads about Clinton mishandling classified information. Better to confront that reality now and figure out what to do about it than shout everyone else down and be "surprised" in October 2016.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

172. Maybe you intimidate people in real life

Hint: I don't give a fuck if you like Clinton

Maybe you intimidate people in real life With talk like that but I would literally bet my life against a Kit Kat bar you don't intimidate people like DemocratSinceBirth with talk like that.

That way, you aren't left with uncomfortable conversations. Add in changing the subject or throwing polls in their faces, and you can settle into a nice, comfortable zone where you don't have to examine any of your opinions.

My opinions are my own. You can not force , cajole, persuade, or demand et cetera that I abandon them.

What I give a fuck about is lying to cover for her. Because that will bite us in the ass when Koch PACs start running constant ads about Clinton mishandling classified information. Better to confront that reality now and figure out what to do about it than shout everyone else down and be "surprised" in October 2016.

Then find and support a candidate who can defeat her in the primaries. That would be a more effective strategy than hectoring random internet posters on an anonymous message board.

[1StrongBlackMan]

171. Yes, and it explains the +15 conservative spread. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

174. Could you elaborate please?

I have no idea where strangers believe they have the right to compel me to think like them. What personality type arrogates to themselves that power? The omniscience one would have to ascribe to themselves to believe they have that power is chilling... It is the seed that has given root to the greatest tragedies in history from the destruction of the American Indian, slavery, the Holocaust, the Stalinist collectivist purges, the failed Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution to the genocide in Rwanda.

The first step on the road to Hell is usurping one's individuality.

[George II]

178. Hear, hear

[jeff47]

106. No. They are being redacted/marked as they are released.

They did not have any markings. But markings are not required for the information to be classified.

Hypothetical example: "John's really sending us great intel.". The identity of a spy is classified. Even if I mention it in an email without the correct markings.

[jeff47]

104. The correct way to do it would be to communicate over a classified network.

The US government built a few networks that use Internet protocols, but are not connected to the Internet. One of them is called SIPRNet, and is used to transmit and store SECRET-level information. It even has web sites on it.

There's other mechanisms depending on what media you want to use. For example, if you want to make a phone call, there's encrypted telephones.

So if she wanted to email someone about classified information, she would have to use something like SIPRNet to send it.

Most likely, these are cases of spillage. Where something that was classified was inadvertently disclosed in an email.

A couple hypothetical examples of such spillage:
"I'll be out of touch until we land at 2pm". Specific times of travel schedules are often classified. The SoS is coming on Tuesday isn't, the SoS is landing at 2pm on Tuesday is.

"Just don't eat our special ice cream!". Manning leaked a document that contained a plot to poison Castro via ice cream. The information is still classified, despite being leaked.

"Don't buy a _______ computer, they come with malware", where the warning originally came from a classified report months ago. It can be difficult to remember that came from a classified document instead of a media article about a different malware.

[A Simple Game]

179. Correct and smart way. Why would a supposedly smart person leave themselves open

to criticism the way Hillary does? Doesn't she remember that the GOP grabs onto any little thing she does that is in any way controversial? It's almost like she is asking for it or thinks she is so far above it that she can't be hurt by it.

[Cheese Sandwich]

180. I honestly don't think she's super concerned about it.

She's just having a blast and making mad bank.

[TwilightGardener]

97. No. The IG's said some of that info was classified as secret at the time it was transmitted.

[jeff47]

99. No. They are being redacted as they are being released.

The "classified after the fact" is actually adding the correct classification markings to the emails.

A classified document has a series of headers, footers and paragraph labels to indicate what information is classified, and at what level. That way no one can pretend they did not know the information was classified.

Those markings are not present in the emails. So they are being added as the emails are released.

A hypothetical example:

Someone emails Clinton "Don't try to poison Castro's ice cream again!".

Manning leaked a document that said one of our plans during the cold war to 'get rid of' Castro was to poison his ice cream. That information is still classified, despite being leaked.

As a result, Clinton had to treat the joke as classified information even though the email does not have classification markings. If you filed a FOIA request for that email, the sentence would need to be redacted before it was released.

[Exilednight]

192. Why would that matter? Even a fool like myself would

Expect that emails dealing in officially sanctioned diplomacy would have a pretty good chance at being classified after the fact.

