Let's put our heads together on the Clinton e-mail scandal

[paulthompson]

Right now, I think Sanders is only a longshot to catch up to Clinton in the pledged delegate count. And even if he doesn't, she'll still have most of the superdelegates, and she might take a "win at any cost" approach at the convention, even if that means tearing the Democratic Party apart. So things are looking grim...

EXCEPT for the Clinton e-mail scandal. At first, I thought that was a bogus right-wing smear, like Benghazi, but the more I hear about it, the more I've come to believe it actually has serious substance. I think that scandal will blow up in the next couple of months, completely transforming the race.

Here are the likely options:

A) she could get indicted. It's been reported that the FBI is going to make that decision by mid-May, perhaps earlier.

B) some of her top aides could get indicted, but not her. That would bring out a lot more damning information and still leave open the possibility of her getting indicted later.

C) perhaps no indictments, but for blatantly political reasons. However, the vast majority of intelligence agency employees are Republican and thus aren't friends to Clinton. So under this option, there will be all kinds of leaks from disgruntled FBI agents outraged at the lack of indictments. If so, the exposure of a cover-up could end up being even worse than the original crime(s).

D) pro-Clinton forces try to run out of the clock, pushing off a decision on indicting until after Clinton is nominated. But see the above point about disgruntled leakers. There have been lots of leaks already and I'm sure that's going to continue, so Clinton could be dragged down by the drip drip of leaks alone.

E) Clinton is properly investigated and it just turns out she did nothing wrong, so there's no need for any indictments. I'm 100% convinced this is not the case. To cite just one example, in a 2011 e-mail, Clinton advisor Jacob Sullivan told Clinton that "They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it." Clinton hersef responded, "If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." That right there is a smoking gun! She was being sent classified information, she knew it, and she tried to disguise it by removing the classified heading.

But one doesn't even have to prove a motive of criminal intent. The mere possession of classified material in an unsecured manner is a crime, and there's absolutely no doubt she did that. So any failure to indict is clearly a political decision, because less powerful officials doing the same thing would get nailed to the wall.

Given all that, this race is far from over! However, what matters most is public perception. With so much of the establishment media blatantly supporting Clinton, there's going to be tons of pro-Clinton spin no matter what comes out. As Sanders supporters, we should do all we can to prepare and have the evidence is easily digestible form to get the truth out.

The problem is, I've been following the DU primary forum for a couple of months now, and I've seen this or that e-mail scandal tidbit, but nothing that's brought all the best evidence together and presented it in a succinct and clear manner. I say we should use this thread right here to "crowdsource" this, and pool our talents and knowledge to make some kind of article, FAQ, and/or list of talking points about the scandal.

I'm a professional author, with my book The Terror Timeline published by Harper Collins, and I'm good at compiling news articles to present lots of data in a compelling way (which I did for years with the Complete 9/11 Timeline). I'd be willing to do all I can to help with this. But the problem is, I haven't saved any articles whatsoever relating to the e-mail scandal, nor have I seen any website or resource that has presented this information effectively. So I think the first step is to gather up the raw data from links to articles and the like. Then we can work together on shaping it and then spreading it far and wide.

Sanders' best chance to win the nomination by far is if Clinton's e-mail scandal catches up with her. Nobody wants a general election nominee who's been indicted or has the cloud of a serious scandal hanging over her head! So I can't emphasize enough how important it is to master the factual evidence, in order to be ready to win the battle of public opinion when this scandal blows up.

Who's with me on this?! If you are, please start posting links in this thread.

[MisterP]

1. don't forget the DoJ's involved now, too

[highprincipleswork]

2. Truth is truth. I don't see this going away without a hurt of some kind. How big? Could be big.

[LiberalArkie]

3. I think Clinton had better hope it is before the election. If so, she will be indicted.

If indicted she needs to be convicted and sentenced before January. If all that works out Obama can pardon her.

That is a lot of things to have to work out for her to get a pardon. If the DNC feels that an indictment is coming, I do not think she will be nominated. They have no idea of how long the trial would be or what kind of jury. I don't think even the DNC would vote for her if she is under indictment.

[paulthompson]

17. timing

There's no way in heck she could be tried and sentenced before January. The wheels of justice don't turn that fast. It won't even be close.

However, once she's merely charged, could Obama pardon her then? Does anyone know?

But even if he could do that, if he does, it'll create a shit-storm similar to Watergate, and destroy his legacy. And I don't see how Clinton could win the presidency after that.

[LiberalArkie]

18. Well upon reading, I think she is SOL

Sec. 1.2 Eligibility for filing petition for pardon.

No petition for pardon should be filed until the expiration of a waiting period of at least five years after the date of the release of the petitioner from confinement or, in case no prison sentence was imposed, until the expiration of a period of at least five years after the date of the conviction of the petitioner. Generally, no petition should be submitted by a person who is on probation, parole, or supervised release.

Sec. 1.3 Eligibility for filing petition for commutation of sentence.

No petition for commutation of sentence, including remission of fine, should be filed if other forms of judicial or administrative relief are available, except upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.

Sec. 1.4 Offenses against the laws of possessions or territories of the United States.

Petitions for executive clemency shall relate only to violations of laws of the United States. Petitions relating to violations of laws of the possessions of the United States or territories subject to the jurisdiction of the United [[Page 97]] States should be submitted to the appropriate official or agency of the possession or territory concerned.

[paulthompson]

21. That can't be right

I don't know where you got that text from, but that can't be true for presidential pardons. It says there needs to be a five-year waiting period, for starters. But consider Ford and Nixon. Ford pardoned Nixon, and that was far short of five years after Nixon's crimes.

[LiberalArkie]

22. Yes I know. And the tricky part is he was relieved of service with no prison sentence.

That may be the thing. But that may not apply as HRC is just a civilian now.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blprespardons.htm

There is this which say the same thing. https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions

[paulthompson]

23. link

I followed your first link, and found this:

While Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution places no limitations on the president's power to grant or deny pardons, the Justice Department's U.S. Pardon Attorney prepares a recommendation for the president on each application for presidential "clemency," including pardons, commutations of sentences, remissions of fines, and reprieves.

The Pardon Attorney is required to review each application according to the following guidelines: (The president is not obliged to follow, or even consider the recommendations of the Pardon Attorney. See: Sec. 1.10)

That seems pretty clear. The president can grant pardons without limit, and the rest are just recommendations. But can someone be pardoned before they're convicted, or even charged? I'm still not sure about that.

[JonLeibowitz]

27. Yes. Again, Ford-Nixon.

[Art_from_Ark]

124. And Bush Sr.- Casper Weinberger

[Hassin Bin Sober]

83. Yes. She can be pardoned at any time. Those are DOJ guidelines, not laws.

She can also be impeached regardless of any pardon.

[leveymg]

57. The direct precedent is John Deutch. AG ran out the clock, Bill pardoned

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:45 AM - Edit history (1)

That's the most likely outcome, IMHO.

See, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/us/clinton-did-not-consult-cia-chief-on-pardon-official-says.html

[PatrickforO]

201. No, because Ford pardoned Nixon and it wasn't five years between that and

the commission of the crimes.

[2banon]

158. "Not going to happen", she said.

Clinton was pretty emphatic when she said "Not Going to Happen, Not Going to Happen" when asked during one of the debates or townhalls (can't remember which one) whether she had any concerns that her campaign was going to be jeopardized by the "controversy".

The way she responded with "Not Going to Happen", got my attention. I read it as, the fix on that is already taken care of.

It would be really interesting to know if it's back-scratching deal, or blackmail, or a pay off.

Which ever the case, it'll all be fodder for speculation and a horribly toxic run up for the office she is so desperate to occupy.

[thereismore]

164. The way she said it: for once I believed her.

She must know something. Maybe Obama gave her some assurances.

[2banon]

171. Got your attention too? I wondered if anyone else picked up

on that.

I happen to be watching a pbs documentary on Al Capone right now... and they just mentioned that famous quip where Capone brags to the press how he's got the cops, judges, and other elected officials in his pocket.

I thought it was the perfect analogy for my initial reaction to Hillary's "Not Going to Happen" response.

[thereismore]

173. Hubris. Alwayys precedes a fall.

[2banon]

175. sooner or later..

but then, there are exceptions.

[thereismore]

176. Like Kissinger, Bush and Cheney. She fits. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. No links to share BUT I have a thought about point C.

Blatant political maneuvering resulting in no indictment of Clinton, and it is clear that she should have been, leaves me wondering if that would hurt not only the nominee's chances, but damage Dems down ticket and wipe out a shot at changing the balance on the Hill. That possibility really concerns me.

