2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFROM C-SPAN: Investigation Into Hillary Clinton's E-Mails...
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4586761/investigation-hillary-clintons-emailsInvestigation Into Hillary Clinton's Emails Joseph diGenova talked about the investigation into emails sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s personal email server during her time as Secretary of State...
(C-Span / So No Complaints About A Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DamnYankeeInHouston
(1,365 posts)She lied when she said others had done the same. She is the only SEC to set up an illegal server off the government grid on which to conduct all her business. The only reason to do this is to hide information and evade transparency even at the cost of security. The fact that she was allowed to do so is irrelevant considering the responsibilities of her clearance level.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)business, and Clinton Foundation doings... to the point where many were on multiple payrolls.
This is just beginning to unravel...
amborin
(16,631 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)to know.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Maybe she thought the illegal server was her maid. What with "wiping with a cloth" confusion, you can see how this could be misconstrued.
Lars39
(26,106 posts)by Bill Clinton for personal use and for the Clinton Foundation. So the server in question wasn't even solely dedicated to her usage.
The hubris involved that all this was acceptable and correct is just mind boggling.
DamnYankeeInHouston
(1,365 posts)And I don't think the best at all.
Lars39
(26,106 posts)"It's in the basement, nobody will find it."
Argh
Matariki
(18,775 posts)
WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)Benghazi Fabricator Demands Hillary Clinton Indictment Over Non-Criminal Probe
Discredited Republican lawyer Joseph diGenova is baselessly claiming that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her staff will face criminal prosecution by the FBI over her use of private email as secretary of state, despite numerous media reports explaining that Clinton is not the target of the FBI's investigation, which is also not criminal in nature. DiGenova has been discredited as a result of unprofessional behavior while working for Republicans in the 1990s and false claims he has made about the September 2012 Benghazi attacks.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)And Goebles managed to turn an entire country against one segment of the population to horrifying results.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)this is a discussion board and I will be free to express my opinion.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)You should probably come to terms with that...
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)It's a clone site.... says so even look closer.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Hitler references?
Do you have any actual thought processes? Can you counter any of the points he made? Did you even listen to what he had to say before you started spewing this nonsense?
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Do you not know this??
David Brock owns Media Matters. He is a known propagandist and liar and sleaze merchant who used to be a right wing Republican and work for them. He is Hillary's Goebbels.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)And yet he runs that Media Matters site.
Tanuki
(14,914 posts)You are really scraping the bottom of the right-wing barrrel. Ken Starr- associate Di Genova and his wife Victoria Toesing have been going after the Clintons for decades, and they have zero credibility.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)Benghazi Fabricator Demands Hillary Clinton Indictment Over Non-Criminal Probe
Discredited Republican lawyer Joseph diGenova is baselessly claiming that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her staff will face criminal prosecution by the FBI...
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/06/benghazi-fabricator-demands-hillary-clinton-ind/207808
I believe anyone around during Clinton's impeachment will remember the endless prattle of Joe diGenova and wife Victoria Toensing. Not as prominent these days, but have been busy.
FarPoint
(12,287 posts)Right wing hacks! Nothing but Bush loving, Cheney minions.... Guess they are breaking out old material from the trash can.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)I would like to see an intelligent dialogue. . . maybe there are counter points we are unaware of. . .but this kind of knee-jerk, GOP like tactics and response to everything you don't agree with is ridiculous.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)AGAIN... Sorry if the truth upsets you... she's in SERIOUS trouble OF HER OWN MAKING. Maybe choose a more worthy candidate to support?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)The last thing we need is a nominee under threat of INDICTMENT... MUCH LESS INVESTIGATION! The Ads will be horrifying... Don't you care?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)this particular media event is not the take away here.
The point is that this issue is big, and it looms large as it has loomed over her following her into the campaign, possible nomination, and possible election.
This is not merely a reich wing swift boating conspiracy/smear .. this has very real legal implications which should have been a huge bell-ringing alarm long before her "official announcement" to run for this office, particularly since it didn't just start out the moment she tossed her hat in the ring when the repukes' ministry of disinformation department decided to go after her.
It's going to have a very significant NEGATIVE impact on her campaign, her election and if she should be crowned, her presidency.
It's a huge fiasco of ginourmous proportions and does have the potential of great failures for the party itself.