I keep hearing about how smart Hillary is suppose to be, yet she keeps making stupid ameature mistakes.

[onehandle]

7. Sorry, Hillary Haters. She's #45.

[HFRN]

11. that's odd, I thought they said she would be #44 nt

[SunSeeker]

30. that's odd, I didn't know Obama was running again nt

[jeff47]

116. Whoosh (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

131. I am heading to the gym...

If the candidate they are touting is a proxy for President Obama I am a proxy for Phil Heath.

[Lancero]

31. You've been to 2016?

I hope you remembered to pick up some lotto numbers too.

[7962]

66. Well, Trumps in the lead on the other side, so.......

[Sheepshank]

91. And Dems are the opposite of Reps....so...nt

[7962]

121. My point was you dont need time travel to see her winning in 16,

with the circus going on in the republican party

[Sheepshank]

155. Ahhh got it

[Alfalfa]

108. Disagreeing with Hillary is not the same thing as hating her

[SunSeeker]

137. Purposefully running with lying hit pieces about her is the same thing as hating her. nt

[moobu2]

13. The emails were classified after the fact

This article is an OP by a political activist with a long history of anti-Hillary Clinton and anti-Obama writing. It's nothing.

[TwilightGardener]

101. The emails contained classified information, period. They're being classified now because

she improperly stored them on a home system and didn't give them up until now, to be examined by intel people, but some of the info was indeed classified as secret at the time of transmission.

[jeff47]

114. No. The emails were marked classified after the fact. The information was classified at the time

If you send an email with the sentence, "John is sending us great intel", you are sending classified information (the identity of a spy). Even if you don't put the correct classification markings in the email.

When that unmarked email is discovered, classification markings will be added to the email. If the email is then released via FOIA, that sentence will be redacted.

[BooScout]

17. Trevor Timm has never impressed me...

He seems mostly to only impress himself.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Please see post 14...

Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Boo Scout, has caused some people to take leave of their senses. Let's hope it's temporary...

Larry Klayman, really???

[Cheese Sandwich]

188. I saw that guy on TV one time and he seemed ok

[Thekaspervote]

22. Did you not see Collin Powell came out and said he used the same set up

With a private email account

Stop trying to bury her alive!!

I like Bernie too, much more so, but you know LAY OFF already!!

[tavernier]

43. What??? You mean the OP is a BS supporter?

I NEVER would have guessed!!!

[Bobbie Jo]

134. Well, that's one theory...

[askew]

56. That's a lie.

Powell said that he used personal and gov email. He didn't say he installed a personal email server in his home and used it exclusively. Not the same thing.

It does you no favors to lie about this.

[Zorra]

100. If the neocon republican Colin Powell did it, then that makes it all ok somehow?

I don't understand how that works.

Lie After Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew Ten Years Ago Today and What He Said

As much criticism as Powell has gotten for this -- he calls it "painful" and says, "I get mad when bloggers accuse me of lying" -- it hasn't been close to what he deserves. That's because there's no question that Powell was consciously lying: he fabricated "evidence" and ignored repeated warnings that what he was saying was false.

We know this because of some good reporting and what's seeped into the public record via one of the congressional investigations of pre-war Iraq intelligence. The record is still incomplete, because Congress never bothered to look at how Powell used the intelligence he received, and the corporate media has never taken a close look at what happened. But with what's available we can go through Powell's presentation line by line to demonstrate the chasm between what he knew and what he told the world. As you'll see, there's quite a lot to say about it.
(more)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/colin-powell-wmd-iraq-war_b_2624620.html

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

170. Im willin 2 concede that if Powell, like Hillary, installed a private email server in his home 2 conduct govt business & wiped it clean, then he 2 disqualified himself from eva bein president.

[TwilightGardener]

110. Private email account does not equal private home email server, first off.

Most public officials have private email accounts, they carry several devices to separate business from personal. Secondly, I doubt Powell will ever show himself to have kept classified info at home, because he's not a stupid guy and doesn't want to go on probation with General All-In Petraeus.

[Gman]

24. Horse manure

Sanders supporters and the right wing whack jobs are often indistinguishable when it comes to Hillary.

I'm sure some whack job cross posted this at FR.

