2016 Postmortem

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)

6. "You were prepared to say she didn't jeopardize," Chris Wallace said.

Reply to B2G (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:22 AM

Apr 2016

He was prepared? Why would Obama have to be prepared to come on TV and say she hadn't jeopardized?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

132 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama: Clinton Didn't "Intentionally" Put America In Jeopardy; [View all] NWCorona Apr 2016 OP

What does he mean by 'emails that she owned'? B2G Apr 2016 #1

I'm thinking her personal emails but that was a bit weird NWCorona Apr 2016 #4

"You were prepared to say she didn't jeopardize," Chris Wallace said. notadmblnd Apr 2016 #6

haha. That is commom phrase--used a lot. riversedge Apr 2016 #105

Watch the video. Transcripts can be deceiving. thesquanderer Apr 2016 #117

I believe he meant she owned the responsibility for the carelessness. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #9

Did you hear what she said on MTP last week? 2cannan Apr 2016 #60

AGREED! THEY ARE OUR FUCKING EMAILS! CorporatistNation Apr 2016 #17

I think it means on her server and that she has "owned up" to carelessness. Don't freak out. Hoyt Apr 2016 #54

Who's freaking out? B2G Apr 2016 #61

If you listen to the video, it's clear to anyone who can hear inflections. Hoyt Apr 2016 #66

It's awkwardly written - he means she owns the carelessness. Avalux Apr 2016 #72

Watch the video. Transcripts can be deceiving. thesquanderer Apr 2016 #114

It is an interesting choice of words CoffeeCat Apr 2016 #127

Sounds like he would agree with charging her with this felony: 18 USC Sec. 793(f) leveymg Apr 2016 #2

I don't see "intent" as part of that statute. Am I missing something? nt antigop Apr 2016 #30

Exactly, there doesn't have to be intent . .. .negligance is enough. pdsimdars Apr 2016 #32

Well, the data has to be lost, stolen, etc. It "could have been compromised" is not in the statute. Hoyt Apr 2016 #71

Well Hillary did have the server wiped, so she was trying to lose the emails. All in it together Apr 2016 #80

Obviously, they were not lost. Not sure you'd have access even if they'd been on a govt server. Hoyt Apr 2016 #81

They were lost except the NSA had a "backup" copy. When she sent classified info, she also broke leveymg Apr 2016 #84

They weren't lost in the sense some spy from an enemy could use them to our detriment. Jeeez. Hoyt Apr 2016 #85

Doesn't have to be lost. Only has to be "removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to leveymg Apr 2016 #88

Don't think it was taken from it's proper place of custody. Hoyt Apr 2016 #89

Nobody in gov't says she was authorized to place classified info on her private server. Nobody. leveymg Apr 2016 #92

Bingo. Proof of intent is not an essential element of this felony charge. leveymg Apr 2016 #62

I wonder how this Executive Order fits into this equation? CoffeeCat Apr 2016 #128

I always liked Chief Justice Rugg's definitions ky_dem Apr 2016 #49

What "top secret" information was released/lost. Don't see in statute that it applies to it COULD Hoyt Apr 2016 #58

The statute applies to all classified information that is lost, stolen, copied (abstracted), etc. leveymg Apr 2016 #74

Don't think so because nothing was lost, etc. I'll leave it to the attorneys, but "intent" is Hoyt Apr 2016 #78

Here's HRC's signed security agreement - "classified info is marked or unmarked classified info"> leveymg Apr 2016 #79

Still wasn't lost, stolen, given to enemies, etc. Sorry. Hoyt Apr 2016 #86

"removed from its proper place or delivered",or "abstracted" not just "lost, stolen, or destroyed." leveymg Apr 2016 #90

"Abstracted" means - hey Isis, I saw email that said something to effect we will invade on April 12. Hoyt Apr 2016 #91

"Abstracted" means "Jake, remove headers and send unsecure." That's what "abstracted" means leveymg Apr 2016 #96

I think that is what "redacted" means. In any event, did Clinton remove such identifiers and send to Hoyt Apr 2016 #99

The terms are analogous for this purpose. She had reason to believe it could be used to the leveymg Apr 2016 #103

But you do have to show it was lost, stolen, taken/given to others, etc. You haven't done that yet. Hoyt Apr 2016 #104

You haven't read all the possible ways the law can be violated. Also includes "communicates" leveymg Apr 2016 #106

When she sent classified uncertified server she: (1) through gross negligence permits the same leveymg Apr 2016 #82

"gross negligence" has a specific legal meaning. DCBob Apr 2016 #111

Instructing aides to strip classification headers and "send unsecure" is pretty grossly negligent. leveymg Apr 2016 #112

Still desperately digging. DCBob Apr 2016 #113

It is the AG who determines whether to press charges, not The President. JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #115

Of course.. but who would know better than the President if there was anything significant here. DCBob Apr 2016 #116

Actually, Obama said he "hasn't been paying attention to the details." leveymg Apr 2016 #118

If he had any suspicion the shit was going to hit the fan on this.. DCBob Apr 2016 #119

The FBI? Are you suggesting the FBI leaks details of active investigations or POTUS solicits it? JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #121

No but Obama knows a helluva alot more about this than almost anyone else. DCBob Apr 2016 #123

I'd rather not take a chance on her NOT "Intentionally" putting America in Jeopardy notadmblnd Apr 2016 #3

AGREED! Mr. President Please Explain How Hillary Merits Your Comment As Being "Outstanding" As... CorporatistNation Apr 2016 #19

