Hillary Clinton’s scandal deepens

[applegrove]

Hillary Clinton’s scandal deepens

By Marc A. Thiessen at the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clintons-sandy-berger-problem/2015/08/03/b08466f0-39d5-11e5-9c2d-ed991d848c48_story.html

"SNIP..............


Already, the number of documents is growing. More classified information was found in a second batch of e-mails made public Friday, which included 37 messages with 64 separate redactions blacking out classified information.

Worse still, Clinton’s apparent violation of the law is ongoing. Her lawyer, David Kendall, reportedly has a thumb drive containing all her official e-mails, including hundreds if not thousands containing classified information. That means that to this day, she apparently continues to unlawfully possess unsecured classified documents and has taken no action to return that thumb drive to the federal government, much less the server on which they were originally unlawfully stored.

Clinton claims that she “did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time.” But the inspector general found classified intelligence from five separate intelligence agencies — the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — in Clinton’s e-mails. Taking intelligence from classified documents and putting it in unclassified e-mails does not make the information unclassified. Indeed, that is arguably an additional offense. There is a separate classified e-mail system — called the SIPRNet — for classified communications. Clinton was required by law to use that system for any e-mails containing classified information.





..............SNIP"

[applegrove]

1. Time to get out in front of this again.

[mahina]

14. Bogus, a non-issue, and a waste of DU electrons. And I'm for Bernie.

[applegrove]

16. I'm for Hillary and I want her to get out in front of this. Right away.

[Agschmid]

65. Yup.

[George II]

88. Thank you.

[mahina]

91. You bet.

BS is BS.

[cantbeserious]

2. Not Looking Good For Team HRC

eom

[redstateblues]

4. Thanks for your genuine concern!

[redstateblues]

40. Good to see you branching out from your

"Two corporate evils" post!

[cantbeserious]

44. Evil Is As Evil Does - To Turn A Phrase

eom

[redstateblues]

80. Love it! Now you're getting somewhere!

[George II]

90. I think his keyboard wore out using those letters over and over and over and over and over again.

[redstateblues]

97. i could have beefed up my 11 year/ 2000 post showing

If I had a good pithy phrase to repost 1000 times. I lurked for a long time after the deity Will Pitt gave me a rough welcome to DU. I'm feeling a little braver now.

[oasis]

102. If the "deity" would have pooh poohed your post 40

I'd given him the old .

Glad you hung around despite the slings and arrows.

[Luminous Animal]

3. I thought they were classified after the fact?

[jeff47]

9. No, redacted and classification markings applied after-the-fact.

That doesn't mean the information was not classified, it means it was not properly marked as classified.

To be fair, a lot of trivial things are often classified. "I'll call you back after we land at 2pm" has classified information in it - the schedule of when the plane lands is often classified. "We're flying in on Tuesday" isn't, "We're landing at 2pm on Tuesday" is.

Since they are redacted, we don't know how important the information is.

[Luminous Animal]

86. Well then, no scandal. The emails were sent and received without a 'classified' designation.

And Hillary is telling the truth.

[jeff47]

116. No, the scandal, such as it is, is not putting that designation on the emails

and storing classified information in an unclassified environment.

Leaving off the SECRET label doesn't magically make the information unclassified.

[1StrongBlackMan]

119. Who is responsible for placing the designation? n/t

[jeff47]

121. Whoever wrote the thing with classified information is responsible for marking it.

And someone who receives something that should be marked, but isn't, is required to report the breach and treat it as classified (in other words, stop the breach and mark the document/email/whatever if it survives)

[1StrongBlackMan]

124. I've seen you sub-thread discussion with Adrahil ...

he/she seems to be basing his position on 20 years of lived experience ... What are you basing your position on?

[jeff47]

128. My own lived experience.

I also had a security clearance.

[1StrongBlackMan]

129. Okay. Thanks. n/t

[kcjohn1]

5. Now we know why

Biden is floating presidential bid.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

66. Hillary is definitely wounded - self-inflicted, as usual - and don't be surprised if Dems are soon considering "ridin with Biden" AND "adorin E. Warren"...

Still on the Bernie bandwagon tho...and there's still some room left...all aboard! Go Bernie Go!