[SunSeeker]

27. +1

[misterhighwasted]

51. [phone]

[eridani]

184. Of course there is no difference

Which is why lefties blibber on about Benghazi and love TPP and Keystone XL.

[Bobbie Jo]

25. heh

[SunSeeker]

26. This is a deliberately deceptive article. The emails were marked classified just now.

As Hillary has said all along, all emails she received/sent on her private server were not classified at the time she sent/received them.

Hillary has been "forthcoming." The reason these emails were marked classified after the fact by the State Department is that the State Department was in the process of reviewing them to turn them over to the public at Hillary's request.

[Laser102]

71. You can't say this enough! People keep forgetting that.

[TwilightGardener]

98. Untrue. The Inspector Generals made clear that some of the info in a sample of emails

was considered classified at the time they were sent or received. They were not marked classified, but the info was classified. There are a host of issues here--why was this stuff being sent and stored to a private server, is the main issue.

[SunSeeker]

140. No, they were not considered classified at the time.

If they were, they would have been marked classified, which none of them were.

The Inspector General's report did say what you are alleging--it had nothing to do with Hillary. It was about how the State Department review of emails in response to FOIA requests was not careful enough and was potentially releasing emails that now (although not previously) might be considered classified.

[TwilightGardener]

143. No, information can be secret or top secret without being marked classified.

Please read the IG's report on the matter, they clearly say that the info contained in some of their samples WAS considered classified/secret by the intel communities when the info was transmitted--it was NOT retroactive in some cases, it was current.

[SunSeeker]

152. Nope, the IG report does not say that. nt

[TwilightGardener]

181. Yes, IG spokesperson said it as well. It was in the Wall Street Journal last week.

[SunSeeker]

190. Nope. That was not in the IG report. nt

[TwilightGardener]

193. Yep. This is what the entire article was about.

[SunSeeker]

195. Nope. The article makes the same errors as the NYT article.

Here's a video that shows those errors and actually shows you the IG report, which you apparently have not seen.

[TwilightGardener]

198. Can't watch videos. Find me a link where the inspector generals say they made a mistake

and that Hillary Clinton DID NOT have classified info on her server, and I'll believe you. Here's my link, and I haven't seen a retraction of this reporting:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/

McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network."

The four emails in question "were classified when they were sent and are classified now," spokeswoman Andrea Williams told CNN.

[SunSeeker]

199. Your own cnn link says the NYT story was inaccurate. The OP article restates the NYT story.

And as your own cnn article noted, NONE of the emails were previously marked classified.

The NYT has failed to issue an actual retraction, they just keep changing the story itself. It is really appalling journalism. Again, as your own cnn link says:

The New York Times first reported late Thursday that inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department have asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into Clinton's possible mishandling of classified email. The Times significantly revised its story Friday to say the matter was referred to Justice to examine whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with Clinton's account -- but not necessarily by Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/

Here are the pdfs of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) letter(s) on the OIG website: https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-15-04-05.pdf

As you can see, these OIG letters are about the proper way for the State Department to review the emails for disclosure in response to FOIA requests. It has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's handling of the emails. The very last page of the above OIG pdf link is the June 29, 2015 letter, which is attached as an exhibit to their July 17, 2015 letter at the above OIG link. This June 29, 2015 letter is what the NYT had initially described as a "criminal referral" regarding Clinton's handling of her emails. As you can see from that letter, nothing could be further from the truth. It is clear that, like you, the NYT never bothered to actually READ the letter before making up shit about what it said.

The Inspectors General did not make a mistake. The NYT did. And many news outlets (including the one cited in the OP) simply parroted what the NYT inaccurately said.

[TwilightGardener]

202. The only flaw of the NYT story was the nature of the referral to DOJ.

But other news outlets are reporting about the nature of the emails themselves. The IG's conclusion about her emails was very clear--there was classified info on her server and in her emails. Period. It wasn't retroactively classified, it was classified when it was sent. Period. She mishandled classified info, and now the DOJ must decide what to do with this matter, and the intel people working on her emails have to now mark and redact stuff. I know the Hillary fans want the NYT mistake in reporting about the nature of the referral to be the ENTIRE story, but there's certainly more there.

