The Email argument against Hillary Clinton is a Republican argument.

[MineralMan]

Bottom line is that she set up a private email server while SOS. So did others. She broke no laws in doing that.

There were a few emails in the thousands that might have contained classified information, but they were classified after the fact.

The server was never hacked into by anyone, apparently.

There will be no indictment, I'm quite certain.

Quite frankly, this whole thing is an argument that will be used by Republicans in the General Election without a doubt. Why we're using it to attack the current leading Democratic candidate as Democrats is sort of beyond my comprehension. It is, and always will be, a Republican attack issue.

Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State in a Democratic administration. She is a Democratic candidate for President. It's stupid and non-productive to use the opposition party's arguments against one of our own candidates.

I wish people would stop doing that here. I really do.

[HooptieWagon]

1. The FBI is a Republican organization?

I didn't know that. Has anyone informed Pres Obama? He might want to check in to this.

[Press Virginia]

4. Smelling Salts sales are going to sky rocket

when the FBI recommends charges against HRC and/or members of her senior staff

[Adrahil]

70. What do you consider the likelihood of that is? NT

[Press Virginia]

170. If she wasn't who she is

I'd put the odds at 100%.
There will be indictments coming out of this, it's just a question of whether or not HRC is one of them.

[Hortensis]

83. Press and I just had a discussion on this where I

Last edited Fri Mar 4, 2016, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)

pointed out that trying to impeach Bill Clinton after smearing him for years backfired very badly on the Republicans. They expected to be rewarded and lost 5 House seats.

It occurs to me that not only is this current smear very likely irritating the nation into further sympathy with Hillary, but the involvement of Bernie supporters may just be a factor in the slowing of Bernie's momentum. Most people don't like political nastiness, those "most" especially being made up the liberals and moderates on both sides who are most likely to be swayed to Hillary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

168. Actually here is where I defer with you

a BJ irritated the nation becuase that was consensual sex. (We can discuss other issues that go with it, but they are not criminal in nature.) And trust me, I was one of those who were irritated back then.

This, the press actually has done a terrible job of explaining this, A few outlets have done yeoman's work, but they have. It is a very technical complex story, and we are talking criminal liability. So the reason why most people don't get it, is because the press (free and corporate as it is) has not done a proper job of explaining this,

I know that the excuse of these were not classified smells to high heaven, but I have read (in have have them in my HD) emails that were born classified, and I know why. If I, merely from working from archival material knew this, how the fuck did the SOS did not know this? She got mandatory training on this.

Watergate was explained in dreary detail by a media that still was not corporate controlled. If Watergate happened today, I am not sure they would have. So late to the party, they are starting to. I mean national media.

And I mean the late to the party. This is very late in the process. If the public, or at least those paying attention, understood the story fully, they would be irritated, for vastly different reasons, I know I am, because I know that people are serving time in jail, serious jail time mind you, for less.

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. If they do recommend charges

given the kind of two justice system I am not so sure they will, But if they do... I should invest in fainting couches too.

[MineralMan]

5. The FBI doesn't indict anyone. It is an investigative

organization. Perhaps you didn't know that. Indictments at the federal level come from federal Grand Juries, which are called by the Department of Justice. An Indictment of Clinton over this is very unlikely.

[Press Virginia]

14. I didn't say they did

T

[PoliticAverse]

93. How likely do you think an indictment of another person involved is? n/t

[MineralMan]

100. I don't think anyone will be indicted at all.

I think there will be a recommendation that private servers not be used in that way in the future, due to a variety of risks. In this case, no harm was done, though. No harm, no foul. No indictment, either.

[Press Virginia]

124. How's that going to look to the rank and file

Who would be prosecuted if they were found to have SAP or SCI material in their possession after leaving their jobs?

A two tiered legal system isn't a good thing for anyone.

[MineralMan]

133. I doubt that anyone will bother thinking about it that much, really.

So, not many will make that a consideration in their decision about voting in the GE.

At one point, I handled all sorts of compartmented Top Secret materials. I've never disclosed any of them, nor would I ever. As far as I know, I'm still not allowed to travel to certain countries, but I lost the document that listed them many years ago. None were on my planned travel bucket list, though.

I'm pretty familiar with the rules of classified document handling, though.

Again, it's very, very unlikely that there will be any indictment of a former Secretary of State over this. The probability against that happening is probably 99.99...% or so. It just isn't happening.

I'm sure there will be a strong recommendation to avoid the situation in the future, and rules to implement that suggestion will be put into place, but that's about it.

[Press Virginia]

172. I'm not talking about the election. I'm talking about all the other people who hold TS/SCI

and would be going to jail if they were in possession of SAP information outside the government's secure network or had possession of TS/SCI information after leaving office or they were instrumental in setting up a nonsecure network and were routing classified information through it for 4 years.

Her latest E-mail dump makes it clear she knew she was receiving classified information via e-mail....of course the same e-mail kind of makes her look as if she's clueless as to what is classified and what isn't....a far different picture than the woman who told us she was knew what type of information was classified or not as part of her job

[MineralMan]

175. I did. No longer, although some of the restrictions on me

still apply. Here's the thing, though: I signed many, many pieces of paper acknowledging the penalties of mishandling that material. Every time my clearance was enhanced for some new situation, I signed more papers. I also had a fairly junior position at all time, but had a lot of need to know at various times. I was an employee. I followed all of those rules. Why wouldn't I. I can't tell you what stuff I worked with, but it was a lot more serious than the State Department emails we're talking about. There was no paper that didn't have TOP SECRET plus an extension where I worked. Nothing. It stayed were it was.

At one time, we had a presidential visit to a facility where I worked. The whole place had to be sterilized and so much paper went under lock and key or into the incinerator in preparation for that visit that nobody got any other work done for a week. All of that stuff was compartmentalized beyond what the President could see casually. If he knew it existed, he could get a summary, but that's it. There's no way the President would have had access to much of the actual documentation. I had the great displeasure of being introduced to President Nixon on that visit. "Good morning, Mr. President."

I suspect that it's different for the Secretary of State, really. I doubt she signed the same sorts of papers I had to sign. Same for the President. They have the clearances, sort of, but not so much the liabilities. They're political positions. The President is elected and the SoS is appointed. Different situation from mine altogether. They see summaries of information, not actual information.