[paulthompson]

19. Yep

If Clinton wins the nomination and this scandal blows up, indictment or not, that's probably the only way Trump could win the presidency.

Trump's negative poll numbers are astonishing. Basically, about a third of Republicans love him, and most everybody else hates him. There's no way he can win against Sanders or Clinton... except for the e-mail scandal!

He's already said that if it comes down to a Clinton-Trump general election, he's going to harp on the e-mail scandal every single day.

[Fast Walker 52]

75. PaulThompson-- I love your work!

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 11:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Good to hear from you and good thoughts on the scandal. Whatever happens in terms of charges will be heavily politicized either way.

I've long thought that the scandal was not so much the private server as the content of the emails, and the nexus with the Clinton foundation.

I assume you've seen the wikileaks page of the emails.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

ETA: sorry, responded to wrong message-- meant to reply to OP

[2banon]

159. That's the point which concerns me greatly.

I have attempted to reason this point to a few Hillary supporters given this very narrow window closing in the primary.. the explosive scandal which is certain to erupt and drag on does not bode well for this party's future, and we're all stuck in the deja vu of the 90's political climate all over again. Ground Hog Horror Years.

And oh, Bernie supporters will be forever blamed.

This I have no doubt, it's already being drummed up.

[thereismore]

165. She should step down while she is ahead in the count.

But she is too selfish. She will drag many people down. She can really hurt the party she cares so much about.

[2banon]

172. that's just it, she doesn't give a flying fig for anyone else,

she's entitled after all.

[GreenPartyVoter]

181. Yeah, they have their fingers jammed so tightly in their ears. *sigh*

[flor-de-jasmim]

5. I can't provide links at the moment, but there is something I would like to add...

My Dad was a statistical engineer who worked on Defense projects with a security clearance in the 40s to the 70s. He talked about how someone would be immediately fired and lose their clearance if they went to the john without LOCKING their documents into a safe. Every time. No exceptions. Even 50 years later he would not speak of anything that had been classified, knowing that the information was no longer relevant, actionable, etc.

Hillary was First Lady of Arkansas, FLOTUS, and Senator before becoming SOS. It is not credible that she was unaware of how security clearances are intended to "work", independently of the number of official orientation sessions she had when she took office. Obviously more sessions might have gone into greater detail as to specific procedures, but it seems she was overly cavalier about very basic aspects of security in her discussions with personal friends.

[LiberalArkie]

20. First part, yea it is a pain in the rear

Second. I think HRC is like a lot of management people. Those rules do not APPLY TO ME, they only apply to the peons. Yes they did ally to here.

[Baobab]

44. As a country, we should do everything in our power to make it so we have fewer secrets.

Secrets are a liability - always.

They turn into major liabilities.

We urgently need to stop doing so many of the kinds of things that need to be kept so secret.

[2banon]

160. Her cavilier attitude describes her personna

she projects. She can't help herself.

She doesn't merely think she's entitled, she KNOWS she's entitled.

She and Drumpf have that character flaw in common.

[Bjornsdotter]

6. I don't know if there is

...anything to the emails, none of us really do. However, I do think that Hillary is trying to run out the clock on the emails and the speeches. Ignore it and hope it goes away.

[paulthompson]

10. I disagree

I haven't started to really dig into this yet. But I know enough to be sure she should be indicted.

Just one example. Clinton deleted 30,000 e-mails (out of 60,000), saying they were all personal, such as talking about her yoga schedule. But although the Benghazi scandal is mostly a bogus witch hunt IMHO, the Republicans investigating that have noticed a bunch of Clinton e-mails related to Benghazi from other sources that were not in the 30,000 work related e-mails Clinton handed over. Which means she must have deleted some e-mails that were definitely work related - and embarrassing to her.

Furthermore, back in 2013, a Romanian hacker nicknamed Guccifer got into the e-mail account of Sid Blumenthal, a journalist and longtime Clinton associate who was working at the Clinton Foundation at the time. He publicly posted some screenshots of Clinton e-mails. One could say he just forged them, but some match word for word with e-mails that have been later released. Others were NOT in the released e-mails. That again means that Clinton deleted e-mails that were work related - and embarrassing to her again. (The Blumethal aspect of this scandal could be enough to send her prison in and of itself, but I won't go into that right now.)

I think the biggest looming scandal is what's in those 30,000 deleted e-mails. Just today, a news report had a passing mention that the FBI was able to get information off Clinton's server after she wiped it clean. That would be consistent with previous reports that ALL of the deleted e-mails were recovered and the FBI is sorting them into work related and non-work related. I wish I had a link at hand, but that was reported in the New York Times late last year. That means the FBI has had over six months to sort and analyze all those deleted e-mails, and they have over 100 FBI agents working on it.

I predict those deleted e-mails are going to contain enough smoking guns to outfit an entire army! Think about it. Past Secretaries of State like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice did have private e-mails, but they had official government e-mails too. It appears they used their private e-mails mostly or entirely for private matters. But Clinton by all accounts only had the ONE private e-mail account for her entire four years as Secretary of State! She did ALL her goverment business on it! So far, the number of classified e-mails that we know of found in the 30,000 she willingly released is over 2,000, and growing. But what's in the deleted e-mails? We already know from the above that she's lying about them all being personal only. I would not be surprised if 10,000 or more of those ended up being classified!

It stands to reason that she would have deleted all the really damning stuff that could get her in trouble, in the hopes those deleted e-mails would be gone forever. That's what the guilty usually do, try to hide the evidence. Karl Rove did something similar if you recall, where thousands of his e-mails disappeared, never to be seen again. But Clinton's e-mails HAVE been recovered and are in the hands of the FBI! She's in a world of hurt.

However, most people don't know most of this stuff yet. Even a lot of Sanders supporters don't seem the know the basic facts about the scandal. That's why I feel it's so important for us to pool our resources and lay the information out in way that can't be swept under the rug.

[paulthompson]

13. BOOM!

I just found the New York Times article I mentioned in my above post:

Investigators Find Emails Hillary Clinton Said Were Erased

WASHINGTON — F.B.I. investigators have recovered work-related and personal emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton said had been deleted from the server that housed the personal account she used exclusively when she was secretary of state, according to two government officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/us/politics/investigators-find-emails-hillary-clinton-said-were-erased.html?_r=0

How is this not better known?! As I mentioned in my above post, those deleted e-mails are bound to lead to a whole bunch of smoking guns. This New York Times article doesn't mention it, but other mainstream reports say ALL 30,000 deleted e-mails have been recovered by the FBI.

[amborin]

96. wasn't one or two of the missing 30K recently mentioned in the news? supposedly they contained

info that contradicted her previous testimony under oath, concerning when she started using the private server

[thereismore]

167. I remember reading that the deleted emails had been

recovered. At the time I thought wow that's hugely significant. But then nobody talked about it and there was no update. Do you think the feds are keeping those emails in utmost secrecy because they are that important?

[Bjornsdotter]

25. I don't disagree with you at all

....my personal belief is that something is there. We judt don't know for certain until it is completely exposed.

I don't trust Hillary at all and certainly not on this subjec.

Thank-you for your informative post!

Edit: I meant that Hillary would ignore it and hope it went away. On my original post.

[idea5]

7. A couple interesting recent finds

Role of tech who set up Clinton's server unknown to bosses at State
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0WR00X

This is sort of dark territory (source is a nasty conservative group) but it seems like Hillary's team didn't hand over everything, and that in particular, she withheld emails where she was specifically instructed to not use unauthorized devices.:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-uncovers-new-hillary-clinton-email-withheld-from-state-department/

[NJCher]

8. Time crunch today

But I want to go on record as saying this is an excellent idea, and one on which I want to work.

After this weekend, I will have more time to go back through my browser histories and get the links. I will be back to post.


Cher

[paulthompson]

14. Thanks!

I'm glad to hear it.

[Kip Humphrey]

9. Paul, far more pressing for me is...

the worrisome cases brought to light of infiltration and sabotage within the Sanders campaign by Hillary/DNC operatives as uncovered by Niko House.

Beyond trying to get this information to Bernie, evidence of this Hillary Clinton/DNC subterfuge and its extreme potential for damaging Bernie's election efforts needs compiling and publicizing so that volunteers on the ground for Bernie can counteract nefarious & nonsensical instructions from Clinton operatives inside the Bernie campaign organization.

https://www.facebook.com/niko.m.house
(there are 4 important Niko House videos here but requires a LOT of scrolling)

http://caucus99percent.com/content/ryan-hughes-mi-and-pa-bernie-state-director-accused-accepting-hillary-super-pac-money

Because of the time-sensitive nature of this and the potential effects on races still to be voted, pursuing THIS is much, much more important right now. The email scandal will unfold via FBI, DOJ and has yet to play. Right now, we need Niko House's (et. al.) story to get out and most especially to get to Bernie!