[SunSeeker]

203. Nope. The IGO made no conclusion that Hillary "mishandled classified info."

There was no "referral" to DOJ to do anything to Hillary. You now have the letters. Nowhere does it say that. The IGO was just addressing how the State Department should handle the FOIA production, so as to avoid production of "potentially classified" information. I see I wasted my time getting you the pdfs, since you refuse to read them, like you refused to watch the video.

[karynnj]

148. who would have marked the emails HRC wrote?

They were not passed through any process that would have done that.

It is highly unlikely that something for which there were no security concerns at the time written would need to be classified 6 years later. In fact, the norm is the opposite.

[SunSeeker]

151. The IG report did not say Hillary failed to comply with any requirements. nt

[TwilightGardener]

182. IG Charles McCullough said she shouldn't have had that info in her emails or on her server.

I'm not sure on what basis you're denying this.

[SunSeeker]

189. Nope. That is not what the IG report said. nt

[TwilightGardener]

194. Yes. It was.

[SunSeeker]

196. Nope. See post 195 above. nt

[jeff47]

120. Marking the email now does not mean the information is classified now.

You send an email that says "John is sending us great intel", but do not mark the email classified. The information (identity of a spy) is still classified, and was classified at the time.

When the email is discovered later, classification markings will be added. If the email is released via FOIA, that sentence will be redacted.

Hillary has been "forthcoming."

Except she didn't release the emails to the State department when she stepped down as SoS, which she was required to do.

[SunSeeker]

142. Hillary has complied with all applicable requirements regarding her emails.

You are mouthing right wing lies about Hillary.

[jeff47]

158. Except for the part where she did not turn them over when she left the job.

That's not a right-wing lie. She really did not turn them over when she left, and was required to do so.

[SunSeeker]

163. She did comply with all requirements.

She did comply with all requirements:

In Clinton’s defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account.

Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.

"Unless she violated a rule dealing with the handling of classified or sensitive but unclassified information, I don’t see how she violated any law or regulation," said Bass, who is now executive director of the Bauman Foundation. "There may be a stronger argument about violating the spirit of the law, but that is a very vague area."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

Plus, she did turn over her emails to the State Department after she left. Please cite the law that required her to turn them over at the exact moment "when she left the job."

[JoePhilly]

28. Is there an actual leak mentioned anywhere in there ... ???

And why do I wonder what the Guardian would be saying if Greenwald, Snowden, or Manning had some how hacked into Hillary's emails regardless of where they were located.

I'm pretty sure they'd have been thrilled about that.

Now they are upset why? Because they couldn't get at Hillary's emails?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. I have a thought...

I have seen the argument made that the server was protected by the Secret Service and seen that argument poo pooed on the presumption that they were only protecting the physical security of the server. After all this is the Secret Service so why isn't it reasonable to assume they were protecting the internal security of the server as well against hacking?

[JoePhilly]

38. What it sounds like to me is that our government still doesn't ...

... really have top end, state of the art IT. And when that is the case, different departments and agencies develop some of their own "solutions".

Meanwhile, the folks on DU who are most upset about Hillary's email system are the same folks who love when some one they like hacks into government systems and leaks anything and everything they can.

Hillary out smarted them. They didn't get her emails, and they are very unhappy about it.

[jeff47]

125. No, they do. They're just operating in a different world.

Your house has a lock on the door. That's probably sufficient for the threat you face (random burglars).

A government facility with classified information has armed guards, vaults, alarm systems, and so on. They need the much higher security because the threat isn't random burglars, it's people with the resources of a nation behind them.

Government IT systems are a pain-in-the-ass just like getting to your desk inside that vault is a pain-in-the-ass, and for the same reason.

And neither the vault nor the IT systems are completely impenetrable.

[JoePhilly]

141. And yet ...

... from what we know so far ... no one broke into Hillary's server ... some folks (Snowden, Manning, others) did however hack, copy, and then and leak tons of other data from government servers.

[jeff47]

159. The people who broke in would not announce it.

You think China and Russia are going to shout, "Ha! We got you!!"

We know Clinton's IT folks really screwed up, because they left the default security certificates on the VPN device protecting her server. That is such an easy thing to exploit it would be embarrassingly incompetent of Russia and China to not break in. And they aren't going to announce that they have a copy of Chelsea's wedding plans.

some folks (Snowden, Manning, others) did however hack, copy, and then and leak tons of other data from government servers.

