IBD Article About Hillary's E-mail

[chwaliszewski]

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/email-scandal-hillary-clintons-last-defense-just-blew-up/?ref=yfp

Be kind. This is my first post.

[sharp_stick]

1. What a load of horseshit

coming from IBD though that's not surprising. IBD and honest reporting have never really gone well together.

The entire "thesis" if you can call it that comes down to this

"Saying she didn’t know the information was classified because it wasn’t marked makes no sense, since she was the one who would have been responsible for marking it in the first place."

Clinton did not mark the information classified, it was marked classified well after it was sent or received as everybody who's actually been following this witch hunt already knows.

IMO using RW smear merchants does not make it look like you are even trying to make a valid point.

[Jarqui]

8. No, that's not precisely it.

Intelligence community agents signed depositions that they found some emails that contained classified information at the time of transmission - not retroactive. So they have some evidence of that.

Hillary had no .gov email address so she couldn't use the secure system herself. So for Hillary's position to be plausible, you have to imagine that in four years as Secretary of State, she never sent or received a classified email. That's pretty incredible to believe, isn't it.

Hillary's non-disclosure agreement outlines her responsibilities and the criminal laws she must obey with respect to classified information. So she cannot claim she didn't know.

And even if the above wasn't true and they hadn't found emails that sent classified information at the time of transmission, Hillary had to know:
a) a bunch of emails from foreigners were "born classified" (see Reuters article:
Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest
- try to imagine, Hillary never getting a "born classified" email during her four years as Secretary of State. Part of Hillary's deception is to avoid public contemplation of that ...
b) a bunch of her emails were likely to be retroactively classified

And the problem with the prior paragraph is that her setup with her server at home meant that even if she adhered to policy and procedure on classified material perfectly when it came to emails she generated, her setup was susceptible to "born classified" emails from foreigners and her setup exposed emails that would be retroactively classified.

When one is in possession of classified materials in their home:
When Bill Clinton Pardoned His Former CIA Director over Classified Documents on His Home Computer
not even the Director of the CIA can get away with it without being convicted of a criminal charge. Explain to me how Hillary avoids that - she had classified material on her server in her home that she was not authorized to have and her setup led to inevitably.

They have not had 100s of FBI agents and Intelligence Community agents and two Inspector Generals on this for months for no reason. The Justice Department doesn't offer someone immunity not does that someone's lawyer ask for immunity for no reason.

Laws have been broken and they're assessing the damage and who is accountable.

Hillary has been lying about this since the get go. She claimed it was for convenience of using one device when she used two. She claimed it was to protect the privacy of her emails with Bill ... when we then found out Bill doesn't email. etc.

[sharp_stick]

9. The National Review and a 7 month old Reuters story

that used a single GWB appointee as a source to slime in a new creation of "born classified" forms the basis of your argument.

You may want to upgrade the quality of your reading material.

On edit, I've found pretty much word for word copies of your "information" on The Blaze, Breitbart, Fox News, The Free Beacon and a couple of other well known sources of great journalism. One of those might work for you.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

10. does "upgrade reading material" = freeper, criticizing Democrat candidates?

[sharp_stick]

12. No

I thought it was pretty clear. I think it's just another case of confirmation bias.

If you have to resort to using RW sources to make your point there's a better than even chance your point isn't worth making.

[Jarqui]

23. How old the Reuters story is has little to do with it's substance.

The Gettysburg address happened in 1863. I do not think it has suffered much with age. Facts are facts.

In Obama's, Bush's and Clinton's executive order's on classified material, they refer to the automatic declassification of material (the opposite of born classified). They also state things like "The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security." And they define that, etc.

So the terminology doesn't match "born secret" or "born classified" literally but figuratively, the implications of what those terms mean are covered by the executive orders. A foreigner emailing Hillary Clinton about information relating to their foreign government or ongoing diplomatic efforts with their foreign government is at the very least classified confidential - from the moment it is received.

It's very naive to imagine something like that would not exist. They have to have abilities to protect classified material that is created by or evolves from foreigners in that fashion. It's absurd to suggest otherwise. Hillary having her unsecure email server at home did not prepare for that very likely contingency - and it was her responsibility as Secretary of State to do so.

It doesn't matter which media company reported it. I'm sure a number of media companies sympathetic to the GOP reported on it and a number of media companies sympathetic to the Clintons or Dems did not report it - because those media companies have their thumb on the scale for their candidates. But the prevailing notion of Reuters article is not wrong - no matter who they got to quote on it.

Those are the executive orders on Classified National Security Information that everyone is subject to, including media companies examining the issue and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The executive order, originated by her husband, revised by Bush and replaced by Obama, is referenced in Hillary's nondisclosure agreement that she signed as Secretary of State.
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRC_NDAS/1/DOC_0C05833708/C05833708.pdf
as are the criminal laws on illegal possession and/or disclosure of classified material.

If you doubt it, look up those laws and research them and the case law like I did to draw your conclusions. I don't follow Breitbart or Free Bacon, etc. I have a mind of my own. They may say similar things but wouldn't know as I have not read them regularly. Obviously, you would know better than I because you're evidently an avid reader of theirs that can identify their work. I guess Reuters is another messenger we must shoot, right? Where does that end?

Hillary was in possession of classified material at her home without authorization. With her server setup, and the likelihood of retroactive classification (ignoring born classified), she had all kinds of reasons to expect her server would collect classified material - which she didn't turn over for years. As Bill Clinton's former Director of the CIA found out the hard way, that is a violation of criminal law. According to what I've seen of the law, not what some right wing media outlet says, Hillary has a real problem here.