[Blue Meany]

11. One thing to consider is that in 2008

When she was losing, Clinton wrote to all of the uncommitted delegates arguing that they should vote for her because she had a better shot at winning in the general election. I don't remember the exact language, but this could certainly be used against her.
I don't like the dirty campaigning tactics she used in 2008 or that she uses today.

In 2008, she had "won" Iliinois with about 50% of the votes in an election in which hers was the only name on the ballot (the other candidates removed their names in deference to DNC objections to early primaries in Florida and Illinois). She was endeavoring to have all the other Illinois delegates seated as uncommitted, so that she would have a chance of getting their votes. Then she started accusing of Obama of disenfranchising voters when he didn't agree to this.

[hedda_foil]

120. I think you're confusing illinois with Michigan.

[RDANGELO]

12. There are reports that it has expanded to the Clinton Foundation

This could turn out to be more serious than the e-mail scandal.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/265402-report-fbi-expanding-clinton-investigation-to-look-into-public-corruption

[paulthompson]

16. Good point

I've heard that too. But I worry that these things take time and there might not be time for the FBI to put together a case on that, since the Clinton Foundation is such a very complicated entity. I heard the main non-partisan group that rates foundations for their effectiveness refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because they couldn't even understand it.

However, it seems likely to me that the two scandals could dovetail. I believe the Clinton Foundation was not a charity in the usual sense. Instead, it was a way for the Clintons to gain more power and money and get around the usual donation limits. Time and time again, we see evidence of some person, company, or government wanting to curry favor with either or both of the Clintons and then giving big donations to the Clinton Foundation right around that time.

This is pure speculation, but what if in some of those deleted e-mails, Clinton and/or her aides talk in an open way about the quid pro quo that was obviously going on? Say, the Saudis want some policy change to benefit them while she's Secretary of State, and at the same time, the Saudis donate $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. I'll bet there's a lot of that sort of thing in the deleted e-mails in particular. But will it come to public light in time to influence the election?

By the way, one thing I find VERY interesting is that the intelligene agencies didn't want Clinton to bring her personal electronic devices into secure rooms, because those devices could actually be hijacked and used to spy. So instead they gave her computers and wanted her to log in to her e-mail account on them in those secure rooms. But Clinton refused.

Why? My logical guess is that if she ever logged in to her private account in a secure government room, that could open the possibility of government security people being able to learn about the contents of her private e-mails. Which would mean there were things she was discussng there that she didn't want anyone in government to know about.

And there's already one good example of this. Reporter, Clinton Foundation employee, and Clinton's close friend Sid Blumenthal apparently was e-mailing her intelligence information on a daily basis. And in one case, one e-mail he sent to her was based on four classified NSA reports about Libya released mere hours earlier! The wording was exactly the same, with one paragraph identical. And at the time, Blumenthal had no security clearance whatsoever (and Obama had deemed Blumenthal persona non grata for his anti-Obama reporting in the 2008 campaign, preventing Clinton from giving him a State Department job). So it seems Blumenthal had a mole or two in the NSA, and was reguarly passing that info on to Clinton.

No wonder Clinton had a private server and refused to even check her e-mail account on a government computer. She was playing with fire, dealing with classified information gained through clearly illegal means! (Perhaps to get a leg up when it came to inter-agency rivalries and stovepiping, which is when each agency hoards its own intel.)

I tell you, this scandal is going to blow up in a big way. I think Clinton has been playing fast and loose with the law for years, figuring she was too powerful to ever get punished. We just need to firmly document everything and spread the word.

[leveymg]

59. Blumenthal was working in Libya w/the late Tyler Drumheller.

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:44 AM - Edit history (3)

You know who he is. If Tyler didn't still have clearance and access, he had former colleagues still inside who did. Sid and Tyler were reportedly working with a consortium of American security contractors trying to drum up State Dept contracts at the same time that Erik Prince was plying his services to the US State Dept and the Transitional Government. See, related, Guccifer's letter from Prison and reference to DMC Worldwide, a firm associated with Drumheller. https://cryptome.org/2015/06/guccifer-letter-01.htm

Scahill and Cole just wrote about Blackwater's ITAR problems in his dealings with Libya, https://theintercept.com/2016/03/24/blackwater-founder-erik-prince-under-federal-investigation/
and my take on that here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511568784

Also, see earlier reports of Blackwater personnel involvement in Libya and Syria regime change operations revealed in a Wikileaks hack of Stratfor, as referenced and linked here and follow-on reports posted at Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/25/1136158/-Libya-Attack-Casts-Unwanted-Spotlight-on-CIA-and-Blackwater-Role-in-Syria

[dragonfly301]

254. I'm late to the party - I never heard of Tyler Drumheller

just read his obit in the washpost - the comments that followed are eye raising...especially the one by Born2BeFree

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/tyler-drumheller-cia-officer-who-exposed-us-reliance-on-discredited-iraq-source-curveball-dies-at-63/2015/08/06/b45aeed2-3b99-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

[leveymg]

257. The truth is often in the omissions, particularly in the WaPo.

Very much an incomplete story yet to be written. Thanks for posting that.

[Punkingal]

15. I PMed Vulgar Poet who does great research....

Vulger Poet will help, I am sure.

[Punkingal]

24. Here you go....UPDATED.

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:21 PM - Edit history (9)

Most of these are older ones...I found it interesting how the tone has changed over time...people are not nearly as critical as they were in the beginning. Some of the sites I am not crazy about, but I think in order to see the whole picture one should read it all, and treat it accordingly.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-email-scandal-she-knew-the-security-risk-but-took-it-anyway/

"This former NSA official wonders just what it was that Clinton did not want “put on a government system, where security people might see it.” As well he should. It’s quite clear she wanted to conduct business in the dark.

The NSA also has to be upset with Clinton crony Sidney Blumenthal sending sensitive information to Clinton’s personal account. Schindler said the contents of a June 2011 message that Blumenthal emailed to Clinton were “indeed derived from NSA intelligence.” Somehow he got his hands on material he should not have had access to.

“This information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all of them classified top secret/special intelligence,” and at least one of the reports was “extraordinarily sensitive,” writes Schindler.

And it was out there for just about anyone with even modest hacking skills to look at — and sell to foreign spies — since it was sent to Clinton’s nonsecure personal email account."

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mercedes-schlapp/2015/03/06/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-is-self-inflicted-and-not-going-away

The Clinton e-mail scandal raises serious questions: Did she attempt to break the law about public records? Did she use the private server to withhold information to congressional investigations? Did she have the server purged after Benghazi tragedy, or did she erase any email that should have been saved for the archives? In the wake of the Sony hack, did she make national security information more vulnerable to the leering eyes of terrorists and other American enemies online?

The mainstream media is squarely focused on Clinton and openly upset about how Clinton decided to bypass her government email account and instead use her personal server for government use. The Associated Press may be moving forward on pursuing legal action over Clinton’s State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act. NBC News stated, “the Clintons and their supporters haven’t changed their ways. In fact, they’ve played into every negative stereotype.” The Washington Post editorial argued that Clinton’s action was “a mistake that reflects poor judgment about a public trust.” The media are equally concerned about repeated behavior when it comes to a lack of transparency from the Clinton machinery.

And trust is the key word. Can the American people trust a presidential candidate who decided to play by a different set of rules? Is Clinton above these standards? Is there a sense of entitlement? With absolute control of her emails, did Clinton withhold government related materials that dealt with Benghazi and other sensitive national security issues?

In addition to the email scandal, Clinton faces serious questions surrounding the funneling of large sums of foreign government money to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state. Many questions remain unanswered, and the media will not subside. While gossip site TMZ followed Clinton and asked her for a response, she smiled and walked away. Sending a weak tweet will not resolve her problems, and remaining silent will only aggravate the media’s desire for answers. Plus, the State Department could take months to release her emails, which means that the Clinton email scandal is not going away anytime soon.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-flashback/index.html

The latest episode is the tempest this past week over Hillary Clinton's decision to use a private email account -- and a personal server located in her home -- instead of an official State Department account. From her first days at Foggy Bottom, Secretary Clinton said she did not want the hassle of multiple email accounts, and told her staff to figure it out.
That decision was made despite direction from her boss - President Obama - that administration officials should use official email accounts. It also came despite his - and her - promises of improved government transparency. And despite her 2007 criticism of Bush administration use of "secret White House email accounts."