It's not a "hack" when you were granted access to the information.

[JoePhilly]

162. That's pretty weak.

You have no credible evidence anything was hacked or stolen from Clinton's server. Nothing.

And I gave you two examples in which information was stolen, from exactly the kind of servers you'd be demanding Hillary use, and you look away sheepishly.

The amazing thing about this ... I'm arguing this point with a RW in another forum right now.

I just pointed out to him this "scandal" is a lot like the IRS scandal, and the Ebola scandals.

Two scandals in which nothing actually happened. And this is a third scandal in which again, nothing actually happened.

I get the sense that many of the folks claiming to be so upset about HIllary's server on DU, would have been cheering if Snowden or Manning had gotten access to her emails, where ever they resided, and then leaked them to the world.

[jeff47]

165. Why do you think someone who hacked it would announce it?

That's about the only way you'd get evidence. It's not like they'd leave a note behind.

And I gave you two examples in which information was stolen, from exactly the kind of servers you'd be demanding Hillary use, and you look away sheepishly.

If the information was handed to "hackers" by an aide to Clinton who had access to the servers, your examples would be relevant.

Whoever did Clinton's IT work locked the door, but hung the key next to the knob. To assume the key would not be used is silly.

Two scandals in which nothing actually happened.

That's because you're busy talking about "hacking" instead of where Clinton actually did break the rules.

She stored classified information on an unclassified computer. That's breaking the rules about classified information.

She won't be prosecuted, because it does not rise to the level of a crime. The worst that could happen to her is revoking her security clearance, which she no longer has anyway.

But it's still a very bad discussion to have to have in a campaign. The 30-second ads will be a cakewalk to vomit forth. And since the response requires delving into the technicalities about how the classification system works, you can't respond in a 30-second ad.

It's bad. It's not "She's going to jail" bad. Or "this will destroy her campaign" bad. But that doesn't make it good.

I get the sense that many of the folks claiming to be so upset about HIllary's server on DU, would have been cheering if Snowden or Manning had gotten access to her emails, where ever they resided, and then leaked them to the world

Manning just leaked whatever she could find. That isn't a whistleblower. But hey, we now know that the US found out what Castro's favorite brand of cigars was. Thank god that horrific injustice was exposed.

Snowden is just an idiot who is being exploited by Greenwald. Read the actual documents and you find the claims about them aren't quite true. Greenwald is very careful to say things that are not technically wrong, but give the impression he wants to put out there. Then other people repeat the impression they got without reading the documents.

For example, Snowden has actually only leaked one program that collected data on US persons. The phone records program (legal under an overly-broad 1979 SCOTUS decision that should be re-litigated, or fixed via new laws). Every other "spying on all of us bombshell" isn't quite backed up by the actual documents.

So obviously if either of them got a hold of Clinton's emails, I wouldn't be celebrating. Because I'm already not celebrating what they did get.

[jeff47]

123. Well, emails being released to the public are redacted

That means the information was classified, and since it was on an unclassified server, that was a leak.

Was there a meaningful leak? We don't know yet.

Hypothetical examples to illustrate the point:
"I'll be out of touch until the plane lands at 2pm". Specific travel times are often classified. Yet the plane successfully landed 5 years ago. Pretty meaningless leak.

"Don't poison Castro else's ice cream!". Manning leaked a document saying one plan to get rid of Castro was to poison his ice cream. Because of Manning's leak, the information is de-facto public, but technically classified. Again, pretty meaningless leak.

"John is sending us great intel from Libya". Identity of an active spy is highly classified. Putting that on an unclassified server is a pretty big deal.

We don't know if the leaks were like the unimportant examples, or like the important example.

[Thekaspervote]

29. Thank you SunSeeker

[Thekaspervote]

32. Don't ya think

The guardian, snowden and manning have better things to do?!!! Really!!

[jalan48]

35. What was Hillary's reason for using a private email account?

Is it something we should be ok with no matter who the candidate?

[7962]

69. Yes, as long as there is a "D" after their name

If this was JEB! this thread would look totally different
Everyone knows the rules are different for the Clintons; they made it that way.