The President sets policy and has no superior. The SoS carries out international policy and has only the President as a superior. It's far from the same situation and it may well be that the legal liabilities are not the same, either. Certainly they are different for Presidents, and that privilege does extend to cabinet officials as well, to a large degree. The materials the SoS received and sent via email was simply not that sensitive, despite its labeling. No way.

It would take an Attorney General with a lot of chutzpah and probably a major grudge to prosecute a Secretary of State during the administration when she served, or in her own administration, if elected. I can't imagine that happening over some wonky emails. It just isn't how things are done. We have people who could be prosecuted for much more serious crimes from previous administrations who will never be prosecuted. And then, there are those who are dead and can't be prosecuted, although some of them, perhaps, should have been.

Once again, reality trumps idealism. Hillary Clinton will not appear before a grand jury, and no grand jury will even be called with her as a subject of interest. There isn't going to be an indictment. It's simply not done to cabinet-level officials acting on behalf of the President. Not done.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply naive about our federal government. It's that simple. I have no idea what your background is, and don't really care. But, at the executive level of federal government, the recourse possibilities for security breaches of any kind are way limited. In reality, those people don't actually have the real raw information. They have summaries.

[Press Virginia]

179. She signed the standard Non Disclosure Agreement which spells out her responsibilities

as well as the penalties.

She owned the server and it was set up to her specifications to do what she wanted, which was circumvent the DOS E-mail system. If no one in the room asked about the receipt of classified information and how it would be handled then there was no one in that room smart enough to be in charge of anything.....which would still be better than if they just ignored their legal responsibilities, which looks to be the case.

Just because she's not a GSer doesn't mean the laws don't apply to her and her staff. There will be indictments, the only question is how many people are going to take a fall to protect her.

[MineralMan]

181. I do not know what she signed, and neither do you.

I'm sure she was briefed, but I do not know what she agreed to or signed.

I do know this. Cabinet level officials and above in the Executive branch, Members of Congress, and Supreme Court Justices are not actually subject to many of the laws most of us are. The President can only be impeached. Congress members can't be charged with anything relating to their work, and Supreme Court justices can only be impeached. If you think people at that level of government are subject to the same laws, you're very mistaken. They aren't.

Only the Attorney General could send Hillary to a Grand Jury. How likely do you think that is?

It's all different at that level of government, and maybe even for reasons that make sense. I don't know. I have nothing to do with anything at that level and never have.

I'm done with this conversation, actually. I have no idea who you are, what you know, or what you understand. I also have no interest in pursuing this further.

[Press Virginia]

183. Except the SD actually released a copy of her NDA and she admitted she signed it

If you're for equality under the law, you'd demand she be treated the same as any other employee of the government if they ignored the laws regarding classified information.

I

[MineralMan]

185. I can't demand anything at that level.

If you believe you can, I encourage you to go for it. Good luck with that I fight only those battles that have a c chance of being won. I'm too fanned old to waste time with wild goose chases.

[BlueMTexpat]

184. +1!

Much the most likely outcome.

Much ado and all that ...

[Darb]

7. Weak Sauce.

Obama put the FBI on it to sort the bullshit from the facts. Seems the Bernies like the bullshit part, unfortunately.

This ridiculous meme will soon be burned to the ground.

[MineralMan]

15. That seems very likely to me.

[Press Virginia]

25. Yeaaah and it's only a security review, right?

[Darb]

27. Whatever that is.

[Press Virginia]

29. It's what HRC said the FBI was doing

[Darb]

35. oh, it was a typo.

Got it.

The FBI will put this to bed soon. As will Justice.

[HooptieWagon]

37. First time I ever heard of a 'security review' offering immunity.

Usually immunity is offered to small fry in an organization in order to get their testimony against the big fishes. Like with organized crime.

[Darb]

40. You forgot.....

"Yeah, I said it, ORGANIZED CRIME! And Hillary is the leader ala Dr. Evil"

[Press Virginia]

64. Shhhhh! That's VRWC talk

[Darb]

74. You should know it.

You are in bed with them.

Which is kinda gross, in bed with the VRWC.

[Press Virginia]

96. if you say so

[Darb]

99. I say so.

Own it.

[Press Virginia]

123. I can't own your opinion any more

than I can make you pull your head out of the sand

[Darb]

141. and I cannot replace the nose

that you have cut off of your face.

Brilliant look though.

[spin]

165. Over a hundred FBI agents to conduct a security review. ...

Talk about government wasteful spending!

Also note that the FBI director did not refer to the actions of his agency as a security review.

Comey: ‘I Am Very Close’ to the FBI Investigation Into Hillary Clinton’s Emails
BY: Alyssa Canobbio
March 1, 2016 3:29 pm

Rep. Steve Chabot (R., Ohio) asked FBI Director James Comey Tuesday if he could say when the federal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server would be wrapped, and Comey replied he was “very close” to the investigation.

“As you know we don’t talk about our investigations. What I can assure you is that I am very close, personally, to that investigation to ensure that we have the resources we need including people and technology, ” Comey said. “And that it is done the way the FBI tries to do all of its work: independently, competently, and promptly. That’s our goal and I’m confident that it’s being done that way but I can’t give you any more details than that.”

The FBI released a letter in February, a day before the New Hampshire primary, that an investigation connected to Hillary Clinton and her private server remains ongoing.

[Press Virginia]

167. Has to be the first time I've ever heard of

where the government granted immunity in a review of whether or not a server was hacked

[spin]

169. Good point. I never heard of that happening either. (n/t)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. I have said it, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, and I will say it again.

I have said it, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, and I will say it again, without fear of reprisals.

There is a contingent that is rooting for a mythical indictment, and as a sports fan, I can say it is of the same character as some Spurs and Cavaliers fans hoping Steph Curry breaks his leg.

[HooptieWagon]

43. No one knows. Not you, not I.

But immunity isn't given just for casual questioning. They want his answers to questions under oath. And they already know what those answers are, as they were discussed in the proffer. Somebody above Pagliano better be careful not to commit perjury.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. "Keep hope alive."

Oh, and please see Post 45.

[HooptieWagon]

48. Doesn't much matter to me.

It's not like Clinton drama and scandal is finite.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. After thirty years of investigation all they could get Bill on was a consensual blow job.