Why didn't someone on her team push back, and insist Secretary Clinton reconsider?

Flashback to January 1996. Writing in The New York Times, reporter David Johnston wrote of Mrs. Clinton's secretive role in the firings of White House travel office staffers and, significantly, "a climate of fear in which officials did not dare question Mrs. Clinton's wishes."
What is past is prologue.

Then, and now, Clinton loyalists describe shortcuts taken on her behalf as inadvertent and innocent. For convenience, they say, not protection. Clinton critics, then and now, see cutthroat use of power and a trademark penchant for control and secrecy.
Her camp's response to the email controversy so far is textbook Clinton crisis management: say -- and do -- as little as possible, just enough to keep inevitable controversy from ballooning into unpredictable crisis.

The White House is annoyed because the President was forced to answer questions about the issue before Secretary Clinton said anything, and several Democrats over the weekend suggesting silence was not a wise strategy.

Most loyalists expect Secretary Clinton to offer a public explanation soon, and believe this will soon pass. But these loyalists are watching closely to see if the old playbook still works. Times and technology have changed considerably in the fifteen years since the Clintons lived in the White House.

"Transparency and authenticity matter more now," one Clinton confidante said.

GOP veterans of the 1990s warn against Republican overreach. Yes, there are now several legitimate avenues for congressional oversight in which the presumptive 2016 Democratic nominee as Exhibit A. There are new subpoenas issued by the select committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi terror attacks to a likely broader GOP review of government record-keeping and email practices.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-email-scandal-why-it-might-be-time-for-democrats-to-draft-joe-biden/2016/02/05/cd69dfea-cc18-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.htmlv

The important nonpolitical question: Did the nation’s top diplomat or her State Department staff improperly handle extremely sensitive, top-secret information and do so in a manner in which the information could be compromised?

State Department rules are quite clear.

Top-secret information must not be placed on any unclassified systems. It must be accounted for and controlled. And no copy of a top-secret document can be made without the permission of the office or agency in which it originated.

In addition, any State Department employee who causes the compromise of top-secret information or makes a copy of a top-secret document or any portion of it without the originator’s permission is subject to administrative action.


There are also limited ways in which top-secret information can be transmitted. Sending top-secret information via a private, unsecured email server is not one of them. Transmitting top-secret information with the classification removed is also forbidden.

That makes it critical to establish whether Clinton’s private server contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said , “She was at worst a passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became deemed as classified.” In other words, Clinton is an innocent victim of bureaucratic infighting. If so, how did it happen?

That’s what makes this a Washington whodunit.

Someone inside the State Department transmitted the information to Clinton’s personal email account through a private server. That employee — or employees, as the case may be — knows or should know whether the material was drawn from, was based on or included top-secret information.

Given that the information on the server has been upgraded to top-secret, another fear arises: Have unauthorized individuals, even foreign governments, gained access to highly classified information, to the detriment of the United States?

It’s not as though clandestine attempts to penetrate government agencies have not been made.

In fall 2014, the State Department shut down and shored up its unclassified email system after detecting a possible hacker attack. A hacker also attacked the White House’s unclassified computer system around the same time.

Last year, Iranian hackers broke into the email and social media accounts of State Department officials who focused on Iran and the Middle East, according to the New York Times.

In July, The Post reported that hackers who attacked the Office of Personnel Management got the personnel and security files of at least 22 million people, including federal employees and contractors, as well as their families and friends.

The U.S. Postal Service was hacked in 2014. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s computer system was compromised the same year.

The nongovernment personal accounts of CIA Director John Brennan and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson reportedly have been hacked.

It’s chilling to think of what a breach of Clinton’s email account might mean to national security.

Presidential election year or not, the Clinton email issue must be resolved.


http://www.vox.com/2015/3/4/8140103/hillary-clinton-emails-explained

In early March, an investigation by the New York Times' Michael S. Schmidt found that Hillary Clinton exclusively used a personal email account during her time as Secretary of State. She didn't even set up an official address. She wasn't using Gmail, either; she was "homebrewing" her emails with a server that "traced back to an Internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua, New York," according to the AP.

As a result, records of her work-related email correspondence weren't appropriately kept while she was there, instead only being turned over last year. We have no way of verifying that they've been properly turned over now, except for Clinton's word. President Obama said he learned about her email practices at "the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports."

1) Why is Clinton's email use controversial?

Exclusively using a personal account is a highly unusual practice for modern officials — and it meant many of Clinton's emails wouldn't become part of the State Department's records, or subject to Freedom of Information Act disclosure requests. "Very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees in the Obama administration should use their official email accounts when they're conducting official government business," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday.

The New York Times' Schmidt also quotes several watchdogs and record-keeping experts harshly criticizing Clinton for her heavy reliance on private email.

The specific legal issue at play here, however, doesn't appear to be Clinton's use of her personal email — but rather the failure of Clinton and her aides to properly keep records of her work-related communications from that email account on State Department servers. Clinton said on March 10 that she "fully complied with every rule that I was governed by."

In 2014 (well after Clinton stepped down), in response to a query from the State Department (initiated by a House committee investigation into Benghazi), she turned over 55,000 pages of emails from her personal account that the department didn't previously have.

Clinton's team says she gave them all the ones relating to State Department business, but we basically have to take her word for that — she got to pick and choose which to give the government. And that makes some people wonder what Clinton might have left out.

2) So what was she using, Gmail or Yahoo?

Neither — instead, Clinton's personal email account instead appears to have been hosted at a domain called, appropriately, "Clintonemail.com." The AP's Jack Gillum and Ted Bridis reported that she used a "homebrew" system for maintaining the servers, and that her address was [e-mail].

This domain, revealed in a 2013 Gawker post, was registered on January 13, 2009 — the day Clinton's Senate confirmation hearings began, writes Philip Bump of the Washington Post.

3) Is Clinton the only top-level official to avoid using a government email?

There was no requirement that Clinton set up a government email. Indeed, several recent Cabinet officials — including former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano — have opted not do so. In fact, the State Department says its current secretary, John Kerry, is the first ever "to use a standard government email address ending in 'state.gov'," according to the Washington Post's Anne Gearan. So it's certainly not odd for Clinton not to have an official email.

Some of these officials, however, just chose not to use emails for work at all, and rather to communicate through other means. For instance, Condoleezza Rice, who was secretary before Clinton, "generally did not use email during her tenure but when she did it was through the State Department system," a Rice aide told Steve Holland of Reuters.

Clinton, by contrast, emailed frequently, but always from her personal account. The closest comparison to what she did appears to be Colin Powell, who served as secretary of state between 2001 and 2005. Powell then "used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders," Schmidt writes.

But during Powell's tenure, rules about retaining records of personal emails were somewhat more ambiguous. In 2009, though — the year Clinton took office — the National Archives and Records Administration said that "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 recordkeeping system," Dylan Byers reports. Clinton argues that the use of personal emails for work was permitted, so long as records were kept.

4) So which emails from Clinton does the government have?

Emails from Clinton to US officials using their own government accounts should already have been in the system. In a statement, Clinton spokesperson Nick Merrill said that when Clinton emailed State employees, she used their State Department email addresses — so the government should have records of all those emails already, from the recipients' end. Emails by Clinton to White House officials or members of other departments are also likely to have been preserved by those agencies. That is, unless those aides also used personal accounts to correspond with Clinton.

On March 10, the State Department announced that, after a review that could take months, it would post the text of many of Clinton's emails on a public website. But when it comes to emails sent to people outside the government, the US apparently only has what Clinton and her aides chose to turn over in December 2014.

Clinton said on March 10 that there were 60,000 emails in total she had sent or received while Secretary. According to a review conducted by her team, half of these, she said, were work-related and given to the State Department. The rest were personal and have since been deleted.

However, the people with the strongest incentives to keep unflattering things secret — Clinton and her aides — got to decide what to withhold.

5) Was Jeb Bush much more transparent about his emails?

When the news broke, likely GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush immediately took a shot at Clinton on Twitter. Schmidt's Times story also mentions Jeb Bush as "stressing a different approach," and says he "released a trove of emails" from his tenure as governor of Florida.

But Bush also used a personal email account for work during that time — [e-mail] — and decided which of those emails to turn over to the state. Mary Ellen Klas of the Tampa Bay Times writes:

"The former governor conducted all his communication on his private [e-mail] account and turned over the hand-selected batch to the state archives when he left office. Absent from the stash are emails the governor deemed not relevant to the public record: those relating to politics, fundraising and personal matters while he was governor."