It boggles the mind why the party elite/establishment could not foresee the tortuous ugly which is guaranteed to transpire, before they chose to trot her out as the favorite to advance.
The only hope any of us has, insofar as the Democratic Party is concerned, is that Bernie comes out the victor.
Otherwise it's going to be one hellacious period of years ahead with all the shite the Reich Wing intends to throw at her. And it appears there's plenty of legitimate fodder to use for that purpose.
That's the take away which you're missing by reacting to the source in this particular media event in stead of the bigger picture: what is it all going to mean at the end of the day?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)why can't Hillary-bashers find non-right-wing sources to cite?
2banon
(7,321 posts)I just read something today that isn't a reich wing source but I didn't feel there was a shortage of neutral sources and that it was necessary to post myself.
And to be completely honest with you, my issues with HRC is strictly about her policies and goes way beyond this business (foreign and domestic)
However ancillary to the issues which really concern me, this does have a foreboding cloud of doom I don't think is recoverable in the near future politically speaking.
Having said that, I have read enough of your posts to feel like a respectful conversation of disagreement with you can be had.. I also know you're passionate about Hillary being our next president. I understand and can see you're not about to change your position you've made up your mind. I respect that.
I'm just asking one thing, is to attempt to look at these concerns as possibly legitimate, therefore grounds for huge legal problems for her very near future.
I'm not saying that's she's about to be prosecuted and convicted leading to prison, I doubt very seriously that TPTB will allow anything on that level to happen regardless of the facts, whatever those facts turn out to be at the end of the day.
Are you ready for the next 4 to 8 years to be as (politically speaking) toxic than her husband's two terms in office, or worse? Cuz this isn't going away.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The reason I support Hillary, primarily, is that I think she's the most likely Dem to deliver that. Yes, I know about the GE polls, but I don't think they will hold up.
Am I ready for 4 to 8 years of GOP witch hunts against her? Sure. I think they would go after any Dem with the same ferocity. That goes with the territory.
A far as right-wing sources, you must see that they appear on DU with alarming frequency these days. This is not to say that stories about emails don't appear in legitimate places. But the reason why we see some much RW media here is because that's where you find the "Hillary's about to be indicted" and "Hillary committed a felony" spin. When combined with the substantial number of DUers who are forcefully declaring their intentions to sit out the GE and let Trump win if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I have a problem with this trend.
2banon
(7,321 posts)This isn't the one I was referring to but here is one from the Los Angeles Times, and there's another from the New York Times, and another from the Washington Post. you'll find them as OP's I believe on GDP perhaps also on Latest Breaking News. (just guessing)
Mind you I consider all of those papers part of the largely Pro-Republican Korporate Establishment, your mileage may vary. But all are considered legitimate news sources and allowed on DU.
I certainly don't know for certain, but these reports make it appear that the next phase of investigation is imminent and being expedited fairly quickly... so I suppose this whole affair may be put to rest once and for all or, that other legal procedures could follow and drag on through the rest of the campaign/convention/general election.
I'm wondering what the plan is on the part of the Party Bosses if she is to face charges during the election period.
Are supporters making plans to support Bernie, or will they accept Party Bosses foisting another Korporate Dem on us to replace her campaign, if it comes to that? Wonder what the strategy is or will be?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not saying that email stories don't appear in credible media sources. They do.
But, for some reason, DUers supporting Bernie keep posting links to places like Weekly Standard instead. Why do you think that is?
I can think of two reasons.
1) They prefer the spin that comes from the right-wing media.
2) They read right-wing media regularly, so those sources are the first ones that come to mind.
Are there any other possibilities?
2banon
(7,321 posts)but maybe you missed the more acceptable sources which may possibly lead you to believe this stuff is only coming from right wing or even Left wing media sources?
And/Or you may have possibly ignored the more acceptable/credible sources because all of the mainstream korporate media have a long history to greatly skew stories for a myriad of motives. a very long history of doing that. NYT, WaPo, L.A.Times etc. etc. etc.
I generally read everything from a skeptical position.. or at least I attempt to. For the past year, I had held a very skeptical pov on Hillary's "emails" stories, frankly ignoring all of the postings and stories always assuming it was purely reich wing misogynistic 'witch hunt'. (i hate that term, no offense intended to wiccans).