[HappyPlace]

83. Bernie, Warren, I'm fine either way.

Biden is a nice guy but why go with more of the same when we can have a breath of fresh air!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

92. I agree, Biden has more in common w/ Hillary than Bernie or Elizabeth. I'd still take Biden over Hillary if they were my only 2 choices.

[HappyPlace]

146. I would, too.

I don't have anything against Joe Biden, but he's not the breath of fresh air that our other two preference are.

Let's hope we get one of those two, or Biden if we can't have them.

[uponit7771]

6. ...deepens for wingers.

[AngryAmish]

7. The only "scandal" is no one has horsewhipped the reporter.

Fuck him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Marc Alexander Thiessen

Marc Alexander Thiessen (born January 13, 1967[1]) is an American author, columnist and political commentator. He served as a speechwriter for United States President George W. Bush (2004–2009) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (2001–2004). Thiessen's articles have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, National Review, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Weekly Standard, USA Today and other publications. He has also appeared on Fox News, CNN, NPR, and other media outlets. In its January 11, 2010 issue, The Daily Telegraph named Thiessen number 97 of the "100 Most Influential Conservatives in America"


Marc_Thiessen

[applegrove]

10. Oops. But it is out there. Clinton needs to stand up to all accusations.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. She has addressed them...It's up to the voters to decide whether this is disqualifying behavior.

I really don't what more can be said.

[applegrove]

28. I think she said that they didn't think it would be such a big deal.

That they were wrong about that. I want her explanation that she wanted to be a really dynamic Secretary of State and a private server would allow her to do that.

[karynnj]

103. being a dynamic secretary of state is possible with state.gov

I seriously do not accept that HRC was more dynamic than John Kerry as SoS. He uses a State.gov account and still has a long list of accomplishments.

[zeemike]

70. And they will decided when they have heard it on the nightly news for a week.

Hopefully that will not be after the primary and she is the nominee, or we could be in for Bush 3.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. Then it is incumbent upon you to find a candidate in the primary and support him or her

Then it is incumbent upon you to find a candidate in the primary and support him or her so we can avoid that fate. As of now it seems the vast majority of my fellow Democrats are willing to roll with her.


also, please see post 59.

[zeemike]

100. Well I have and am, and it is one without scandals.

But if your fellow democrats ignore them it will be at their peril...because the media has a way of making them stick in peoples minds. And sense there are more independents than Dems or Repukes it is what they think about them that will matter in the GE.

And the danger is that they will vote against rather than for...and rather than not at all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

106. The Clintons have went to battle with the Rethuglicans thirteen times...

The Clintons have went to battle with the Rethuglicans thirteen times; a congressional race. an Attorney General's race, five gubernatorial races, two presidential races, impeachment, and two senate races, and emerged victorious eleven times. I like those odds... The Clintons are riding high ...Their opponents are riding low!!!

[zeemike]

108. And you can't see how people might be getting tired of it?

Especially when their economic life is falling apart and they are working two jobs to put food on the table and pay the rent.

But no, let's recycle the past...offer some more hair of the dog that bit them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. My life was good under the Clintons

I lost my home, my business, my saving, my investments, and my car during the Bush Great Recession. You will have to excuse me if I look back fondly on those years.

[zeemike]

112. Well my life was good under Nixon too but I don't associate him with it.

But do you suppose those that lost it all under Obama feel like you do?
The anger and frustration did not go away with Obama's election, and you can see it all over this country. The promise of change is not enough, it has to manifest itself in the real world.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. President Obama has been a transformational and consequential president.

President Obama has been a transformational and consequential president. He ended the Great Recession, extracted us from two unwinnable wars , extended health care to tens of millions of Americans who were previously uninsured, appointed jurists who made marriage equality a right, and repaired our fractured alliances.

And that's why nearly ninety percent of my fellow Democrats approve of the job he is doing:



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_among_democrats-1046.html

But do you suppose those that lost it all under Obama feel like you do?

Are you blaming President Obama for a recession that began under George Bush, really ?

I am astounded by the contempt for Democrats on a Democratic board but my astonishment is tempered by the fact that folks showing the contempt aren't really Democrats.

[zeemike]

115. Well be astounded all you want.

But I talk to real people in real life and they don't share your view of things.