Furthermore, Bush did post those emails publicly — after Florida law guaranteed they would become public anyway, and after they had already been posted on other sites. (Bush still gets points for making a good-looking website to browse through the emails, though it's lacking a search function.) A spokesperson confirmed Wednesday that Bush also owns the server where his emails are hosted, according to MSNBC's Kasie Hunt.

There are differences between Bush and Clinton's situations. Foreign governments would likely be much more interested in the emails of the US Secretary of State than the governor or Florida. Also, email was much newer when Bush took office in 1999, and different laws and regulations about email use apply to Florida and the federal government.

It does appear that Clinton didn't hand over any of her emails until the State Department asked for them nearly two years after she had stepped down. Then again, Bush stepped down as governor in 2007, and didn't finish handing over his emails to the state of Florida until 2014, according to Michael Bender of Bloomberg Politics.

6) We don't know what is missing from the record

One of the most pressing questions here has an unknowable answer. We do not know if Clinton sent and withheld emails to foreign leaders or businessmen. We can only go on what her staff assures us.

In an email, Clinton spokesperson Nick Merrill says that classified information was "never" sent from the Clintonemail.com domain. As to whether Clinton emailed foreign or leaders and foreign officials, Merrill writes, "Except on only the rarest of occasions, for instance with a UK official, that was simply not her practice." And, he says, emails such as those would have been turned over to State.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-emails-dem-debate_us_561db516e4b0c5a1ce610f86

When asked about the matter at Tuesday’s Democratic presidential debate, Clinton called the House Select Committee on Benghazi “basically an arm of the Republican National Committee.” As evidence, she cited House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s boast last week that the committee succeeded in driving down Clinton’s poll numbers.

“Big surprise. I’m still standing,” she said, garnering a round of applause.

Pressed again by CNN host Anderson Cooper, who noted even President Barack Obama had called her private email use improper, Clinton admitted she did err but that she had apologized for it.

“I never said it wasn’t legitimate,” she said of the investigation. “I said I have answered all the questions.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-emails_us_560930a0e4b0768126fe00f8

The former secretary of state argued that Clinton, whom she has already endorsed for president in 2016, faced difficulties because “every agency has a somewhat different definition of what’s classified and under what circumstances and is it ex post facto classified.”

Asked whether she would have approved a private email server for one of her underlings at the State Department, however, Albright said she “would not.”

Later on Monday however, Albright said she meant she wouldn’t authorize such a server were she the secretary of state today.

[Oilwellian]

26. UPDATED: Work in Progress

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:34 AM - Edit history (1)

I'll continue to update here. If there are enough of us working on this, perhaps it would be easier to do it in Google Docs together. It would be a little easier to organize and not have two of us working on the same thing.


Oct. 5, 2015 - Sen. Ron Johnson's letter to Datto Inc.

Unbeknownst to Clinton, IT firm had emails stored on cloud; now in FBI’s hands


February 1, 2013 - Hillary retires from State Dept

May 31, 2013 - Clinton Executive Services Corp (CESC) purchased backup data services from Datto, Inc. The Committee has learned that a product offered by Datto, Inc.—the Datto SIRIS S2000—was purchased for Secretary Clinton to provide on-site, immediate recovery of backup data in the event that the primary server failed. . According to documents received by the Committee, CESC oversaw contracting for the hardware and software required for Secretary Clinton's private server and email.”


June 15, 2013 - Clinton's private server was moved from her private residence to the New Jersey-based data center of Platte River Networks (PRN) who set up the Datto SIRIS device at this new location. When acquiring the Datto SIRIS product, it appears that CESC representatives worked with PRN employees to determine how the Datto device would back up data on Secretary Clinton’s private server." According to documents received by the Committee, CESC chose to only store the backup data on-site on the Datto SIRIS device, thus creating a private cloud managed by PRN. CESC specifically requested that no data be stored on Datto’s off-site cloud at any time.

Oct 28, 2014 - State Department formally requested of Cheryl Mills, all of Hillary's documents related to her time there.

December 2014 - Datto, based in Norwalk, Conn. turned over her work-related emails to the State Department, at its request.

August, 2015 - Employees at PRN discovered that Secretary Clinton’s private server was syncing with “an offsite sync server ... belonging to Datto. It appears that Datto was providing backups for the server “from the beginning” of the contract.”

It also appears that PRN employees were directed by CESC to reduce how much data would be stored in each backup. In August 2015, a PRN employee raised the prospect that the length of the backups was reduced at some point during PRN's time managing the server. In an email to a colleague with the subject line “CESC Datto,” the PRN employee asked if it is possible to use Mimecast.” PRN's email archiving system, to find an old email from CESC directing PRN to reduce the length of Datto’s backups. He wrote:

"Any chance you found an old email with their directive to cut the backup back in Oct-Feb. I know they had you cut it once in Oct-Nov, then again to 30days [sic] in Feb-ish. If we had that email, we are golden. Would Mimecast have archived it by chance? Wondering how we can sneak an email in now after the fact asking them when they told us to cut the backups and have them confirm it for our records. Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy shit.... I just think if we have it in writing that they told us to cut the backups, and that we can go public with our statement saying we have had backups since day one, then we were told to trim to 30days [sic], it would make us look a WHOLE LOT better.”

Will Hillary Clinton benefit from an ‘un-American double standard’?

Despite FBI inquiry, Clinton retains security clearance

Seven unanswered questions about Clinton’s emails

Clinton Server Firm Employee Worried They Were ‘Covering Up Some Shady Sh*t’

Will do more later. Hope this helps.

[paulthompson]

28. Thanks!

This is a reply to both you and Punkingal. I love the links and the energy.

But what would be more useful than just links is if you could also include some text highlights from each. Then we can start to organize and prioritize those.

And by the way, I saw in some DU post a couple weeks back that some blogger created a very useful timeline about the e-mail scandal. Of course, I'm partial to timelines. However, it was made in the middle of 2015 and only went that far. Would anyone know how to find that again?

I'm thinking we should slice and dice this in different ways, for instance having a "Cliff Notes" summary of the most important points for the attention-challenged, and a more detailed account for people who are more interested. One way to look at things would be a timeline.

[Oilwellian]

35. I'll come back later and grab the most important points in each link w/approx dates

I have to feed my husband now but will be happy to pitch in later this evening. A timeline would be awesome and you're the right guy to do it.

[leveymg]

61. I had a partial timeline started about a month ago

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Not an endorsement of the site. http://www.unbiasedamerica.com/hillary-clinton-email-controversy-timeline/

However, the timeline seems, with some minor misinterpretations, accurate and comprehensive for the period covering the purchase of the server in 2008 to related developments through mid-2015. Please see my actual post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1444939 and my comment about what I see as a misinterpretation of the law in the timeline: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1445578

[Oilwellian]

76. Great addition to the timeline, leveymg

Kick

[paulthompson]

84. That's the one!

Thanks. I saw a link to that timeline here at DU a week or two ago, probably from one of your posts. I'm going to say more about it further down this thread.

[dreamnightwind]

29. Count me in

I have no interest in furthering Republican witch hunt attacks, and much of this is just that, IMO, but I'm recently convinced there are substantive issues to be revealed from the email issue, and a possible impending indictment means HRC might be damaged goods, not good to nominate a candidate under that cloud. So I would be glad to help, and whether I help or not, I applaud your intelligent presentation of the larger issues involved, seems like you are a good person to drive this effort, and thanks for putting the time in.

Re the Benghazi scandal being witch-huntish, I think the angle the Republicans were taking (inadequate security) is exactly that, but undereneath is a very substantive scandal, which, if I understand it corrrectly, is that the Benghazi "consulate" was a CIA station house, being used to secretly funnel arms to Syrian rebel forces to further destabilize that nation. It fits a larger Clinton/Obama pattern of covert destabilization, examples being Libya, Syria, Honduras, and the U.S. suport of Egypt's military controlling that nation after the Arab Spring overthrow of Mubarak. But this is all a digression from your OP, it belongs elsewhere.

If you have specific tasks you want researched or performed, you can PM me, otherwise I'll try to watch this thread.

[leveymg]

62. The CIA Annex was about 1 km south of the Ambassador's residence

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 11:32 AM - Edit history (3)

There's a large complex of warehouses adjacent to the Annex. Whatever heavy weapons, particularly MANPADS, that was being picked up off the black market and from cooperative militias was being stored by the CIA there. It wasn't revealed whether those store houses were breached during the attacks, but you can bet that whatever was left intact was hauled off the next day after the Bug Out.