[HooptieWagon]

58. The investigation into Bill went back before 1970?

Wow, Nixon must have had quite the powers to look into the future and begin an investigation into a future president who was still in law school at the time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. It's 2016... The Reich Wing has been all up his ass since he became Arkansas A G in 1977.

[HooptieWagon]

65. What investigation into BC continued after 2000?

[Darb]

79. Obtuse.

Hello? Hello?

Is anybody aliiiiiiiiiive out there?

(The Boss)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. The Clintons are a couple, last time I checked.

That was the reasonable inference from what I wrote...

The Reich Wing has been up their asses, forever, not literally of course.

[Darb]

85. I think they'd like to be literally.

Loonies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. I feel as I am arguing on parallel tracks...

It is the raison d'etre of many Republicans to destroy the Clintons. I can't believe we are quibbling about dates...

[HooptieWagon]

98. YOU brought up a 30 year long investigation.

When did this supposed investigation begin and end? Who conducted it?

[Darb]

101. Wholly obtuse again.

Damn, are you serious? Oh, I get it, this is Rumpelstiltskin isn't it? Good morning Rumple! How was your nap?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. If you believe the Reich wing

If you believe the Reich Wing hasn't been all up the Clinton's asses since Bill's first unsuccessful congressional race in 1974, cheered on by some useful idiots on the other side of the political spectrum, there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

[HooptieWagon]

115. You can't cite a 30 year long investigation?

That's not surprising.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. And you seem to not to grasp the difference between literal and figurative.

"That's not surprising."

[HooptieWagon]

122. You said 30 years, figured you could back that claim up.

Now you're walking it back...no surprise there.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. Any sentient person could infer from what I wrote I was speaking figuratively.

"no surprise there" , you demur from that observation.

[Darb]

146. I got it DSB, not to worry,

you are not going crazy. It was as plain as day.

[Hiraeth]

2. What argument about either Clinton is NOT a Republican argument?

That is the question.

[sufrommich]

3. Of course it is,that's not going to stop a certain segment on

DU from desperately embracing and pushing it. That's what "trash thread" is for.

[MineralMan]

10. I use neither Ignore nor Trash Thread.

I want to see what is posted here. All of it. I'm not one to hide from things with which I disagree. I'd rather discuss them.

I realize that I'm on a lot of people's Ignore lists. None of those people are on mine, since nobody is on mine. Which path makes the most sense, I wonder.

Hiding one's eyes from seeing what one does not like does not make it go away. It just keeps you from knowing about it.

[yeoman6987]

50. Agree 1,000,000%!

Great reply.

[Hortensis]

129. Me neither, for the same reasons.

There are other reasons, though, including lack of self control. My guess is you're probably on no "ignore" lists at all. A good thing for the forum, Mr. Voice of Reason.

[MineralMan]

130. Oh, a bunch of people have let me know that

I'm on their Ignore lists. I always respond with "OK." to their DU Mail messages. It's funny.

[CoffeeCat]

132. The majority of this country finds HRC untrustworthy

HRC's untrustworthy numbers are at 69 percent--an all-time high.

Both Republicans and Democrats have many problems with Hillary Clinton.

The lack of trust that the majority has for HRC is a problem that permeates all political camps.

[Uncle Joe]

6. I don't believe any other cabinet secretary ever set up their own "private server" out from under

the President's direct supervision.

This enabled the running of a shadow government.

Thanks for the thread, MineralMan.

[Darb]

12. Shadow government? SHARK JUMP!!!!!

Damn, that was a thing of beauty.

[Uncle Joe]

19. It is what it is, the executive didn't even have direct access to the server, they had to ask for

Hillary's e-mails.

[Darb]

22. MMWWAAAAAA, MMWWWAAAAAA MMWWAAAAAA

Call Austin Powers!!!!!!! Hillary is Dr. Evil!!!!!!!

Yeah Baby, Yeah!

[Uncle Joe]

28. I never said that Hillary was Dr. Evil, I said that a cabinet secretary having their own

private server for government business outside of direct supervision by the President facilitates having a shadow government.

[Darb]

32. Yeah, Baby.

Should we shag now or shag later?

[Uncle Joe]

44. You have no logical rebuttal to my argument

(snip)

So it seems she didn’t break a rule simply by using a personal email to conduct business. Rather, by using personal emails exclusively, she skirted the rules governing federal records management, Cox said.

A federal record is any documentary material, regardless of physical form, made or received by a government agency, according to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which oversees federal recordkeeping. Records are preserved as evidence of the agencies’ activities, decisions and procedures. Each agency is responsible for maintaining its records in accordance with regulations.

It would have been a violation of the NARA's rules in the Code of Federal Regulations for Clinton to use personal email exclusively, Metcalfe said. The code requires federal agencies to make and preserve records that duly document agency activity, so that they are readily available when needed -- such as for FOIA requests or congressional inquiries. Using personal email exclusively is contrary to proper record preservation.

"Anyone at NARA would have said you can’t use a personal email account for all of your official business," said Metcalfe, who held his position in part during former President Bill Clinton’s administration.

Had Clinton used a @state.gov email address, every email sent and received would have been archived in the State Department system. Clinton, who served from 2009 to 2013, has argued that her emails were archived in the system because she was in the habit of sending them to other government employees with .gov email addresses.

However, experts said this defense is insufficient. Under this practice, the State Department records management system would have captured emails from Clinton to a State Department employee, but it would not necessarily capture emails from Clinton to government employees in other departments or non-government employees, said John Wonderlich, policy director for the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for government transparency.

(snip)


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

[Darb]

47. Your argument is specious, and besides......

you can't argue with belief.

What about the shag?

[Uncle Joe]

49. You can't argue with belief if you believe in governmental transparency and Presidential supervision

over his/her cabinet heads.

Furthermore you provided no context or content as to how my argument is specious.

[Darb]

63. You spin me right round baby, right round,

like a record baby right round round round.

FYI, IMHO, she did it because she wanted to protect herself from unprecedented Teabagger, lunatic fringe, corruption, distraction, and outright sedition. Was it the best move? Not sure. Nobody, and I mean nobody is the obsessive target of the kooks and seditious fringe like Hillary. I am surprised that the Bernies are so gleefully signing on. It is embarrassing.

Specious:

adjective
1.
apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible:
specious arguments.
2.
pleasing to the eye but deceptive.
3.
Obsolete. pleasing to the eye; fair.