We have not ended the permanent state of war...and Gitmo is still in operation...and people are still struggling to get by and pay the rent and can still not afford health care despite having health insurance. And for the first 4 years they could blame it on Bush but after that they give that up.

I did not vote for Obama because I thought he was a rock star and I was a fan. And I am not a Democrat because the party is above criticize. The party is supposed to serve us not the other way around.
And I am not on a Democratic Underground board to praise Democrats...but to stand for democratic principles. And self examination is critical to that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. "But I talk to real people in real life and they don't share your view of things. "

"But I talk to real people in real life and they don't share your view of things. "

You talk to people who look like you and think like you and consequently get your own views shouted back at you. This leads you to mistakenly think everybody thinks like you. It's actually a form of narcissism.

I proudly stand with the ninety percent of my fellow Democrats who approve of the job our esteemed president is doing:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_among_democrats-1046.html

[zeemike]

131. "You talk to people who look like you and think like you"

Now that is really funny because I am the only white anglo living where I do for miles around, and the only one who does not speak Spanish or Tewa. There are others like me here but they are few and far between...My Doctor is from India...We have a large community of Muslims and Seiks.

Perhaps it is you that lives in a bubble.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

133. If Los Angeles is a bubble then I live in a bubble.

Oh, my doctor is from the Philippines.


I am not saying there aren't folks that are angry but their anger isn't viewed through a 1%-99% prism. The 1% are an abstraction to them.

[Adrahil]

20. She has... and check stuff out first...

This dude is also a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and is writing BS trying to sink the Iran deal. He's a complete RW nut.

[applegrove]

26. I am a Hillary supporter. I posted this so we flush it out. Because it is out there.

[Adrahil]

29. And it will be. The GOP smear machine is going to keep stuff churning forever.

That's what they do.

[Agschmid]

67. Yup.

They will do this to any/all our candidates.

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. And it seems to be a cottage industry on DU, as well. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. The right and the fringe left hates Hillary and they unite in a unholy alliance against her.

We're used to it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. After 7+ years ...

Yep.

[Dawson Leery]

12. Romney's thugs are making the rounds spouting the same bull nonsense.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Hindsight is better than foresight and in hindsight the private e-mail server wasn't a great idea...

Hindsight is better than foresight and in hindsight the private e-mail server wasn't a great idea but no candidate is perfect. At some point the Republicants will need to start talking about what they are going to and not what Hillary did.

[jeff47]

18. So, they not actually redacting anything?

'Cause if they are redacting anything, then she had classified information on that server.

The putz here overstates the legal danger to Clinton - she could not be prosecuted for this unless they manage to prove she was intentionally sending the classified information to another country or selling it. And there's zero evidence of either.

The worst punishment she could face would be loss of her clearance, which she no longer has since it ended when she resigned as SoS.

Also, the putz forgot to mention Clinton's lawyer has an active security clearance, and the thumb drive is in a safe that meets the required standards for SECRET. The thumb drive only becomes a problem if it has TS on it, and I severely doubt Clinton sent anything TS in an email.

[Adrahil]

24. Some things to keep in mind.

If she received classified information that was unmarked, she is NOT responsible for identifying it as classified. If she had classified information but was unaware it was classified, again, that's a not a problem for her so long as she did not generate the information. Also, generally speaking, if the mail should not have been on her private email, it should also have not been on her .gov email. I was federal employee holding a security clearance for 20 years.

[jeff47]

30. She isn't responsible for receiving it, but she is responsible for storing it.

Let's say someone without a clearance emailed her information that was leaked by Manning. Along the lines of "Hey, could you remind me what Castro's favorite cigar is?" (Manning leaked a SECRET document that mentioned we found out what Castro's favorite brand of cigars was.)

That information is still classified. So Clinton had to treat it as classified. She would not be in trouble for receiving the email. She would be in trouble for storing the email on an unclassified system.

(But this "trouble" does not reach the level of a prosecutable offense. The worst that could happen is she loses her clearance, which already ended when she stepped down as SoS.)

Also, generally speaking, if the mail should not have been on her private email, it should also have not been on her .gov email.

Yes, but if she had a .gov email, the "storage issue" is a problem for the State Department's IT crew, not Clinton.