Of course, no weapons were being stored at the Annex, as the House Committee report stated. They wouldn't fit in the closets. Plenty of room in the 14 warehouses next door, though. Can't find any after photos of the warehouses, and they didn't appear in the movie set for 13 Hours.



The report may have been too carefully worded, as it appears to contradict Sec. Clinton's own testimony delivered in early 2013, as follows:

In January 2013, Clinton testified before Congress and said the CIA was leading a “concerted effort to try to track down and find and recover … MANPADS [man-portable air defense systems]” looted from the stockpiles of toppled Libyan ruler Muammar Qaddafi.http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/15/analysis-cia-role-in-benghazi-underreported/

[magical thyme]

30. Judicial Watch just uncovered emails from February '09

that she said didn't exist. They were from her private system, which she had claimed she didn't start using until March of that year. So there's a new small collection of emails that were previously not known to exist.

Iirc, they include the exchanges with Cheryl Mills about denial of her request to use a blackberry.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/274230-lost-emails-discovered-from-clintons-server

ps I have tons of background stuff and links. I'll have to go through my posts here at DU, at DI and at JPR.

[leveymg]

63. Some have suggested the NSA refusal to clone Obama's secure phone was HRCs motive

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:24 AM - Edit history (1)

for setting up her own server. The reason given by the NSA for refusal to fabricate and furnish her with a copy was cost. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-request-for-secure-smartphone/

But as head of agency, Hillary had a sizable discretionary fund that one would think would cover that cost. My thinking is that the real reason is the DIA/NSA didn't trust her with a device that could easily be reverse engineered to tap into the President's system.

[grasswire]

107. oooh

the plot thickens.

[paulthompson]

110. Good point

The fact that they didn't give her a secure Blackberry and/or phone like they did Obama is odd. Because they already made one for Obama, so couldn't they just have given her a copy of that? They must not have wanted to do it, for some reason.

Here's a theory: what if the State Department and the NSA simply weren't getting along? Inter-departmental rivalries are a very common thing in governments. Later on, we find that Clinton was getting secret classified NSA information sent to her from reporter Sid Blumenthal, who must have had some NSA insider giving it to him. If the State Department and the NSA had a good relationship, Clinton could have just gotten it right away directly from the NSA.

In the 9/11 research I used to do, I found out that the NSA, CIA, and FBI got along so poorly that sometimes all three of them independently monitored the same suspects with different equipment, because they didn't think they would get the information from the other agencies. So people in government can get VERY petty.

[Aerows]

152. Bingo! n/t

[magical thyme]

31. the tangential "pay-to-play" investigation is potentially bigger than the email (& probably a major

reason she went to such lengths to hide her emails). IB Times did a lot of work in that area, showing the dramatic increase in arms sales, esp to countries that even W wouldn't sell to, with large donations by those countries to Clinton Foundation and/or highly paid speeches for Bill.

Also the UBS thing -- she lobbied to get them out of trouble for hiding tax cheats and they were paid big $$ for that.

Also, from a really awful source (sorry) but Marsha Blackburn is supposedly planning to ask the FTC to investigate the Clinton Foundation as a "sham charity."

Apparently Blackburn is circulating this letter among her crowd.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...harity-status/

The letter:

Dear Chairwoman Ramirez:

We write to ask that you review the charitable status of the Clinton Foundation (hereinafter “the Foundation). The Foundation maintains that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “..was not involved in the work of the Foundation when she was Secretary of State.” However, Secretary Clinton used a private email server to conduct official business during her tenure at the State Department and media reports suggest that the Justice Department is now investigating a link between her official actions and Foundation activity. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has a history of investigating “sham” charities for false and deceptive statements and should initiate a review of the Foundation.

First, the Foundation claims that it spends money “directly on our programs,..”. However, a media report advised that only “15 percent of monies spent went towards “direct program expenditures” at the Foundation in 2013. The FTC’s own website encourages the public to review the trustworthiness of charities using tools such as Charity Navigator. Incredibly, Charity Navigator had the Foundation on a “Watch List” until December 2015 and is unable to rate the Foundation because of its “atypical business model.” The Better Business Bureau determined in 2013 that the Foundation did not meet “its transparency and accountability requirements.” This lack of transparency raises issues of deception and false claims.

Second, reports surfaced last Spring that the Foundation failed to report millions of dollars in grants from foreign governments between 2010 and 2012 while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Acting Foundation CEO Maura Pally admitted that “…our error was that government grants were mistakenly combined with other donations” and former President Clinton said the omissions were “just an accident.” However, the Foundation apparently did report such information prior to 2010. The Foundation’s failure to report the foreign donations, which corresponded with Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server at the State Department, raises an appearance of impropriety deserving of further scrutiny.

Third, media reports indicate that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has expanded its investigation “to look at whether the intersection of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws,…” The Justice Department has even granted “immunity” to Bryan Pagliano, a former State Department staffer who “set up her (Secretary Clinton) New York home server in 2009,..” These are troubling developments. They call into question the legitimacy of the Foundation’s work as it operates under a cloak of philanthropy.

The Commission has a duty to investigate the Foundation’s lack of transparency based on its own pledge “to prevent business practices that are….deceptive or unfair to consumers” and the compelling public interest involved. The existence of a federal criminal probe should alarm the Commission, which initiates civil actions requiring a lower standard of proof. These allegations may stifle the ability of other organizations associated with current or former public officials to advance charitable causes by undermining public confidence in such institutions. Finally, the FTC has warned that “in these difficult economic times, Americans want to make every contribution count.”

Consistent with the FTC’s mission and precedent, we request that you review the above allegations to determine if the Foundation is a “sham” charity. Please respond within thirty days of receipt of this correspondence. Thank you for your attention.

[magical thyme]

32. Hillary Clinton has an NSA problem

http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/
The author had suggested a few months back that some of the info from the 22 top secret emails looked like signal intelligence. He is a former NSA analyst.

"Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all of them classified Top Secret / Special Intelligence. Worse, at least one of those reports was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program or SAP, several of which from CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another series of her “unclassified” emails.

Currently serving NSA officials have told me they have no doubt that Mr. Blumenthal’s information came from their reports. “It’s word-for-word, verbatim copying,” one of them explained. “In one case, an entire paragraph was lifted from an NSA report” that was classified Top Secret / Special Intelligence.

How Sid Blumenthal got his hands on this information is the key question, and there’s no firm answer yet. The fact that he was able to take four separate highly classified NSA reports – none of which he was supposed to have any access to – and pass the details of them to Hillary Clinton via email only hours after NSA released them in Top Secret / Special Intelligence channels, indicates something highly unusual—as well as illegal—was going on."

[Joy of Fishes]

46. Schindler also has several good articles on Clinton's email

Here's the collection - http://observer.com/tag/emailgate/

[magical thyme]

33. Hillary's other server scandal (WSJ on pay-2-play w/foundation)

....Classified information matters, and Mrs. Clinton stands accused of sloppy handling. Yet the former secretary of state didn’t set up a home-brew server with the express purpose of exposing national secrets—that was incidental. Mrs. Clinton went to elaborate lengths to build a secret, private system for some other reason. She says it was for “convenience.” Others speculate she did it out of the Clintons’ longtime paranoia over paper trails.

Mr. Sanders is likely hitting closer to the truth. Lost in the classified kerfuffle is the other, lately ignored but still potent, scandal: the Clinton Foundation, and the unethical mixing of Mrs. Clinton’s public work and her personal fundraising/speech-giving/favor-doing. The more evidence that comes out, the more it looks as if that server was set up to provide an off-the-grid means for those two worlds to interact...

....Mr. Pagliano maintained Mrs. Clinton’s server in her New York home. The State Department paid him, but a Clinton official confirmed to the Washington Post that the Clintons paid him in addition. Mr. Pagliano did not report that outside money on disclosure forms—as he was required to do. And the State Department claims to have been unaware that Mr. Pagliano was getting personally paid by the secretary of state.

So Mr. Pagliano gets added to the list of insiders who were compensated to work simultaneously for the government and the Clintons. Huma Abedin at one point worked for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, Mrs. Clinton and a private company tied to the Clintons—all at the same time. Cheryl Mills worked for Mrs. Clinton at State while also holding a position at the Clinton Foundation. Sidney Blumenthal secretly assisted Mrs. Clinton at State (unpaid), while on the foundation payroll.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillarys...dal-1457653794

[magical thyme]

34. GOP sues State Dept over access to emails (34th civil suit over FOIA requests)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...on-emails.html

The Republican National Committee filed two lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Washington over access to electronic messages sent or received by the Democratic presidential candidate and her top aides during her time as the nation's top diplomat.