[jalan48]

79. It's a bit like Orwell's 1984. Go team!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. Jeb had a private e-mail server as FL governor as well and there are inexplicable gaps

Jeb had a private e-mail server as FL governor as well and there are inexplicable gaps during the purloined 2000 election which was arguably purloined while he was governor.


Would I make political hay out of it, of course as a partisan I would, similar to how partisans are making political hay out of Secretary Of State Clinton's e-mail protocol.


That's politics. It's war...It ain't for the faint hearted. That's why I stand with the Clinton. They are fighters.

[TwilightGardener]

103. I expect him to be an unethical SOB, which is why I won't vote for him.

I wouldn't expect my Dem candidate to be the same way. Also, I'm sure the Jebster had lots of national security related matters on his private server, right? Well, no, because he's a state governor and not the SoS. This is all about proper handling of communications depending on one's position and responsibilities. Hillary fucked up, big time. She doesn't deserve a security clearance.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. You are not compelled to vote for her... I look forward to her becoming #45 without you.

You are not compelled to vote for her... I look forward to her becoming #45 without you.


And, yes, Jeb Bush discussed National Guard movements and the level of security of Florida nuclear power plants on his unsecured e-mail address in the immediate aftermath of 9-11.

Hillary fucked up, big time. She doesn't deserve a security clearance.

Last I checked the denizens of this board don't get to decide who does and doesn't get security clearances.

#DSB@hillaryis45

[TwilightGardener]

112. If the law is applied evenly, she shouldn't be trusted with one.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

118. I would defend your right to death to arrive at that conclusion and not vote for her.

eom

[jalan48]

208. What does this have to do with the propriety of using a private phone/email server

to conduct public business? If the Republicans do it then it's ok?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

209. I said no such thing. If you want to push someone around find someone else, presumably in real life.

eom

[jalan48]

210. Oh my! Go team!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

211. You seem to like to dis strangers...

I gave you an outlet though I knew in advance you wouldn't like it. Color DemocratSinceBirth as not surprised.

[jalan48]

212. Rah! Rah! Vote Blue!

"That's politics. It's war...It ain't for the faint hearted. That's why I stand with the Clinton. They are fighters."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

213. You are full of all this rage. Not as a friend but as a fellow human being I suggest ....

You are full of all this rage. Not as a friend but as a fellow human being I suggest taking it to the gym or confining it to the 'internets', safety first !

[jalan48]

214. Wooooo Hooo-Hillary's #1 !!!! I need to get my pom poms!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

215. I have to go soon. But while keeping you here I kept you from disrespecting strangers in real life.

I have to go soon. But while keeping you here I kept you from disrespecting strangers in real life and that kept you safe, albeit temporarily.

[jalan48]

216. What would I do without you?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

217. "What would I do without you?"

"What would I do without you?"

Exercising all this pent up hostility and aggression in real life, perhaps,could lead to unpleasant consequences...

I mean, dissing random people in real life, what possibly could go wrong, right?

[jalan48]

218. Absolutely, I might get hit in the head and become a Hillary supporter.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

219. In the milieu in which I was raised the consequences of getting hit in the head come with more ...

In the milieu in which I was raised the consequences of getting hit in the head come with more dire consequences and more finality.

[jalan48]

220. Good for you!

[jeff47]

126. Her stated reason was so that she could carry one blackberry instead of two. (nt)

[jalan48]

130. Interesting.

[Maedhros]

204. The intent here is important.

The only reason I can think of is that she didn't want her communications audited, which is fine for a private individual but definitely not acceptable by a public official.

[Thekaspervote]

40. Will probably never know that

[Romulox]

42. We need to know WHAT she knew, and WHEN she knew it. nt

[jehop61]

45. I'm curious

for those so opposed to a Hillary candidacy, just whom do you propose to vote for in the event she is the Democratic candidate in 2016? I seeing so many negative reports here that give the right ammunition against her. Remember 2000.

[misterhighwasted]

46. They'll stay home & pout. And blame Hillary when Bush wins.

We've been down that road before.

[jeff47]

129. In my particular case, it won't matter if Clinton's the nominee.

I don't see any way she can win NC. It's a classic rural-urban divide state, with the urban only able to overcome the rural vote is if the cities are very excited about a candidate. So Obama won it in 2008, and lost it in 2012.

I don't see how Clinton could ever generate enough excitement in NC to win. In addition, the Republicans are already foaming at the mouth to vote against her, making it even harder to win.