In other words, it is a winger/Sanders circle of self abuse.

[Uncle Joe]

84. What do "Teabaggers," "lunatic fringe" "corruption" have to do with

President Obama's ability to have direct supervision over his cabinet secretaries?

I have no doubt if this wasn't Hillary but a Republican Administration and it came to light that cabinet secretaries had set up their own private servers out from under direct supervision of the President, you would be on the opposite end of this argument.

[Darb]

90. Is there anything that Obama wanted to see that..

he was not able to see? If so, he hasn't made too big a deal out of it. But I'd hazard a guess that he doesn't want to crawl up Hillary personal life like the baggers. Why are you in league with the baggers again?

[HooptieWagon]

54. Good point.

For instance, she could keep email correspondence with Sidney Blumenthal hidden from view of the President, other Govt agencies, and FOIA requests.

[Darb]

68. And she could hide her Putin BCCs.

That traitor.

HANG HERRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Uncle Joe]

73. Or the citizen/member of any foreign nation or government. For example contributions to the

Clinton Foundation for quid pro quo policies/services or sales of weapons.

[Darb]

81. Nice slander.

Or is it libel?

You Bernies have collectively jumped the fuckin shark.

Have you ever seen the movie Salton Sea? There is a Bernie in it.

[Uncle Joe]

89. This isn't slander or libel it's a strong hypothetical backed by a fair amount of

circumstantial evidence.

I have to go on an appointment but if you wish when I get back, I will post it here.

[Darb]

97. Prove it,

or are you not only in league with the baggers, you share their propensity to throw shit against the wall just cuz.

[Uncle Joe]

156. Okay here is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence, this is a good article for starters.

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region's fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

(snip)

As Hillary Clinton presses a campaign for the presidency, she has confronted sustained scrutiny into her family’s personal and philanthropic dealings, along with questions about whether their private business interests have colored her exercise of public authority. As IBTimes previously reported, Clinton switched from opposing an American free trade agreement with Colombia to supporting it after a Canadian energy and mining magnate with interests in that South American country contributed to the Clinton Foundation. IBTimes’ review of the Clintons’ annual financial disclosures also revealed that 13 companies lobbying the State Department paid Bill Clinton $2.5 million in speaking fees while Hillary Clinton headed the agency.

(snip)

Clinton Foundation Donors Get Big Weapons Deals
17 out of 20 countries that have donated to the Clinton Foundation saw increases in arms exports authorized by Hillary Clinton's State Department.

Country Donation Min. ($) FY2006-FY2008 ($) FY2010-FY2012 ($) Difference (%)
Algeria 250,000 649,943,709 2,431,535,005 274
Australia 10,000,000 8,030,754,085 23,953,849,391 198
Bahrain 50,000 219,718,802 630,586,020 187
Brunei 250,000 101,239,902 19,256,846 -81
Canada 250,000 20,975,621,915 24,844,128,294 18
Germany 100,000 9,147,637,319 9,839,619,231 8
Ireland 5,000,000 144,929,678 107,064,341 -26
Italy 100,000 6,195,891,571 12,274,692,168 98
Jamaica 50,000 18,572,209 11,360,582 -39
Kuwait 5,000,000 1,895,298,212 2,109,893,611 11
Morocco 2,000,000 250,045,824 253,096,156 1
Netherlands 5,000,000 3,069,131,994 4,655,490,802 52
Norway 10,000,000 2,718,237,833 3,351,140,380 23
Oman 1,000,000 170,597,237 547,003,781 221
Qatar 1,000,000 271,325,915 4,291,824,236 1,482
Saudi Arabia 10,000,000 4,105,561,815 8,094,719,012 97
Taiwan 500,000 2,612,251,394 3,811,233,565 46
Thailand 250,000 656,266,680 1,113,283,489 70
UAE 1,000,000 2,261,801,903 24,998,754,760 1,005
United Kingdom 1,000,000 26,225,307,395 38,015,933,065 45

Source: U.S. State Department and Clinton Foundation donor data Get the data Created with Datawrapper

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

[Uncle Joe]

158. Here is another source.

The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for

The Clinton Foundation's business relationship with 20 foreign governments raises real questions about her judgment

Among all the rivers of money that have flowed to the Clinton family, one seems to raise the biggest national security questions of all: the stream of cash that came from 20 foreign governments who relied on weapons export approvals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Federal law designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In practice, that meant that Clinton was charged with rejecting or approving weapons deals — and when it came to Clinton Foundation donors, Hillary Clinton’s State Department did a whole lot of approving.

While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton’s three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

(snip)

Under a directive signed by President Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to take foreign governments’ human rights records into account when reviewing arms deals. Yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department increased approvals of such deals to Clinton Foundation donors that her own agency was sharply criticizing for systematic human rights abuses.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/

[Uncle Joe]

159. Here is a video of Haitian Protesters against the Clinton Foundation.

[yuiyoshida]

186. wow Uncle Joe

[pdsimdars]

53. Those guys never do have any answer or explanation

all they have is their mocking and nonsense. They never answer the issue. Just like Republicans. . attack the messenger.

[Darb]

71. OOHMYGAAAAWD!

You guys are in league with the Baggers on this and we are like the Repubes?

That is fucking funny. No really, that is fuuuuuuckin funny.

[Svafa]

144. Well she sure has started dressing like him lately!

[Darb]

145. BWAHAHAHA. Nice one.

She really has. I am surprised it hasn't been exploited.

[MineralMan]

17. Ooooh....Shadow Government....

Where is that foil cap? I must have misplaced it somewhere.

[NurseJackie]

8. Well ...

It's stupid and non-productive to use the opposition party's arguments against one of our own candidates.

... what else have they got? Not much apparently, if this is all they have remaining to hang their hat on and pin their hopes to.

Go, Hillary! We love you!

[pdsimdars]

59. Makes no sense

If a rich person or a poor person reports a murder. .. . it's the same incident.
To intelligent minds it isn't who reports the crime but the crime itself that needs to be investigated.
Get perspective.

[MoonRiver]

108. What crime are you talking about?

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

9. Exactly.

It's an argument that the Republicans will take full advantage of, and twist, and distort in the general election. Just one more thing on top of a pile of others that makes Hillary less electable. Why risk the presidency?

[morningfog]

11. You don't know what the FBI is investigating, nor do I.

You are assuming that the scope is limited to the use of a private email. That is a poor assumption.