Both spring from Freedom of Information Act requests filed last year seeking copies of emails and text messages. In court filings, the GOP says it has not received any documents in response to the requests.

The GOP litigation brings the total to at least 34 civil suits so far involving requests for federal records related to Clinton's service as secretary of state between 2009 and 2013. The Associated Press is among those with a pending case at the Washington courthouse.

[magical thyme]

36. Pagliano interviewed; aides & possibly Clinton to follow w/in weeks. Wrap up May per NYT.

Foremost among a half-dozen inquiries and legal proceedings into whether classified information was sent through Mrs. Clinton’s server is an investigation by the F.B.I., whose agents, according to one law enforcement official, could seek to question Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides and possibly the candidate herself within weeks....

A federal law enforcement official said that barring any unforeseen changes, the F.B.I. investigation could conclude by early May. Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges and, if so, against whom.

Federal law makes it a crime to mishandle classified information outside secure government channels when someone does so “knowingly” or — more seriously — permits it through “gross negligence.”

The bureau’s investigators have already interviewed Bryan Pagliano, a former aide who installed the server Mrs. Clinton had in her home in New York and used exclusively for her private and official email while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

The bureau’s inquiry is being overseen by career national security prosecutors at the Justice Department, including a member of the prosecution team that won a guilty plea last year from David H. Petraeus, the former general and director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The case against Mr. Petraeus looms large over this investigation, according to officials and lawyers involved, and its outcome will inevitably be a measure of the one this time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us...ns-emails.html

[magical thyme]

37. Hillary Clinton Emails Held Info Beyond Top Secret: IG (NBC news)

Hillary Clinton Emails Held Info Beyond Top Secret: IG (NBC news)

I saw this earlier today on Fox, but they didn't have the actual letter, only it's text, so I was suspicious. Surprised, but gratified, to see it hit the MSM with a copy of the actual document. The FBI investigation is serious and this info needs info to come out before it's too late...the short version is that along with the 2 TOP SECRET emails, there are an additional 2 emails on her server that were at the very highest level, called Top Secret/Special Access Program. From what I read earlier, data in the Special Access Program is only allowed to be seen by specific people based on their 'need to know.' Honestly, after this being out in public, I don't see how she can not be indicted.


"Emails from Hillary Clinton's home server contained information classified at levels higher than previously known, including a level meant to protect some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence, according to a document obtained by NBC News.

In a letter to lawmakers, the intelligence community's internal watchdog says some of Clinton's emails contained information classified Top Secret/Special Access Program, a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters.

Two American intelligence officials tell NBC News these are not the same two emails from Clinton's server that have long been reported as containing information deemed Top Secret."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ret-ig-n499886

[grasswire]

111. has that article been purged?

the link doesn't work for me.

anyone else able to pull it up?

maybe we need to start archiving text.

[magical thyme]

118. I wish...apparently I copied incorrectly and didn't get the full link

I almost wish it had been purged. I did this yesterday with something else...taking a short cut. It means none of my links are complete and all the work I did was a waste. That's what I get for doing it after 2 nights of 3 hours sleep!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/271005-feds-release-more-clinton-emails-on-eve-of-sc-primary

[leveymg]

64. If you look at the applicable statutes as lined up within her Security Agreement

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:18 AM - Edit history (3)

she signed on 01/22/09 the language above reflects 18 USC Sec 793 (e) and (f). Conviction under either subsection carries 10 years imprisonment. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

Copy of Hillary's signed standard Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3307197/Hillary-signed-State-Department-contract-saying-job-know-documents-classified-secret-laid-criminal-penalties-negligent-handling.html
(there's a clearer copy out there, I will dig that out)

Petraeus' charging doc mentioned 793 -- http://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/general/Petraeus.pdf -- but he was allowed to plead down -- https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/03/petraeus-plea-agreement.pdf --
by an USA who ended up working HRCs campaign and wrote an entirely misleading Oped in PoliticsUSA that basically lied in saying there are no potential criminal charges.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/11/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-crumbles-justice-department-laws-broken.html

That was last August when I started working the legal angle on this story, and identified the applicable statutes she violated. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

[magical thyme]

38. FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track (Clinton Foundation)

EXCLUSIVE: The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.

This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.

"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one source said.

The development follows press reports over the past year about the potential overlap of State Department and Clinton Foundation work, and questions over whether donors benefited from their contacts inside the administration.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...ion-track.html

[Jim Lane]

39. A bunch of links and a possible alternative (or additional) strategy

You'll find many links in the Wikipedia article titled "Hillary Clinton email controversy".

People interested in this subject could also consider editing that article. The main thing to keep in mind is Wikipedia's policy of the Neutral Point Of View. You can't editorialize in the article. An edit like "Clearly, Clinton should be indicted" would be swiftly reverted for NPOV violation. You can, however, make sure that the article contains the facts that you think support your opinion. You can also include facts about opinions, if the source of the opinion is notable. Former Attorney General X or prominent criminal law professor Y says that she should or should not be indicted -- that would qualify. Opinions on this subject run high, though, so there'd probably be some fighting over such things.

Another resource you might find enlightening, or at least entertaining, is the article's talk page. It's already been archived six times, meaning that there have been a LOT of threads there. The talk page isn't for discussion about the subject itself, but is supposed to be limited to discussing the article. (This limitation sometimes gets stretched or ignored, especially with a controversial subject.) I haven't gone over the article or the talk, but I'd expect to see a lot of discussion about reliability of sources, neutrality and accuracy of possible wording, etc. I'd also expect to see participation, in the talk page and in editing the article, by some ardent Clinton partisans, by some actual Hillary-haters (as opposed to the indiscriminate use of that term on DU), and even by some people who are genuinely trying to make the best article possible, let the chips fall where they may.

One huge advantage of the Wikipedia article, perhaps enough to compensate for having to put with NPOV, is in the "spreading it far and wide" aspect. The article is directly linked from Clinton's bio on Wikipedia. Last I heard, Wikipedia was one of the ten most-visited sites on the net. I'll hazard a guess that the number of people who'll read the Wikipedia article will dwarf any "far and wide" that DUers could get for a new timeline or the like.

I note this as a possible alternative because, of course, the two aren't exclusive. Some people responding to your effort might prefer to work only on something like what you proposed, without having to put up with Wikipedia rules, but others might work on both.

There are some peculiarities of Wikipedia, in terms of markup language, rules for sourcing, etc. They're not too hard to pick up but they're easier to pick up if you have help. I've been editing there for years and I'd be glad to help out with that aspect. I'm not willing to try to learn the details of the email issue, but I can "mentor" people (scare quotes because it sounds so damn presumptuous) about Wikipedia editing. Just PM me or leave a reply to this post.

[paulthompson]

45. Good idea

I like your approach. Personally, I don't want to get sucked into editing Wikipedia articles, because I only have so many hours in the day. But I hope other people will. And I've seen that Wiki page on the scandal, and that's a good starting point.

[Jim Lane]

47. An invitation to those with limited time

One Wikipedia axiom is: "You don't have to make the article perfect. You just have to make it better." The consequence is that anyone is welcome to make even a minor improvement without getting sucked into trying to deal with the whole article.

For the email article in Wikipedia, if you or anyone who answers your call to action sees a respect in which the article could be improved -- by addition, deletion, or amendment -- you go ahead and can make that one change. I'm willing to be the consultant (I like that better than mentor) for any editing, large or small.

[paulthompson]

51. Good idea

If you want to make an edit to the Wiki page, here's one suggestion to get started. Check out post #41 by magical thyme, the e-mail exchange between Clinton and Jake Sullivan. I just looked at the Wiki page, and I don't see any mention of that. Someone should add it in.

By the way, for people who don't know, the Wikipedia page on the scandal is here:

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

[magical thyme]

40. Hillary's coming legal crisis (real clear politics)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...is_129293.html

To understand the gravity of these issues, it is important to recognize that this is not just an “email scandal.” It is an “email + server + foundation” scandal.” Secretary Clinton didn’t just send sensitive (and now-classified) emails over open lines, she stored them on private servers that didn’t meet the government’s cyber-security standards for sensitive documents. On its face, retaining classified materials in such vulnerable settings is a criminal violation. Senior intelligence officials have been charged for less – far less. Storing some 1,300 classified documents on a personal server, and doing it for years, poses a special problem because it shows the mishandling was not inadvertent. It was Clinton’s standard operating procedure.