And there's other "purple" states that are much easier for her to win, so I don't anticipate her campaign doing nearly enough effort (and money) to encourage that excitement.

So if Clinton is the nominee, I expect my vote to be meaningless. I'll re-evaluate when it's much closer to the general election to see if a miracle occurred.

[ismnotwasm]

55. Yawn.

[Laser102]

65. They weren't classified when she sent and received. BIG difference!

I am soooo tired of this nonsense. I am voting for her regardless of the baseless and repeated attacks on her. As a matter of fact it makes me and a whole bunch of others more determined then less. Tell me she threw puppies in wood chippers. Show me proof. Maybe then. This other stuff is made up crap. Not listening or reading this shit anymore.

[TwilightGardener]

102. Yes, the info contained in some of them was considered classified by intel agencies at the time.

[DCBob]

78. BS issue ginned up by RW media now picked up by Sandernistas.

[Bobbie Jo]

81. As always, consider the source.

[jeff47]

133. Yeah, leaking classified information is totally unimportant.

That's why Manning and Snowden are strolling around free.

[DCBob]

191. Hillary leaked classified information??

Good grief.

[jeff47]

205. Did you think her emails were getting redacted for entertainment value? (nt)

[40RatRod]

82. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said:

“As we go through the contents of these e-mails… we need to look at whether portions of them need to be upgraded in terms of classification,” Toner told reporters.
“These were upgraded to confidential, so none of these documents were classified at the time they were sent,” he said.

[xynthee]

83. Wow, there are a lot of dismissive posts in this thread!

Whether any wrongdoing is ever proven is almost completely irrelevant to me. She showed unbelievably poor judgment in this situation, and has made so many disastrously bad decisions in the past, I'd never be able to trust her. There will always be some annoying scandal going on with her. I HATE annoying scandals!!

[Sheepshank]

96. Her system was secured and while govt emails and files have been hacked

There is absolutely no indication the hers was. Of course there a lot of assumptions being thrown around, but nothing has even come to fruition by those trying so very hard to create a scandal. Remember she is not the only official using private servers. A handful (I've heard 5) of Hillary's missives were classified until after the fact. So yes, making something out of very very little seems to be the flavor of the day/year/election cycle. Again, there was nothing illegal done that anyone has been able to substantiate.

[TwilightGardener]

105. No one knows how her system was secured. No one knows if it was hacked and China and Russia

were able to access what we now know to be classified information held on her home server. It's really bad.

[Sheepshank]

113. See? Continued conjecture and made up shit trying to prove something. Nt

[TwilightGardener]

119. There's no conjecture, government systems are to be used, NOT HOME SET-UPS and private accounts.

This was Hillary's own policy at State, it was the Obama WH's policy--if private accounts had to be used, the business on them was to be forwarded to the appropriate agencies in a timely manner, and classified stuff in no way belonged on them. Government systems, imperfect and hackable as they may be, have a standard for IT checks and maintenance and encryption and oversight that can be measured, someone can be held accountable. Instead she used her home email exclusively for everything, stored it away for years out of reach of State and Congress and FOIA's and archives, AND it turns out to contain classified information. She really just did everything wrong.

[jeff47]

135. The VPN device protecting her server used the default encryption keys.

It would be astounding ineptitude if China and Russia were not reading her email.

Heck, they might have been fighting each other's malware on her server.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

207. The fact that she didn't use private DNS registration gives lie to your claim.

And if you're asking yourself what that means, it could be an indicator that you may not be the best person to judge whether or not her home network was secured.

[Zorra]

122. Agreed. Her poor judgment is the real heart of the matter here. nt

[Thinkingabout]

85. It is important for FOX and listeners to keep it going, when you don't have a candidate in which to

expound upon, the you turn to the Swift Boat plan.

[Sheepshank]

90. Don't be sorry for Hillary fans

When some Dems have bought the RW talking points hook, line and sinker, when Dems promote those talking points in essence doing Rove's job for him....there is a whole other segment of people you should be feeling sorry for.

[nashville_brook]

124. we've been fighting for years for transparency in GOP emails, most recently in FL

with Rick Scott's bogus gmail account that he used for campaigning.