Bad judgement Bjornsdotter Apr 2016 #5

If you are told not to do something 2pooped2pop Apr 2016 #7

That kind of sounds like an "As far as I know" moment. Autumn Apr 2016 #8

Yes, that's it "As far as I know" Fumesucker Apr 2016 #10

Payback comes eight years later! reformist2 Apr 2016 #24

And chilled to a Pluto-like temperature Fumesucker Apr 2016 #36

maybe reading this too hastily but amborin Apr 2016 #11

Sounded to me noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #29

yes, exactly amborin Apr 2016 #35

I was actually shocked noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #38

totally agree: amborin Apr 2016 #43

Getting Around the "strict line" noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #47

So when he said she was careless with the emails was that the message to indict? awake Apr 2016 #129

It's more complicated than that noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #131

Well he did say he had to be "careful" in what he said awake Apr 2016 #132

Well that's a great campaign slogan. Nanjeanne Apr 2016 #12

^^^^^^^^^^^ pdsimdars Apr 2016 #33

Well done! Bjornsdotter Apr 2016 #51

+10000000 azmom Apr 2016 #108

Brava!! n/t bvf Apr 2016 #122

There was an article on a computer site last week that said for the first couple of months Vinca Apr 2016 #13

AND.....her mails were likely breached on the Asian trip during that time. grasswire Apr 2016 #98

WOW. "Careless" is really not that far from "negligent"... He kind of threw her under the bus. reformist2 Apr 2016 #14

So she ACCIDENTALLY set up her own server? Waiting For Everyman Apr 2016 #15

The implication is that Hillary is a clueless naif Fumesucker Apr 2016 #37

the implication being that you slipped restorefreedom Apr 2016 #95

Obama all but said Abouttime Apr 2016 #16

But all of those FACTS are still out there which won't go away. And Obama and whoever the VP Skwmom Apr 2016 #21

It is why they want Bernie out notadmblnd Apr 2016 #22

Or once Hillary has the numbers then the hammer comes down awake Apr 2016 #46

Something like that. "Drip, drip, drip", so sayeth a federal Judge. nt leveymg Apr 2016 #97

Hmm. bvf Apr 2016 #124

And to top it off Abouttime Apr 2016 #18

Lynch has motive to do just that. grasswire Apr 2016 #100

Did an outstanding job? Really? n/t Skwmom Apr 2016 #20

He lost me as truthful when he said, "as Secretary of State (she) did an outstanding job." EndElectoral Apr 2016 #23

Agreed NWCorona Apr 2016 #25

Better to say nothing. agracie Apr 2016 #110

It was his "Heckuva job, Brownie" moment. HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #27

GMTA nt grasswire Apr 2016 #102

Like "Heckuva job, Brownie!" grasswire Apr 2016 #101

it totally wasn't intentional AgerolanAmerican Apr 2016 #26

I think Obama is wrong. HassleCat Apr 2016 #28

Here is what she said: antigop Apr 2016 #77

She did not "intentionally" do it, so she "stupidly" did it? that wendylaroux Apr 2016 #31

Intentionally, interesting. kcjohn1 Apr 2016 #34

did she intentionally try to get around FOIA? nt antigop Apr 2016 #39

Yes, and to evade subpoenas, and that was intentional. OOJ. leveymg Apr 2016 #94

He referred to it as an "investigation", not a "security review". nt antigop Apr 2016 #40

Oh so it's not intentional... She's just incompetent GeorgiaPeanuts Apr 2016 #41

Of course she didn't, she just made ANOTHER BAD DECISION, according to her! ViseGrip Apr 2016 #42

Clinton Didn't "Intentionally" Put America In Jeopardy; Ferd Berfel Apr 2016 #44

if she is totally absolved, this is going to create an uproar amborin Apr 2016 #45

There is a key legal meaning to that word. DCBob Apr 2016 #48

The key word was intentional... Punkingal Apr 2016 #50

Take that a step further: it's still a crime even if there is no actual harm to nat'l security leveymg Apr 2016 #126

How does Obama get to opine on the intent of someone else? merrily Apr 2016 #52

Hillary worked for him.. in case you forgot. DCBob Apr 2016 #55

Condescender, please. Employers have no special knowledge of an employee's intent. merrily Apr 2016 #57

Hes not testifying.. just providing his informed opinion. DCBob Apr 2016 #63

No kidding, Sherlock. Yet nothing you posted negates a thing in my posts 52 or 57. merrily Apr 2016 #65

Except that what you posted is totally irrelevant.. DCBob Apr 2016 #73

Not irrelevant at all, but you apparently have a bad case of both Capt Obviouism and last wordism. merrily Apr 2016 #76

You all Bernistas are hoping carburyme Apr 2016 #53

Pretend it was Condaleeza Rice for one second. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #59

Obama says she's CARELESS and would never INTENTIONALLY jeopardize IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #56

Yeah, how is this good? TCJ70 Apr 2016 #68

As long as Hillary only put the U.S. in jeopardy unintentionally, what's the problem? BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #64

Since she failed to keep a personal email she doesn't "own" any of it. onecaliberal Apr 2016 #67

Which of these 2 takes more planning and effort? BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #69

there's an 8 lane smooth as glass superhighway to the gates of Hell paved with good intentions. hobbit709 Apr 2016 #70

Maybe shrub didnt intentionally fuck up all he touched either. libtodeath Apr 2016 #75

he also admitted "I haven't been sorting through each and every aspect of this." nt antigop Apr 2016 #83

That's his out. He can look supportive now, and later be surprised by revelations. winter is coming Apr 2016 #125

Good point awake Apr 2016 #130

Sorry Obama.. If you have to explain.. and with a spin! Roaberner Apr 2016 #87

IOW, best case, she negligently put America's national security in jeopardy and, unless he's a mind merrily Apr 2016 #93

He really, really ought to keep his mouth shut. grasswire Apr 2016 #107

Why give republicans apportunity for impeachment? Arizona Roadrunner Apr 2016 #109

Obama Dodging the issue Ferd Berfel Apr 2016 #120