[Adrahil]

33. The storage requirement is only an issue if you KNOW it is classified.

If you don't know it is classified (that is, it was not properly marked, or otherwise had been informed it was classified), then you are not held responsible for incorrect storage. I mean, how are you supposed to know? The same is true for the IT bubbas. If someone incorrectly receives unmarked classified data, the IT bubbas are not held responsible for improper storage of classified data. Otherwise, they'd get in trouble all the time.

[jeff47]

43. No, that just controls the severity of your punishment.

If you did know it was classified, you'd get in much more trouble.

If you didn't know it was classified, you'd get a talking to about what is classified. For example, one of my former co-workers got a talking to for looking at the documents leaked by Manning on his home computer. He thought since they were leaked he didn't have to protect them.

Since the information is now redacted, we don't know if it was obviously classified or not.

I mean, how are you supposed to know? The same is true for the IT bubbas. If someone incorrectly receives unmarked classified data, the IT bubbas are not held responsible for improper storage of classified data. Otherwise, they'd get in trouble all the time.

They usually avoid getting in trouble by not knowing it is there. It's not like they're trolling everyone's inbox. They are required to properly delete it from the server when it is found.

[Adrahil]

53. You are incorrect on this.

Your buddy got a talking to because he SHOULD have know it was not unclassified, since a basic rule of handling classified information is that an unauthorized release of classified information does not declassify it. You get reminded of that every year in security refresher training. However, you are NOT expected to have the classification guides memorized. Once, long ago, I was sent (not email, good old-fashioned hard copy) some unmarked classified data. It was a bus listing. It looked just like any other bus listing. I would have had to do some pretty serious research to determine it was classified when I received. I did not learn it was classified until I attempted to look up one of the messages in the unclassified ICD. It wasn't there. But it was in the classified supplement. I informed my boss, we got the document properly protected, and the security guys contacted the sender (I don't know what happened at that end). I did not get in even a little bit of a talking to, despite the fact that I had it for some time before I realized it was in fact classified.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Bus listing?

eom

[Adrahil]

81. A listing of messages available on a digital data bus. nt

[jeff47]

57. No, the difference in our opinions comes from your assumption that she didn't/couldn't know.

Let's say she sent an email "I'll call you after we land at 2". She should have received a briefing that explained the details of her travel schedule would often be classified. Thus she should have known that the sentence above contains classified.

Since the information is now redacted, there is no way to know if she should have known it was classified.

(And yes, that isn't the best example since the classification would expire after the plane landed, but it's an easily accessible example to people who never had clearances)

[Adrahil]

104. Surely it was redacted by the folks responsible for

investigating the issue.

Nut it strikes me that you are attempting to interpret all the facts in the way Trey Gowdy would, by assuming Clinton was in the wrong. The "should have known" standard is very subjective. I doubt it will carry much weight unless there is actual evidence to indicate she REALLY should have know.

I think the REAL issue here is why State and apparently 5 intel agencies were sending unmarked classified data over standard email.

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. Fantastic exchange ...

One party knows what they are talking about, having lived it; the other ... well ... not so much. But, does that distinction end the discussion? Nope, not on DU; where, some insist that one's opinion informed by vicarious experience (or in some cases, pulled off a blog/newspaper, or, increasingly so, out of thin air) should hold equal, if not more, weight than, another's opinion, informed by lived experience.

On another note: I wonder why Stephen Hawking won't engage my discussion of Theoretical Astrophysics? After all ... I've read several comic books and own the Big Bang Theory Box Set!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

126. Are you suggesting there were several parties who "show have know(n)" better?

eom

[jeff47]

130. Perhaps I'm coming across too much as saying she must have known.

I'm saying she may have known. Not that she must have known.

Without specific examples, I have trouble believing she could not have known. She was an original classification authority, thanks to her position, so she is supposed to be well versed in what is classified and what is not.

I don't think we can claim she could not have known in all cases without the details of a good number of those cases.

But that's the "legal" aspect of what could happen. Which is already moot since she did not break federal law. She may have broken the executive orders, which means the "worst" punishment is already moot.

But she's in a political campaign now. Just being legal does not mean there is no problem. This subject would create a strong 30-second ad for a Republican PAC, and "I didn't know" can not diffuse the effect of that ad.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

72. Wrong...the standard is known or should have known info is classified. Hillary, the head of the St Dept, of all people, should know what info is so sensitive as to be considered classified...