[leveymg]

26. Get off the ad hominem attacks. "Presumed classified" was in Obama's 10/09 Presidential Order.

This editorial simply recounts the points reported in The Washington Post on Saturday. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1433185

For Presidential Order 13526, see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

[Jarqui]

29. One example:

This is an email that was subsequently marked classified.
a) It's about Sudan - information about foreign nations is supposed to be classified automatically
b) "Intel" ... if that's short for Intelligence - that's also supposed to be classified automatically

Hillary whines about the retroactive classification of her emails that in fact should have been blatantly classified from the outset.

Why Hillary’s EmailGate Matters

All this angers Americans with experience in our military and intelligence services who understand what Ms. Clinton and her staff did—and that they would be held to far harsher standards for attempting anything similar. They know that brave Americans have given their lives protecting Top Secret Codeword information. They know that in every American embassy around the world, our diplomatic outposts that worked for Hillary Clinton, Marine guards have standing orders to fight to the death to protect the classified information that’s inside those embassies. That Hillary Clinton gave similar information away, by choice, is something she needs to explain if she expects to be our next Commander-in-Chief.

As commander in chief, how does Hillary order folks to protect classified information with a straight face.

Either she's hopelessly clueless on the subject or so removed from reality for so long, she doesn't feel the rules apply to her. I'm not sure there is a door #3 for this, it's so blatant.

This article goes into depth on how Clinton's server was likely compromised and why Gates said that places like China and Russia probably have contents from her server (which was not encrypted for much of her time as Secretary of State)
NY Times Report Debunks Severity of Emailgate With Classic Clintonian Wordsmithing

When all the details of this story come out, and people reflect on how much Hillary deceived by playing down what really happened to protect her campaign, folks are going to be pretty outraged.

[randome]

2. Kind of goes against common sense, doesn't it?

If it wasn't classified, how can she be guilty of sending classified information? I saw a post yesterday that actually claimed it didn't matter if it was classified or not. I just don't get that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[Faux pas]

3. Kickin' with gusto!

[WhiteTara]

4. Another thread like this got a hide.

You may want to self delete.

[clarice]

11. Why would it get a hide? What's everybody so afraid of? nt

[WhiteTara]

14. IBD is a right wing source

and is not credible.

[clarice]

15. Did IBD make the whole story up? nt

[WhiteTara]

16. see post 5

[clarice]

17. Yes, I read it. If they made the whole thing up.....they could be sued....correct? nt

[zipplewrath]

20. Legally there is a difference

Legally, the courts make a distinction between "got everything wrong" and "made it all up". You don't actually have to show that you got anything right, just that there is an "absence of malic" when you're a newspaper. The entire article was based upon a deduction about what should/could/would happen without any references to people or other cases in which these thing did happen.

Outside of a court of law, what's YOUR definition of "made it all up"? Around here, people tend not to distinguish between "made it all up" and "talkin' out yer backside".

[clarice]

25. I was just wondering if IBD made it all up...

because of some of the caustic responses that the OP incurred

[zipplewrath]

27. They deduced it

If you read it, they took some scant information about what was going on and attempted to deduce the future. They did it with no actual expertise, nor and reference to past events or evidence of any kind. They certainly made no attempt to establish their own expertise on the subject.

So is that "making it up"?

Some would say yes.

[clarice]

28. Are there specific points that you think are untrue? nt

[clarice]

18. Correct?nt

[Gothmog]

5. IBD is a right wing nut case source

[clarice]

13. That's right ! Never believe any source unless...

it's Mother Jones or the Birkenstock catalog

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

21. "Birkenstock catalog"

Shit, what's next? Calling someone a "dope smoking hippie"?

[clarice]

24. It was a joke.nt

[snagglepuss]

6. Welcome to DU. Glad you're here.

Congrats on your first post though it's always advisable to cut and paste a couple of paragraphs that you think are the best points.

Common for DUers to shoot the messenger if they don't like the message. I think the article is excellent as it is short and to the point.

[zipplewrath]

7. I'm always struck

These articles are always written by people with neither a legal background, nor any experience in dealing with classified materials.

That she was careless is almost a given, which is kinda strange considering how paranoid she can be. Her tendencies would have gotten her chastised if she hadn't been Sec. State. But since she wasn't, little will come of it now. There is little if anything here that anyone is going to try to prosecute. Her lawyers can dig up just enough evidence to establish that some people would not have classified the information in that context. Right, wrong or indifferent, that makes for an extremely weak case, especially in the context of a trial which would immediately be characterized as a political witch hunt.

And even if she had tried diligently, I can tell you right now, she would have failed to never have sent/forwarded/received emails that contained classified information. And her lawyers would have little trouble establishing this by the most cursory review of existing State Department emails. They could pick almost any high official and find just enough mistakes to establish that this happens.

Now, if she can't establish that she actually had "approval" from some place to use her privately held server for official business, THEN she'd be in some trouble. But no one has tried to suggest that. So that's her "get out of jail free" card. She never should have been given approval because of EXACTLY what they are now finding. And that doesn't even address the records retention part of all of this, which ALSO should have prevented her from using a private email server. And this all should have been well known considering how much trouble the Bush administration got into for using the GOP email system. But none the less, she apparently got the approval to use the private system and so she's covered.

I know, the FBI and immunity and all of that. I also remember how Rove was going to be "frogged marched" right out of the White House because of a lot worse stuff. There is nothing here except the political circus and the wishes of those who'd like to see her take a fall.

[clarice]

19. She certainly has proven that she knows how to dodge a bullet. Good for her.

[joeybee12]

22. gdp