Following the story and the investigation to the extent possible does not make one a right wing water carrier.

The opposite it true, in fact. This is a liability and a concern for the Democratic Party. I hope there are no indictments, I hope the story ends quickly. But, it won't end before more damage is done. Our front runner for president will be interviewed by the FBI/DOJ as part of a criminal investigation. That is not good, not matter the spin.

[Darb]

18. Spoken like

a true passive aggressive partisan.

[morningfog]

39. Bullshit. Pound sand.

[Orsino]

88. It's true.

We don't know who the hell is the target of the investigation, or even whether there is a target. I see no reason for the Clinton campaign to panic, or for the Sanders campaign to chide.

I think private email servers for SecStates are a terrible idea, but not necessarily more terrible than what previous office-holders have done.

There oughta be a law, IMO, but I'm not sure there is one. Ignoring presidential directives, or being slow to follow them, would earn one some responsibility for any breaches. Throwing bits of classified documents around in e-mail sounds pretty cavalier, at least, but I'm not going for my pitchfork yet.

[Darb]

94. Reasonably stated.

Refreshing.

[monicaangela]

20. Wow morningfog...like minds!

Both comments a 9:56 AM Same idea. I agree with your comment especially on the point that having a candidate involved in a criminal investigation does NOT look good.

[Darb]

30. Can you tell me more about Whitewater?

I bet you can.

[MineralMan]

24. That's true, which is why it's not a topic

I can discuss in depth. I'm sure the FBI will issue some sort of report on their investigation in due time. When that agency does that, I'll be sure to look at it. Until then, It holds little interest for me.

Our front runner, actually, is very likely to be overseeing the FBI, beginning in 2017. Consider that, if you wish.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. I got crucified because I said she wouldn't be indicted because we "own'' the DOJ.

That was a crude and shorthand way to describe it but accurate. I just cut through the chaff to get to the wheat. I have followed this investigation very closely and the predictions of what will or should happen falls along party lines. I have yet to see one Democratic former federal prosecutor or attorney familiar with this area of the law say she should or will be indicted. I have seen many Republican attorneys and federal prosecutors argue the opposite.

[NWCorona]

57. Even as a Bernie supporter

I have zero problem with you using the word owned. People are being hypersensitive.

[MineralMan]

69. Lots of "former FBI" people, too, are named in news stories.

It's the usual right-wing bullshit, trying to "hint" about things that will never happen.

What is far more likely is an FBI report that says, "No evidence indicates that the Secretary of State committed any crimes. While the subject of private email servers is an important one, we are not recommending any indictments following our thorough investigation."

That' what will probably come from all this investigating.

[monicaangela]

13. There is more to this

than what you are stating here. The FBI knows other persons who were Secretary of State had private servers, they also know before wasting their time and money on investigation that precedent has been set, and in order to find Hillary guilty they may have to probe other persons who were in that office. It's not the server itself, it's the reason for the server they are interested in. Having given immunity to the guy who set up the system, I'm sure there is some information he has that he feels may incriminate him or Hillary, otherwise why ask for immunity?

[Adrahil]

76. Why ask for immunity?

That's easy: The police are not your friend. Even if you believe you have done nothing wrong, there is NO positive for you in talking to them without legal representation, and ensuring you are maximally protected. If I were him, I would have done the exact same thing. I would stand on my right to remain silent. There is a reason for that right.

[MineralMan]

95. Yup. If the FBI wants information from you,

the wise thing to do is contact an attorney, since it's possible that they might be looking at you for some potential charge. Any competent attorney will advise you to say nothing and refuse to take a chance of incriminating yourself. The same advice applies to anyone who is part of an investigation.

Still, the FBI wanted the information. They probably had no intention of charging this person of anything. So, they provided immunity and told the person exactly that: "You're not a target of our investigation, so here's immunity. Now, here's what we'd like to know."

The subject's attorney then says, "OK, they can't prosecute you since they provided immunity. You can answer their questions now."

And that's how it works. I'd do the same thing, even if I were absolutely certain I had committed no crime. And I'd expect my attorney to advise me to say nothing. Fifth Amendment. It's an important part of our Constitution. It's a pity people don't understand that.

I read nothing into this immunity thing.

[MoonRiver]

110. Good lawyering is why.

I've heard the FBI will probably wrap this up in May. No indication they will even call Secretary Clinton to testify. But thank you for your concern.

[NCTraveler]

16. No doubt about it.

Republicans have been selling deflection and distraction to LIV's for a long time. They have gotten really good at muddying the waters with certain groups.

[NV Whino]

21. Last time I checked Loretta Lynch was a Democrat

But you never know these days.

You are right about one thing. Clinton will never be indicted.

[MineralMan]

26. An indictment seems very, very unlikely.

And yet, we're spending a great deal of time discussing it here. Why is that, I wonder?

[NV Whino]

38. Because Democrats actually care if their representatives are crooks

Unlike Republicans.

[Kittycat]

60. ^^ standards ^^

Without them, it's hard to prevent the other side from doing the same or worse.

That said, the emails did enlighten those of us who cares to pay attention or care at all about her dealings in regards to trade and war.

[Punkingal]

52. Maybe because we are worried about a Republican getting elected.

Just what we need during an election, Hillary being investigated by the FBI. There are people who will never believe she didn't so something wrong, no matter what the DOJ does. I am not one of them, but I worry about it, as a Democrat who does not want a Republican House and Senate and President.

It's foolish not to be concerned about it, and how it looks, and the ramifications of it.

[MineralMan]

61. That is not how the question is being raised here.

Not at all. It's being used to try to defeat Clinton in the primaries. The same talking points the Republicans will use in the General Election. Why on Earth would we do that.

Either of our candidates can defeat whoever the Republicans field. I think Hillary will do it more easily.

I'm not about to use right-wing talking points to detract from either of our candidates. Not now. Not here.

[Punkingal]

106. I express honest concern about how this looks to people who already have questions about her.

That is what I do. I don't frame arguments for Republicans. It is not our fault this elephant is in the room, but we are supposed to tippy-toe around it and not express honest concerns that maybe she should not be the nominee. It's ludicrous.

I for one am tired of being called an enabler, a member of a cabal, a racist, not a real Democrat, and any number of things because of the candidate i prefer. This would be a nicer place if people could drop the holier than thou stuff. This is just one more of those kind of OPS.