...whether it's officially marked or not...it's irrelevant. Based solely on what we know so far - and, no doubt, much more will be revealed - there's no question Hillary was involved in circulating and otherwise mishandling information of a nature that was known, or should have been known, to be classified.

[Adrahil]

74. Should have known....

Is usually intepreted narrowly. You are not expected to memorize classification guides. Likewise, you are not expected to sort through content and ensure it is all marked properly. Taht simple. Should have known is usually interpreted as meaning that you had access to a specific data type that was always classified, and so should recognize that type of data. For example, time schedules with specific date/time/location is always classified. You should know that is classified if you deal with it frequently, and therefor should know such infomration is classified even if unmarked. You are setting an unrealistic standard. Clinton likely received hundreds of reports each that wee unclassified. She would not be expected to ensure each one was actually unclassified, since anyone sending it to her should know that sending classfied information over such email,is not permitted.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

94. Not saying your wrong on all points, and you make some good ones, but if Hillary forwards an email, the burden shifts to her...

and then, just by way of example, communicating things like the scheduling of confidential meetings or location of essential personnel are routinely classified. So, by your own standard, Hillary would then be responsible for mishandling such classified information that she knew, should have known, needed to be secured.

That's all I'm saying; I think we should be able to agree on that much.

[artislife]

78. This is a self inflicted wound

Why did she do this? Even if it is nothing, she has handed them talking points. How silly.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

96. Yes, if nothin else, it shows EXTREME lack of judgment on Hillary's part. This is precisely why Bernie-who has shown excellent judgment on a whole host of issues-is deservin of serious consideration..

and why he is surgng in the polls, while Hillary is steadily dropping. Go Bernie Go!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. This gets lost

This gets lost:

Also, generally speaking, if the mail should not have been on her private email, it should also have not been on her .gov email.

It should have been sent to a more secure address than a yougov address and the person who sent it has potential legal exposure and not the person who received it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I see conservative commentators comparing HRC's actions to Sandy Burger and General Petraeus.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that in hindsight using a private e-mail server was a really bad idea. But I don't think it's disqualifying behavior....

In the cases of General Petraeus and Sandy Burger there was mens rea , i.e. , a conscious attempt to mishandle classified information. In the instance of Petraeus he took classified information from his office and gave it to his lover who was writing a book and in the instance of Sandy Burger he literally hid classified information in his socks and took it home with them. I don't believe either belonged in the hoosegow because while they deliberately mishandled classified information they didn't do it for nefarious purposes.

It's also my understanding that there are different levels of secured systems...If it was really secret information it would never be sent over a yougov address.


This is neither here nor there but it's not as if the Secretary Of State has a job where she's sitting in an office working on a government computer 9-5. She's out and about all the time so not giving much thought to how you get your e-mail makes a certain kind of sense to me.

[jeff47]

37. Yes, this case is nothing like those.

But having to get deep into the weeds on the technical details about the regulations and laws surrounding classified information is not good.

The 30-second ad will say something like "She gave away our secrets!!" as a manila folder labeled "SECRET" falls into the hands of a dark-skinned person. Responding to that will require something similar to "I voted for it before I voted against it".

It's also my understanding that there are different levels of secured systems...If it was really secret information and it would never be sent over a yougov address.

There are, but it isn't really relevant here. No one is claiming she literally copied a classified document into her email. Even the Republicans.

Most likely, it is something that is technically classified but pretty trivial. For example, she could have sent something like, "I'll call you after the plane lands at 2pm". The details of a travel schedule are often classified to help prevent the plane from being shot down. "I'll be there on Tuesday" isn't, "The plane lands on 2pm Tuesday" is.

Or she could have received something from a person without a security clearance that had classified information. For example, some information that Manning leaked. It's all still classified, so Clinton would be "in trouble" for storing that email on an unclassified system. Not for receiving the email.

A .gov email address absolves her of the second example - storage would be State's IT Department's problem. It would not absolve her of the first example.

Since the information's redacted now, we don't know how important the information in the emails is.

As for "in trouble", she can't be prosecuted for any of this. She'd have to either sell the information, or try to give it to a specific foreign government to be prosecuted. The worst that could happen in my above examples would be she loses her clearance. Since she no longer has one, that's moot.