But what I have been concerned about is, if these stories and investigations are credible, this poses a political disaster, for Hillary Clinton anyway it's sliced, and by extension a massive train wreck the Democratic Party itself, imo, because this certainly going to drag on through the primaries, convention, and general elections.
I do believe at this particular point in time (wrt to campaign schedule) the window to take a corrective course is narrowing quickly.
We have an opportunity to shape the outcome of this election year with Bernie which is really imperative, imo.
Or follow Clinton on this runaway train off the cliff where we know is looming just around the bend.
840high
(17,196 posts)prove them wrong. Got anything?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The thing that concerns me about the email deal is what the FBI thinks about it, not this dude.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)It can't possibly be that Hillary's incompetence/criminality is actually worthy of investigation.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)My fear is that we'll end up with an indicted nominee.
Or she gets into the white house and congress immediately starts the special prosecutor thing.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)as we twiddle our thumbs and ignore what Independents and Republicans (with all of their flaws) will not let slide by.
I mean, even Ted Cruz' infidelity won't go anywhere in a Clinton atmosphere. They've already been there, done that.
But the Foundation...what a stupid (albeit plentiful riches) blunder and the audacity to think no one would notice.
2banon
(7,321 posts)What is the strategy on the part of the party bosses?
Who are they lining up to replace her if it happens before the convention or election? Will they go with Bernie?
But goddess help us all if it happens if she gets into the white house.
We will be spared that travesty if we can manage to get this done for Bernie, but more importantly for all of our sakes!
Vinca
(50,237 posts)If you listen to the "Washington Journal" in the morning you'll know why. For some strange reason CSPAN is managing to attract the most batshit crazy of the totally batshit crazies. At first you kind of laugh when you hear it, then the shock that people believe the nutty stuff their spewing hits you and makes you wonder what the heck has happened to this country.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Ha! It's not the photo you put but the words. And your response is too Hillary-typical
Vinca
(50,237 posts)I've been a Bernie supporter for decades. He's not just a current fad for me. If you haven't noticed, I've been talking about the damn emails more than anyone else, but I don't cite people or outlets that aren't credible sources.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)you'd ignore him because, well, he's a terrorist.
I kind of think of THAT as being foolish.
Vinca
(50,237 posts)If you want to discuss the emails, that fine. There are plenty of reliable sources. Don't go after people because they know more about your source than you do.
BirdieSanders
(26 posts)but his dispassionate overview of the proceedings contained plenty of useful information and I have not seen any debunking of his central points:
(1) a grand jury has already been convened, as shown by the existence of an immunity deal for Pagliano and the related sub-poenas of 3rd parties for the skinny on his finances, leading to discovery he was on dual payroll of Clinton Foundation and State Dep't concurrently but did not disclose such to State;
(2) the establishment of the off-site, private server may in and of itself constitute criminal gross negligence or worse if her intent was to evade FOIA disclosures
**It's the server, stupid**
grasswire
(50,130 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)That Hillary is and WILL BE... in BIGGG Trouble... IF Justice is fairly meted out... as well it should be... If America truly still stands for what it purports to be...?
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)it would make the whole thing clearer. He brought up important facts that I hadn't known.
But instead of any intelligent conversation . .all you get is this mindless dribble and character assasination. Yes, the guy has been on the horrible side of things. . but the points he made were legal facts, no matter what you think of him.
Let's hear some response to those facts if you've got any instead of this constant dribble.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)over the next to take the blame, could even disgust the FBI into going for Her Innocence herself
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Why do you post this garbage here?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)If a poster wants to know what I think they can send me a private message. I swear I won't reveal the private message in public nor tattle to Skinner. That's not how DSB rolls.
Joseph DeGenova is a right wing hack.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)It's harder to quell dissenting voices. But I don't like hides in principle.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)I have two hides that I reported to Skinner as being unfair.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)I could care less who "reports" it. We know the Establishment MSM won't, just like they haven't bothered to cover Bernie Sanders.
I believe that the job of the naysayers is not to attack the messenger or others who are concerned, take their heads out of the ground and tell us FACTS that negate the information.
Or else, just cease churning out accusations and Bull Crap...most of them all of one, thoughless, often juvenile sentence long.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Over and out.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Very informative and sure seems like she has something to worry about.