[MineralMan]

109. Thanks for your reply.

I had nobody in particular in mind when I wrote this. I'm not really that familiar with your views, so I wouldn't characterize you in any particular way, frankly.

[demosocialist]

116. I respect you and agree that it started as RW mudslinging

and I doubt anything will happen as far as legally against Sec. Clinton. I have not seen this issue being used by Sen Sanders or his surrogates to defeat Sec. Clinton in the primaries. If you are talking about just the DU then we have to be honest that there is a lot of Red-baiting, poor shaming and other RW tactics being used against Sen Sanders. Now I have seen your other posts and I respect that you recognize that is happening on both sides.

but specifically the FBI and email stuff bother ME because of the optics in the GE. I worry alot about the trust pulling and then some unknown whether crafted by the Republicans or real popping up during the GE. I don't get why that can't be discussed on Democratic website about Democratic politics? To me personally its kinda vital because I have many friends who vote Independent and the trust stuff is a really big deal. I without a doubt use many arguments I read on here to argue with my friends.

SO... I dont see where we are using this other than to say the trust polling is an issue on top of the optics of the FBI stuff, and honestly I don't know why arguing the optics of a Democratic nominee is out of bounds, I want to win the GE. It's kind of like the red baiting, I dont really care I call it out if I see it but I understand the Republicans will use that argument and it could matter in the GE (the problem is they will call any Democratic candidate a Communist in the GE...lol)

and if Sen Sanders has brought up the FBI investigation I would really like a link to it, and I mean that sincerely, or a surrogate of his (im sure there is one) but the DU is not equal to what the campaigns are saying, we are not that important and we don't have the ability to craft or control a single message.

[MineralMan]

119. I'm on DU, so I'm discussing DU, primarily.

Thanks for your reply.

[PoliticAverse]

66. Yes what were your motives in starting yet another thread discussing the issue? n/t

[MineralMan]

72. I was motivated by several other current threads on the subject.

What else? Perhaps you haven't noticed them. I sometimes start a new thread about subjects that are regularly being discussed. This is DU. All of us can do that if we wish. Thanks for your reply to my thread.

[PoliticAverse]

86. Ah doing your part to keep the Email issue on everyone's mind. Ok then. n/t

[yourout]

31. If she is..it will be because of the Clinton Foundation.

Quid pro quo isn't seafood.

[Beowulf]

142. Yes, but the wild card is FBI Director James Comey.

He's about as nonpartisan as they come and he has a record of standing up against partisan moves he believes are not supported by the facts. He was Deputy Attorney General during Bush II and acting AG when Ashcroft was in the hospital. The Bushies asked him to sign off on NSA survailence and he refused, then he high-tailed it to the hospital to be there when the Bushies tried to pressure a frail Ashcroft. Later, he challenged the Bushies again when they claimed that US Attornies were fired due to incompetence. Comey stated publicly that was not the case. Comey has written about the need for DOJ to be nonpartisan. If the FBI recommends indictment and Lynch refuses, don't expect Comey to stay silent.

Now, maybe there is no there, there. At least as far as legality is concerned. But the matter does seem reckless to me on the part of Clinton.

[Uponthegears]

23. Even as a Sanders supporter

I agree.

This whole "We are just showing what the Republicans will do" (which, btw, is coming from BOTH sides) is BS.

I you want to oppose Hillary over Democratic Party issues . . . have at it

Same for Sanders . . . have at it

BUT when you pick up issues that 99% of Democrats don't give two hoots about, whether it's the so-called "risk to security from private email servers" (and, btw, I don't give a FRA if Hillary did break the law . . . it's a stupid law) or "Sanders is a socialist who praised Castro" you are carrying water for GOPers who will destroy this country.

Winning the nomination isn't everything.

[redstateblues]

33. Spend 10 minutes listening to Rush or Hannity

and you will hear a lot of the same smears on Hillary that are peddled on DU.

[Betty Karlson]

36. There we go again: the opposition to Clinton is heterogene, not bipolar.

Not all those who believe she is unqualified and has character flaws are right-wing operatives. There are quite a few people to her left who share those concerns, albeit for decidedly progressive reasons.

[Progressive dog]

41. It is the kind of slimy Republican-like attack used against

Democrats when the Republicans have no accomplishments to run on. That has become usual tactics for Republicans, but is usually unnecessary for Democrats. It is also usually beneath the dignity and morals of most Democrats.

[TM99]

42. You are wrong in your very first sentence.

If you can't be bothered to understand the facts, then the rest of your post I can easily dismiss as a failed conjecture based on a piss poor understanding of what is going on.

Other SoS used other email providers like Yahoo, Google, etc.. They were non-governmental email systems but not controlled by themselves. Clinton, on the other hand, used her own server in her own residence. That is the major difference. If the server was hacked, logs could be changed to show they were not. If certain emails were not wanting to be kept, then her admin could simply delete them. No one would be the wiser. Securing classified emails is more difficult because this private server must be connected to the SD systems. That is why there are now reports of illegal password sharing.

So please educate yourself before you start pontificating yet again.

[noamnety]

55. Enforcing the law is not a "republican" argument.

Expecting laws to apply to everyone, regardless of privilege, is not a republican argument.

"It's okay to deliberately mishandle classified information to avoid transparency as long as we can decide after the fact that a hacker didn't get it" is not a democratic argument.

"Others broke the law too so she should get away with it" is not a democratic argument.

"There will be no indictment, I'm quite certain." The FBI has an annoying tendency to investigate when there is evidence of illegal activity, despite the opinions of anonymous internet posters.

[randr]

56. The real problem is whether or not it can be used to continue the decades old

anti Clinton chant from the right. I like Bernie am a little bit tired of the Clinton 'scandals'; be they real or fabricated. They are a drag on the process of governing.
We need to move on!

[loyalsister]

153. That's exactly the reason people are not outraged over the Bengazi! wasted money and time

Clinton scandals have turned out to be either true or have just enough truth to keep them going and fuel the next one republicans dig up.

[Red Oak]

67. So is there a list

of arguments against Sec Clinton that are "Democratic Party Approved" and that won't be used by the Republicans? I guess I need that list from you.