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. Yes they are.

But I bothered going get the last batch. Time to go over them again.

[Cha]

145. Yeah, I was just going to say.. isn't Marc Thiessen one of those gopropagandists writing for

the wapo? yep.

[GeorgeGist]

11. Mark Theisen: RW hack from the Bush empire.

Fuck him.

[enough]

17. Thiessen is pre-debunked. I'm not a Clinton supporter, but this is the sort of thing that's

going to bring people back to her. Why would anyone consider Thiessen to be a reliable source on this question? After a while the witch hunt gets ridiculous.

In then end, as usual, I will be brought around to voting for Clinton because her enemies are so despicable. Just as happened during Obama's second election.

[yallerdawg]

19. This is all such bullshit!

Why are these idiots insisting Hillary Clinton is the only one on the planet who thinks you could email classified material?

Email (and anonymous blogging) can be seen, saved, filed, printed, and documented forever by who knows who!

Where are the DUers screaming and yelling about government classification of everything they do! I bet there is nothing classified in any of that material - just embarrassing at worst. Assange and Snowden blew it up, exposed emails that are credited with the Arab Spring and changing US policy - none of that was classified, no heads rolled?

All just special treatment for Hillary, those 'higher standards'!

Just plain bullshit!

[applegrove]

23. She made the mistake of doing something in the shades of grey. She needs to come out and explain it.

To give context to her actions. And do so forcefully. Some reason that will stick in people's minds. Otherwise this will turn into Benghazi where it seems like she did something wrong to half the country because the GOP will parrot it incessantly as if it is a thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. To half the country she did something wrong just by breathing. We are a divided people.

eom

[ion_theory]

21. I just noticed how much her logo looks like Fed Ex... nt

[DCBob]

22. Its not a scandal until someone can prove she knew they were classified at the time.

I think that wont be possible.

[jeff47]

32. That would only matter for whether or not she could be punished for it.

Scandals are not the same as prosecution or other legal sanction. Having an affair is legal, but still can be a scandal.

[DCBob]

38. A scandal requires something to be scandalous.

This is not scandalous unless proven she knew they were classified. I think all she needs to say is she wasn't aware they were classified.

[jeff47]

41. Something need not be scandalous to you to be scandalous to others.

To me, this situation shows poor judgement and is "bad". It does not rise to what I'd consider scandalous. But I'm not everyone.

[DCBob]

42. No doubt the RW media and every Republican will consider it scandalous.

Heck, Hillary getting a "fancy" haircut is considered scandalous to them.

[jeff47]

45. It is an excellent subject for a 30-second ad.

No way to know if such an ad will be "Daisy" or ignored.

[DCBob]

48. Thank goodness we have folks here on DU on top of this.

[raindaddy]

71. It would be scandalous for a Sec. of State not to know the info she was sending was classified..

And she's running for President????? Ain't looking good..

[DCBob]

107. There is no hard definition of what is or what is not considered classified.

That's why some information can be classified at one period of time then reclassified a non-classified later.. and vice-versa. Its not always clear cut.

[raindaddy]

135. When using a private e-mail logic would tell us....

to always error on the side of caution....

[DCBob]

136. I think that was the whole point of her using private email server.

It was safer and more stable than using government system. Many government offices back then resorted to using outside email service due to problems with government systems. I am a bit familiar with this issue.

[raindaddy]

140. You have it completely backwards...

But at least you're a good example of how far some people will go to defend HC...

[DCBob]

143. I dont think so.

[fbc]

25. She should just turn herself in.

We don't need a manhunt and a possible tragedy with an overzealous militarized police force.

[navarth]

75. d'oh

you owe me a keyboard, that was funny

[Scuba]

27. Like Benghazi, this is another contrived scandal that has no legs, media dead-horse-whipping ...

... aside. Seems like they only attack her for things easily countered or about which the public doesn't care.

There are no right-wing attacks on her most egregious policies, positions or acquaintances.

[Zorra]

35. Mark Thiessen is the author. Bad source. nt

[misterhighwasted]

39. HAAA. OhKaaay. "The SSSSSScandal Deeeepens" ohhhh noooos

Hillary did nothing illegal nor unethical no matter how hard some haters try to push the sssscandal on the nation.