I'm only about a third of the way through and this really is something. As he said, it's not about the emails, it's about the server.
This is really something voters need to know and consider. It will be coming down.
The whole thing was fascinating and informative. . . . wish it came from someone I liked better, but the message is the message and can't be discarded out of hand because of the messenger.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,377 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)And this is only based on info that has been released. So it might be more depending on what else is out there.
Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act Section 1236.22
“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”
Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information
and possibly Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) but this one is kinda ify because it deals with the request stemming from Benghazi-related hearing. The other email violations are from a totally separate thing that stems from a Hacker who broke into many famous people emails and someone of them where emails from Clinton.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)>>>Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
Vattel
(9,289 posts)could violate that statute.
The dude on CSPAN was saying that the investigation is more about the server than the emails and that just setting up the server was a crime.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)Setting up a server to store classified information is if it is not a authorized one.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)would be stored there, or at least she can plausibly claim that.
edited to add: she definitely showed a stunning lack of judgment. That does not surprise me. Her judgment on foreign policy has been consistently bad. But I have yet to see clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Maybe that evidence exists and she is about to be indicted. I don't know what the FBI knows. But I haven't seen such evidence yet.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)Writing about this and WaPo today, I think this is about to come to ahead.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)OK, suppose the police didn't understand, say, how the drug trafficking was done in their city. . One of the people who knew a lot about it was a despicable crime boss, L'il Joey. But they knew he could give them a lot of information to help them understand how things went down.
Now, that crime boss has done horrible things, and you may not like him, but you LISTEN to what he has to say because he KNOWS where to bodies are buried and how the whole thing works. Are you REALLY going to ignore whatrever he says because you know some of the bad things he has done?
This is the situation here. Joe has been on the ugly side of almost everything I have seen him on, but you SHOULD listen to the information he has because he knows how things work. And if you were smart, you WOULD listen and see how it settles in your thinking.
Thanks. I think that pretty well says it for me. (without getting all upset)
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)The OP video is 40 minutes. I strongly suggest that everyone put on their objective brain and listen to it. The guy is a partisan jerk, yes, but he knows the law and he has good inside sources. He's talking facts here, not opinions.
I've been reading up on this for the past week, and I can tell you that everything he's saying here is well-documented by other very reliable sources. (All I have is a messy Notepad filled with links, not in any shape to post an OP from; I may or may not be about to do that later.) Meanwhile though...
This is NOT a nothingburger. Bernie needs to get up to speed on this too, asap. Clinton is spinning a load of lies about this just like she does everything else.
It is not about the emails themselves, or over-classification, or others did it too -- all of that is not only irrelevant but wrong as well. She is lying to us again, fellow Dems, bigtime. She's on track to let this blow up in our faces.
It's bad, and it isn't going away, and it's going to massively affect Dems in this election.
I see it still said here that Bernie hasn't been vetted, no HRC hasn't been vetted about THIS, because Bernie hasn't brought it up. But Trump and other Repubs have already stated on the record that THEY WILL USE THIS.
All of us, including Bernie, and including me until last week, have ignored this up to now because the Repubs have "cried wolf" so many times before. But this time, this is real.
There is a lot to read up on and wrap our heads around about this, and I strongly recommend that Dems who haven't been paying attention to it, get on it right away.
This will BLINDSIDE us if we don't. This video is a good place to start. I also recommend the Wikipedia article on it as an overview, which has a ton of footnote links...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Email_server
SETTING UP THE SERVER WAS AN ILLEGAL ACT, it's not about the emails, and no other Secretary of State ever did this! Nobody. She never used her government email account AT ALL, and it was purely to evade FOIA and to hide pay-to-play with the Clinton Foundation -- 13 separate instances of it, and counting.
This will blow up on us, Dems. 100% guaranteed. She will either be indicted or the court of public opinion will REJECT her, and elect a Repub.
Funtatlaguy
(10,862 posts)It's gone on way too long.
Surely they know by now what they have.
It's not fair to Hillary to leave it out there.
And, if they do indict but wait until Hillary clinches the nomination or until the convention, how is that fair to Bernie or the Dem party?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)She is after all a former Sec of State, wife of former President. But 150 agents are not working on this because for 'fun'.