Her email server issue boils down to one of judgment. Judgment like the Iraq war vote, historically supporting of NAFTA and her more current support of CAFTA and the TPP, taking so much Goldman money that it smells of bribery, Libya decisions (excluding Bengaaaaazheeeee) as SOS , Syria decisions as SOS and on and on.

The email server is part of a drum beat of poor judgment on her part and is a valid issue to discuss.

Why did she feel the need to have a private server? To avoid oversight? Why? I have heard her say it was to make things easier for her. How?

There are governmental rules for email. As head of one of the most important parts of the US government, why, in her judgment, did she think she should just forego those rules and do her own thing?

[jillan]

77. +10000!

[MineralMan]

78. I don't know. I have no such list.

I do have topics I feel that are worthy of discussion on DU, though. When I'm moved to do so, I post to open a discussion. This post is about using Republican tactics to attack a Democratic candidate for President. A discussion has begun.

[jillan]

75. Actually it is an FBI argument.

[riversedge]

82. Indeed it is MM. Thanks for the post.

[Jarqui]

87. "she set up a private email server ... So did others. " MineralMan

Which prior Secretary of States set up a private email server at home? None that I am aware of. Some may have accessed their emails from a public location that were classified after the fact but no other Secretary of State I'm aware of, unlawfully stored classified emails on an unsecure (by government standards) server in their home.


" She broke no laws in doing that."

We have hundreds of FBI agents, Intelligence Community agents and two Inspector Generals working for months on something where we're absolutely positive no laws were broken?

Wow!! If they only had you, we could have saved man years of effort!!

"a few emails in the thousands that might have contained classified information, but they were classified after the fact." MineralMan

Umm, no. See the February 4th press conference at the state department and reread the letters from the inspector generals saying they have depositions from Intelligence Community agents stating otherwise.

"There will be no indictment, I'm quite certain." MineralMan

Which is why Clinton's IT guy's lawyer had him plead the 5th and hold out for an immunity deal ...

"Quite frankly, this whole thing is an argument that will be used by Republicans in the General Election without a doubt. Why we're using it to attack the current leading Democratic candidate as Democrats is sort of beyond my comprehension. It is, and always will be, a Republican attack issue.

Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State in a Democratic administration. She is a Democratic candidate for President. It's stupid and non-productive to use the opposition party's arguments against one of our own candidates.

I wish people would stop doing that here. I really do." MineralMan

Well the opposition is using it against her and will continue to do so. But the foundation is on a matter of criminal law. Although the circumstances are different, one of those laws is the one Petraeus pled guilty to. She is in violation of her non disclosure agreement and she left the door ajar on classified secrets that could have jeopardized national security - which is a crime.

Further, please explain to the class why they subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation for all documentation on charitable donations made to them by parties who also got favors done for them by the State Department while Hillary was running it. Obviously, there is nothing to be concerned about there, right? We can just blissfully exist in ignorance until the other shoe maybe drops on that, right?

In the '60s, we were concerned about the brainwashing the Soviets & Communists were doing in part, with their media. Evidently, we might still have something to be concerned about.

[Kip Humphrey]

92. Thanks, MineralMan. This is a quote that will come in handy!

It's stupid and non-productive to use the opposition party's arguments against one of our own candidates.

[MineralMan]

107. Feel free to use it anywhere you like.

Thanks.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

102. So are a lot of the arguments against Sanders!

Deal with it.

[andrewv1]

103. Actually you sound like a Republican...."Let's rewrite the facts & be in denial"

Your content here does come across very similar in style & substance to many Right Wing Conservative blogs & forums.

And, Unfortunately you aren't the first around here.

[MineralMan]

113. I do? I doubt that very much, if you look at my

posts overall. But, you have your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.

Still, I did not write what you put in quotation marks: "Let's rewrite the facts & be in denial." You have attempted to put words in my mouth. That's not a very nice thing to do, really. Please don't misquote me. Thanks.

[andrewv1]

143. You can twist the quotation marks anyway you want & I do appreciate you being a Gentleman about it,

but you are coming across as stating facts when it's more speculation.

What concerns me even more though is how HRC supporters are "brushing" these FBI investigations off in a dismissive manner that might affect all of us Democrats in a General Election.

[hamsterjill]

105. I really do, too.

Nothing is going to become of this email hoopla. It's been hashed and re-hashed, and nothing is going to be uncovered that hasn't already surfaced.

The idea of giving immunity to someone for testimony is being blown way out of proportion. It's a common maneuver when someone is represented by council. And no, being represented by council does NOT mean that someone has something to hide. It means that someone has a brain!

[Zambero]

111. The Clintons have been in the GOP crosshairs for a quarter of a century

Anything any everything has been fair game with which to bring them down, including attacking strengths a-la Karl Rove playbook. In the face of a Ted Cruz or Donald Trump presidency, I don't see any purpose in carrying the right wing's water for them.

[rickford66]

112. What about Powell and Rice?

What about the millions of Bush WH emails lost? Oh. Never mind.

[MineralMan]

114. Yes, well...

Yes. What about them, indeed?

[panader0]

137. I don't think they used a private server.

[awake]

118. 4% of Hillary's emails contained classified information

And 22 of those contained information so classified that none of them could be shared

Keep telling yourself this does not matter but if Hillary becomes our Candidate this will be used by the right to bring her and our whole party down

[yourpaljoey]

120. You are serving up nonsense

We do not know the scope of the investigation.
Does this involve felonies she committed as SOS involving
uranium sales to Russia, the Clinton Foundation, and Bill's paid speeches?
Illegal 'pay to play' weapons sales?
Her career is rife with dirty dealings... I am guessing all of that is in there.
I want to know the whole truth, don't you?
Are we not a land of laws?
When she destroys emails, she is destroying evidence.
Once again, we have proof she is unfit to be president.
We need much much more discussion of these emails, not less!

[MineralMan]

121. You're right. We don't know the scope.

Your speculations to the contrary, I've said nothing about the actual investigation's scope at all, really.

You, on the other hand, have said much about it, despite knowing no more about its scope than I do. Interesting.

Thanks for your informative reply.

[Vinca]

126. The others didn't have their own private servers. That's one difference.

In any case, once the FBI became involved it seemed we should stop brushing it off as a Republican argument. If she isn't cleared in the near future, the general election is going to be a cakewalk for the right.