Right Wing News trickling down from "Bull Shit Mountain". Jon Stewart

I see she's been hitting JEB rather hard lately, and she has taken them all on since the PP defunding debacle, and she has also called out Rubio & Walker.
And here, as expected, right on time, the Email SSSScandal gets regurgitated into damning & shocking New News.

Pity that's all they have on her, THERE'S THE WOMEN'S HEALTH RIGHTS ISSUE, AND THE VOTERS RIGHTS ISSUES.
Hillary has certainly been rather vocal about those favorite RW dreaded evils.

Lemme take a look at the big picture here. hmmm Looks a lot like the same big picture that appeared when she announced her Campaign. And every time she put out a statement or appeared at an event.

Same Right Wing shit different day.
Fools fall for it. Hillary's loyal voter base? Never. They have seen this Right Wing gotcha show for the past 25 years.
They have become predictable & worthy of an eyeroll at the most.

But hey, jump right on the Rovian crash cart if it tickles your fancy.
The hateful Right Wing isn't touching Hillary Clinton's crown.

[ibegurpard]

46. this will follow her all the way

Through the elections. It's not going anywhere. People here not talking about it will not make one whit of difference. The right wing will use it and the media (which hates Hillary ' s guts since she freezes them out) will be glad to provide them airtime. Will it influence Joe America? I have no idea. It doesn't bother me. But it ain't going anywhere. You want Hillary? You're getting this too.

[jeff47]

49. Yep. To quote myself from upthread

The 30-second ad will say something like "She gave away our secrets!!" as a manila folder labeled "SECRET" falls into the hands of a dark-skinned person. Responding to that will require something similar to "I voted for it before I voted against it".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Isn't there somebody named Snowden is similar trouble for "mishandling" state secrets?

Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton

[jeff47]

51. No, he "sold" secrets. So he's in a lot more trouble.

"Selling" them in the form of food, lodging and sanctuary in Russia. That's actually against federal law.

For Clinton to break federal law, she would have to sell the information, or try to send it to a specific foreign government. And not even the Republicans are claiming she did that.

Most likely, she was sloppy. The worst punishment she could face would be losing her clearance, though that would be akin to life in prison for a parking ticket. Also, she no longer has one, since it should have ended when she stepped down as SoS.

[ericson00]

50. why do mods allow this kind of shit?

just because its the Washington Post doesn't mean it means anything. After all, the NYT (and WaPo) also reported on the non-scandals of Obama and Biden's admin too.

[bigtree]

52. the 'scandal' here is using republican operative's bullshit to attack a Democratic candidate

...on a Democratic board.

You do realize this is a Bush crony writing this drivel?

[ericson00]

54. sometimes its hard to differentiate this place from Drudge

which is why I follow the words of wisdom:

I'm dying to see a re-enactment either when Hillary gives her 2016 landslide victory speech of January 20, 2017

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. Well ...

sometimes its hard to differentiate this place from Drudge

To be fair, it seems one pulls from the other!

[Tommy2Tone]

73. Dem boards are becoming less and less about Dems

Same think at Daily Kos and Huff Post. The ¨anyone but Hillary¨ bunch I believe would support the Donald rather than Hillary.

[senz]

137. This email stuff is just rightwing "gotcha" crp. But HC doesn't sound Dem anymore...

at least not to me. Maybe Daily Kos, Huff Post, etc. are reacting to HC herself.

[Tommy2Tone]

142. Maybe you are not paying attention

Watch the debates tonight and see how much they are like Hillary.

[senz]

149. Maybe not...

...but I did watch last night and, yep, some of them are too much like her for my comfort.

[AgingAmerican]

56. I am sure the GOP will start the hearings just before the election

The whole email server thing, while foolish on Clinton's part, will die out like all the other Clinton 'scandals'.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. And for all their scandals the Clintons are 11-2 in their battles with the Repugs...

That says something...

[AgingAmerican]

61. Yes

it says the Republicans are idiots.

While the Republicans were impeaching Bill Clinton, his approval ratings were around 80% His approval numbers actually rose sharply during the hearings. Even many Republicans weren't falling for it.