So actually, the HRC campaign is the one doing the GOP's work by making it all that much more difficult to demand transparency and accountability in government communications.

[thesquanderer]

93. The FOIA point is overstated

re:

Responding to a request to release a mere 60 emails, the judge said, “Now, any person should be able to review that in one day – one day… Even the least ambitious bureaucrat could do this.”

Well, no, not necessarily. Not if there are many requests ahead of yours. Not if someone has to review each of the 60 emails to determine whether they might contain classified information, and possibly have to channel or redact/omit accordingly.

[SunSeeker]

139. Exactly right. It is State Department review that is slowing things down.

And apparently that review has not been careful enough,which was the whole point of the report that Clinton haters mischaracterized as a request for a criminal investigation of Hillary.

[MADem]

138. I doubt you're sorry at all!!

Keep beating her up on it, though--it's pissant compared to the five million emails that went POOF in the night from George Bush's White House! Start yelling "Benghazi!" too....

"Comment is Free" from the Guardian...because no one would PAY for it!!! And that particular author just loves himself another candidate...so much for journalistic integrity!

[Bobbie Jo]

145. The OP seems to have abandoned their thread

Go figure...

[DisgustipatedinCA]

147. The OP was alerted. The alerter's accuses the OP of being the banned user Better Believe It

I believe the alert itself is a terms of service violation.

[RiverLover]

161. Thanks for the info....maybe I'll just ban myself. There are way too many heads the sand

& operatives here. This is not something I want to be a part of. I like how the OP article referred to some people as "non-republicans". I think I'm going to use that now, because I'm not a rethug, I'm an FDR Dem with morals. That won't fit anywhere, I won't fit anywhere, once she is nominated. Once the TPP passes. Once drilling in the Artic begins & dirty tar sands run through the drinking water source for millions of Americans ...The Democratic Party will have left me. It already pushed me half way out the door when they allowed Citibank to write their own legislation in the cromnibus & they refused to pass the 21st century Glass-Steagall bills, several times. Its going to fail this time too, with the help of "New Democrats" who vote as non-Democrats...

Its been real!


(Go Bernie Go!!!!)

[sadoldgirl]

149. I said at the beginning of the e-mail issue

that it will not go away, and it has not done so.

I don't question Hillary's veracity, but the problems
with the Clintons is that they may not break the
law, but sail very close to it.

That opens the door to suspicion as well as partisan
attack, and that is what we see.

My reasons to prefer Bernie are due to policy
differences as well as consistency in his views. They
have nothing to do with the e-mails.

Again, this issue will not go away for the time
of primaries and the GE, unless some unforeseen
event surpasses it.

[Juicy_Bellows]

175. I agree, well said.

"Again, this issue will not go away for the time
of primaries and the GE, unless some unforeseen
event surpasses it."

This is a very true statement and the only conceivable thing that would come along and surpass it would be something worse - that's how the media rolls.

Cheers!

[rocktivity]

153. Clinton...repeatedly denied having classified information in her emails,

yet now we find out there are likely “hundreds” of emails containing it...One of her closest aides, Philippe Reines, excoriated Gawker months ago for claiming he was using a private email address to conduct state business during his tenure at the State Department, yet he apparently just turned over 20 boxes of emails containing just that. Does the public not deserve an explanation about these seemingly false statements?

Clinton’s camp can quibble over whether it was a “criminal inquiry” or “security inquiry” until they are all blue in the face, but the underlying story remains correct: it’s against the law to mishandle classified information, and there are apparently many, many emails with classified information in them, despite Clinton’s repeated denials.

Clinton LIKELY has hundreds of classified emails? Her aide has APPARENTLY turned over 20 boxes of them? And there are APPARENTLY many emails with classified information in them? This is weak even for an editorial. Wake me up when those "apparent-lies" turn into "definite-lies."


rocktivity

[Cheese Sandwich]

164. I have scandal fatigue already and still a whole year left to go of this.

Or I guess probably 10 more years of it.

Anyways I can't keep track of all the Clinton email stories.

[eridani]

185. The more attention to emails, the less attention to her overall hawkish foreign policy n/t

[rhett o rick]

187. Good point. nm

[Lil Missy]

201. Benghazi!

[randome]

206. "Email server!" doesn't quite have the same pizzazz, does it?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]