[mcar]

127. K&R

[SheenaR]

128. Why is every damn thing said about her

a Republican argument... Or "from the RW playbook"

Both sides are guilty of deifying their candidate to now any critique is dismissed as sheer nonsense

[MineralMan]

138. But it's not.

Not by a long shot. For example, I've not said anything about her that a Republican might say.

I certainly do not deify any candidates. That would be an error. On the other hand, I recognize that almost every election offers only a binary choice in reality. I vote for the Democrat, because the outcomes are generally better when Democrats are in office.

Deification of political figures isn't something I do. When it comes to Democratic candidates, I don't denigrate them, either. That's not a productive thing to do.

[whatchamacallit]

131. I miss your short-lived self exile

[MineralMan]

134. Do you?

Sorry to disappoint you. But thanks for kicking this thread. I do appreciate that.

[whatchamacallit]

135. I'm always for giving dumb stuff the exposure it deserves

[MineralMan]

136. I count on that. Thanks!

[panader0]

139. Then there's also the investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

The shenanigans, once publicized, will make the e-mails look small.

[MineralMan]

140. Again, I'll wait for the report from that investigation,

if you don't mind. I'll bet nothing comes from that, either. But, we'll see, I suppose.

[k8conant]

147. What about ethics and the appearance of impropriety?

When I was a federal employee (IRS) it was stressed upon us that a central ethical tenet was "avoiding the appearance of impropriety".

Hillary Clinton has not avoided that.

Why should she be given a pass because she's a Democrat? She claims it doesn't matter. I think it does. Let's just leave it behind us and vote for Bernie.

[MineralMan]

148. That's a different matter. I'm talking about

chatter about an "inevitable" indictment. Nothing else. It's up to people to judge for themselves on the other stuff.

[k8conant]

150. I wouldn't say an indictment is inevitable either...

but I think Bernie is more ethical and more trustworthy and will be a better president.

[MineralMan]

151. Then you should vote for him in your state's primary event.

That's my suggestion.

[k8conant]

162. I will in May

in West Virginia

[MineralMan]

163. There you go.

Every vote in every primary counts.

[Mufaddal]

149. I'm not sure you're aware, but the Dem candidate will be running against Republican arguments in GE

Consequently, if this whole email scandal revolved around Bernie, including a recent immunity deal and generally having an FBI criminal investigation, and even the possibility of an indictment coming potentially during the general, every single HRC supporter on DU would be shouting, "See, this is why Bernie's unelectable!"

[awake]

152. +10,000 nt

[Gothmog]

154. There is no chance that Hillary Clinton would be indicted

[AgerolanAmerican]

155. Anti-corruption is NOT a Republican issue

It's everybody's problem. I'd go as far as to say it is THE problem.

[Press Virginia]

157. Which other SOS's had their own server?

As for information being classified after the fact, we know of at least 2 where that isn't the case http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-information-inspector-general-intelligence-community.html?_r=0.
Then there's the SAP information that was found.....which, somehow, got OFF the SD's secure network and found it's way into HRC's Server.

She knew she was receiving classified information when the server was set up and now wants to pretend it was only classified if marked? Anyone who's signed a NDA is made aware that not all sensitive material is marked like in the movies

[spin]

160. I held a government security clearance for many years before I retired. ...

Assuming the reports I have read are truthful in my opinion Hillary definitely mishandled classified information.

Business | Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:36pm EDT Related: ELECTION 2016, POLITICS, AEROSPACE & DEFENSE
Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest
NEW YORK | BY JONATHAN ALLEN

For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.

While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.

But the details in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

Of course Hillary disputes this. The FBI investigation will determine if any laws were broken.

However even if the FBI feels laws were broken that doesn't mean Hillary will ever face prosecution. More likely one or more of her aides or other people in the State Department will end up taking the fall.

Hillary seems to believe she is totally above the law and perhaps she is. That's what happens in an oligarchy where the rule of law doesn't always apply to the ruling class or those it has bought and owns. Only the "little people" are required to obey the law.

Oligarchy
In an oligarchy, a few rulers control the government. These rulers gain their power and maintain their authority as a result of their wealth or another form of influence. The oligarch rulers make decisions to benefit themselves financially and with little regard for the wishes or best interests of the people they govern. The oligarch may not be the official ruler of the country but may have close ties to and influence on those who are officially in power. According to Paul M. Johnson of Auburn University’s Department of Political Science, oligarchy “always has a negative or derogatory connotation.
http://classroom.synonym.com/types-government-autocracy-democracy-oligarchy-14100.html

[coyote]

161. No it's not.

It's a "Clinton consistently has poor judgement" argument. It reflects her character and is one of the reasons why I will not vote for her ever.

[lumberjack_jeff]

166. Right. We should all act surprised when the FBI subpoenas her.

"I'm shocked! Who could have known that we were nominating someone under FBI investigation?"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

171. It still won't help your flailing candidate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

173. I'm less concerned about "my flailing candidate" than my flailing country/party. n/t

[asuhornets]

174. Thank You MM...

[MineralMan]

176. You're more than welcome!

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

177. I know... now what ever happen to the outrage about all the public funds wasted on Benghazi? n/t

Last edited Fri Mar 4, 2016, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

[MineralMan]

180. Nothing happens about that, either.

That's Congress. They're all elected. There is no recourse for their wasteful spending. It's all political and for show, and there's not a damn thing we can do about their excesses. That's the reality of it.

We have three branches of federal government. Those in those three branches do not have to, and do not, follow the same rules others follow. Supreme court justices do as they please, members of Congress do as they please, and the Executive branch does as it pleases. Nobody is held to account. They've all exempted themselves from everything and don't threaten themselves by attacking the other branches.

That's why GWB, Kissinger and others never have to worry about being prosecuted. That's why Richard Nixon never went to trial. It never happens. It will never happen. That's the reality. It will not change. Ford pardoned Nixon, for pete's sake. Presidents can pardon anyone they wish to pardon. Congress members can't be charged with anything having to do with their jobs.

Are those bad things? I don't know. Truman didn't have to face war crimes charges for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Government gets a pass at the top levels, and that's because they sometimes are compelled to do things others can't do. Do I like it? I do not. Do I understand it? Yes, I do.

[Dem2]

178. I have only one thing to say about this post.

BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!


(Hint for those who think the left should be hitting Hillary on this, Google "Benghazi!" and then click "Images".)

[MineralMan]

182. And there it is. You are exactly correct.