I laugh when folks are afraid of how the GOP might react to something.. The GOPs reaction to anything is lie based and stupid by default.

[ismnotwasm]

58. Yawn

[jalan48]

62. This has replaced Benghazi as the Republican's cause celebre.

Why Hillary decided to use private email to do public business is a good question though.

[JoePhilly]

105. Just another slot on their Wheel Of Outrage.

[artislife]

63. Drip drip drip

a little water can't do that much damage, can it?

[senz]

148. Perfect.

This is why we need artists.

[mcar]

64. Theissen? Really?

I expect to see Will or Krauthammer posted here next.

[LittleBlue]

68. She's now been caught in a lie

She isn't trustworthy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. Where did she lie?

I will be waiting.

[Tommy2Tone]

69. Did you CC this to Red State?

[geek tragedy]

77. Trash thread, and trash forum.

GD primaries is little different than Discussionist or free republic.

[applegrove]

79. So we don't need to discuss GOP tactics? Hillary's weaknesses?

[jberryhill]

82. The permanent headline

[Fred Sanders]

84. The real scandal is how many folks have forwarded so many scandals that turned out to be lies.

The Bush-era Media That Cried Wolf. Using the same Bush-era wolves!

[thesquanderer]

85. Marc Thiessen? Really? You might as well quote Rush Limbaugh.

I'm a Bernie supporter, but I can't take that column seriously.

[Vattel]

87. Still at level of tempest in a teapot.

[Jeb Bartlet]

89. Thiessen

is a right wing political hack writer, always has been. His article is nothing but muck raking garbage of the worst kind. Fuck this typical lying Republican piece of shit.

[Cosmic Kitten]

93. Screw the appologist! She is A liar. EOM

We Can Do better!

OR, just pay me
and call it a draw

[marble falls]

95. K & R

[redstateblues]

98. Ben Gazzara!!

[redstateblues]

99. Vince Foster!! Whitewater!! Rose Law Firm!!

[akbacchus_BC]

101. I do not know about you all, the only viable person for President is Mrs. Clinton. Bernie Sanders is

not known. Do you want a Republican to win and you know the supreme court is at stake. Unless Mr. Biden steps in, it is Hilary, you have got to elect her!

[One of the 99]

111. When you start posting hit pieces from a well know Conservative hack

You really have to start to question your soul.

[applegrove]

134. You don't think we should be discussing what is out there?

[One of the 99]

141. Please you're not looking for a discussion.

Don't insult my intelligence.

[applegrove]

144. I'm a Hillary supporter and I am looking to get out there

in front of the issue. See the reply #1, which was me trying to start a discussion. Do we let the GOP float this stuff and not consider it or discuss how Hillary should respond? When would you have us or her respond? After it is entrenched? Do you thing this will just go away if you don't see it? You can look at all my OPS. I post articles I think are important and have not been covered on the DU. I don't put my comments in the OP. I usually am reply #1. To keep things clear. So no issue of importance is missed.

[kenfrequed]

113. Hachet job by a hack

Seriously, could we just get back to the issues.

I am not interested in the latest Faux-noise, Murdoch-Koch pile of bullshit tabloid nonsense.

Lets get back to talking about bread and butter economic issues.

[moobu2]

118. This is an opinion piece from the same guy who wrote speeches for George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld

lying us into a war with Iraq. He's nothing more than a right wing propagandist.

This is what Wikipedia says about Mark A. Thiessen.

"Marc Alexander Thiessen is an American author, columnist and political commentator. He served as a speechwriter for United States President George W. Bush (2004–2009) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (2001–2004)."
<snip>
"The Daily Telegraph named Thiessen number 97 of the "100 Most Influential Conservatives in America".
<snip>
"currently the Staff Director of the Senate Republican Policy Committee,"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Thiessen

[liberal N proud]

132. It is funny how this stuff is NOW classified but wasn't when it was sent

And the GOPers and haters are all jumping on the classified part but not when they were classified.

[senz]

138. I don't care about Hillary's emails.

That's just "gotcha" politics, afaik. The worst her email situation shows me is that she's secretive and entitled. Yawn, so what else is new? What I care about is what a candidate will do for the American people and the environment. And that's why I support Bernie Sanders for President of the United States.

[artislife]

147. Pretty much this. nt