Major donors to the foundation often had business before the State Department, and they sometimes received help. After the devastating 2010 earthquake in Haiti, for instance, Bill Clinton was named co-chairman of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission, and, according to the Wall Street Journal, “the State Department began directing parties interested in competing for Haiti contracts to the Clinton Foundation.” Not surprisingly, many contractors became foundation donors, or were already. The FBI now has to decide if any of this was a “pay to play” arrangement. Proving a quid pro quo is notoriously difficult, but Fox News reported Monday that public corruption is now a second track in the FBI investigation.

The FBI reportedly has assigned some 100 agents full time to the investigation and another 50 temporarily. The bureau would not commit such massive resources unless the initial investigation raised troubling questions of potential criminality. FBI Director James Comey is monitoring the case closely and coordinating with the intelligence agencies, which have to review the documents. Comey has a reputation for integrity, and it is his call whether to refer charges to the DOJ. Attorney General Loretta Lynch would then decide whether to indict.

[hedda_foil]

125. That seems to be a bad link.

[magical thyme]

137. here's the fixed link. I'm going to have to re-do them all...copied incorrectly!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/13/hillary_clintons_coming_legal_crisis_129293.html

[magical thyme]

41. In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure" (CBS news)

Looks like she instructed Sullivan to strip out headers and send contents of some document over a nonsecure email when they couldn't get the secure fax to work. My question is, if the contents weren't classified, why did they need to strip out the headings before sending?


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-de...ed-classified/

"But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.

Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

[paulthompson]

50. Indeed

I mentioned this in my original post in this thread, although I didn't have a link for it. I think that's one of the smoking guns. Clinton has tried to argue that there was no classified info on her server, and even if there was, she didn't know it at the time. Besides, there's retroactive classification that's nothing but overclassification run amok.

This puts a lie to all that. It shows she was deliberately not marking classified things classified, as if that makes it okay.

But that's not how things work. Some information is obviously classified whether it's marked classified or not. For instance, there are certain secret programs where any mention of them is classified, no matter what. That's one thing that's going to get her in trouble.

And - duh! - if someone just told you something is classified, simply removing the header with the word "classified" on it doesn't make it not classified!

One doesn't have to prove criminal intent for some of the charges in play here. She can be charged and found guilty of gross negligence simply for having classified information on her server, no matter what the circumstances. But this smoking gun sure looks like it could prove criminal intent to me, putting her at risk of more serious charges too.

[Oilwellian]

52. Copy of email - It starts at bottom and reads up

It was found at the Wall Street Journal's dedicated site to all of the emails that have been released, but don't have a specific link where it was found there.

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/

[leveymg]

65. NYT also has a copy of that original email posted with its 01/08/16 report, here>

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:57 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/08/us/politics/document-hrc-emails-january-2015.html

[magical thyme]

42. More than 1,200 Clinton emails now deemed classified. 2 show continued involvement w/foundation

The State Department also said on Thursday that it fell short of its court-ordered goal of releasing 43,000 pages of the trove by the end of the year.

“We have worked diligently to come as close to the goal as possible, but with the large number of documents involved and the holiday schedule we have not met the goal this month,” said the agency, which fell about 2,000 pages short of the target.
State's lawyers will likely have to report to a judge next week about its lapse, and the agency said it will drop another batch of emails next week in an attempt to get back on track. All releasable emails are supposed to be made public by Jan. 29.


Two other emails highlight the extent to which Clinton as secretary of state continued her involvement with the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation — at least from a distance. A Sept. 15, 2011 email shows State sent 10 of Clinton’s senior staffers to the 2011 annual CGI event, where world leaders and CEOs mingle to discuss global problems while also striking business deals.

While the temperature has lowered on the scandal, the Democratic front-runner’s headaches are far from over. There’s an ongoing FBI investigation into her email set-up, courts are still ordering the release of emails from her top aides, and a number of congressional probes are percolating.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...#ixzz3w0f8Td8g

[paulthompson]

49. Thanks!

Thanks for all the links, magical thyme. It's going to take some time to work through all that. Keep it coming please.

[magical thyme]

66. this was from one board I've belonged to for 4 months, lol

I have a lot more elsewhere, as long as you're still interested.

[Fast Walker 52]

81. Wikileaks site for her emails

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

[ALittleBirdie]

43. It seems that it is the server, not the emails

A lengthy discussion on the topic by a former federal prosecutor:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?406228-4/washington-journal-joseph-digenova-hillary-clintons-emails

[paulthompson]

48. Wow!

Okay, I just finished watching this hour-long interview. It's REALLY interesting. I learned a lot. I highly recommend other people interested in this issue to check it out.

Unfortunately, the interviewee Joseph diGenova seems to be a hard-core right wing guy. So the question is, how much of what he's saying is true, and how much is partisan attack? But still, it's a good to learn things here and see if they can be confirmed from other sources.

I found it particularly compelling his evidence that a grand jury has already been convened, or else there wouldn't be the legal basis to make immunity deals or to subpoena evidence.

[Oilwellian]

54. I watched it a few days ago and thought it was eye-opening

He's pretty right wing so I'm skeptical of his credibility, but he was a federal prosecutor and knows the process. I thought it was interesting that he thinks the emails Hillary deleted involved the business she conducted for her foundation while SoS.

Just to make sure you see my updated post above...I've started a timeline based on dates and events mentioned at the links. It'll be a work in progress as I find time.

[grasswire]

60. yeah, be wary of diGenova.

I agree that it's good to examine and evaluate everything. We just have to cross reference him where possible.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

53. Jury results

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Apparently, at least one juror wants pro-Sanders DUers tossed from the site.

On Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:39 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Let's put our heads together on the Clinton e-mail scandal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280158157

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

So apparently it is now received wisdom that Hillary Clinton is a criminal just waiting for indictment? Really?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:47 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: God, this forum needs sanitizing. Any group or forom on DU that is full of members that sit around trying to slime and smear other DEMOCRATS needs to be removed from this web site. What is the point of this?? At least it's taken them away from their bravenak obsession for a few minutes though...
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Person alering begs question not asked and is putting words in poster's mouth. Unfortunately, the recent Wikileaks releases suggest that this may be true.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is opinion on a current news story and that's what we discuss on DU

[Bubzer]

123. +1

"Sanitizing"? Sounds like code for purge, to me. More attempts to silence Sanders supporters from our "friends" over in the group-that-shall-not-be-named.

[leveymg]

55. Please PM me when you have a moment

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Nice to see you back on DU. It's been a while. Let's catch up!

[4nic8em]

58. Let's not forget that

Bush Jr was so pissed at Cheney he would not pardon/commute his lap dog Scooter Libby for outing CIA agent Valerie Plame.

[blueintelligentsia]

67. This post might be helpful re: emails

Clinton and Blumenthal correspondence:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511527603

[magical thyme]

68. WSJ - server set up to hide pay2play, pagliano failure to disclose double paychecks, blumenthal

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillarys-other-server-scandal-1457653794

Mr. Sanders is likely hitting closer to the truth. Lost in the classified kerfuffle is the other, lately ignored but still potent, scandal: the Clinton Foundation, and the unethical mixing of Mrs. Clinton’s public work and her personal fundraising/speech-giving/favor-doing. The more evidence that comes out, the more it looks as if that server was set up to provide an off-the-grid means for those two worlds to interact.

Mr. Pagliano maintained Mrs. Clinton’s server in her New York home. The State Department paid him, but a Clinton official confirmed to the Washington Post that the Clintons paid him in addition. Mr. Pagliano did not report that outside money on disclosure forms—as he was required to do. And the State Department claims to have been unaware that Mr. Pagliano was getting personally paid by the secretary of state.

So Mr. Pagliano gets added to the list of insiders who were compensated to work simultaneously for the government and the Clintons. Huma Abedin at one point worked for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, Mrs. Clinton and a private company tied to the Clintons—all at the same time. Cheryl Mills worked for Mrs. Clinton at State while also holding a position at the Clinton Foundation. Sidney Blumenthal secretly assisted Mrs. Clinton at State (unpaid), while on the foundation payroll.

[ebayfool]

93. Isn't this the same Bryan Pagliano that worked on her 2008 campaign?

Director of IT Bryan Pagliano
Prior to joining the Clinton team, Pagliano was infrastructure team lead at Community IT Innovators for over seven years through to Aug. 2006. University of Maryland - Robert H. Smith School of Business, 2007. B.A. in political science from Emory University, 1998.

[magical thyme]

98. yes. she hired him to work at State plus hired him personally to moonlight

for her setting up her basement server.

He pleaded the 5th to the Benghazi committee and his lawyer said he would only talk w/full immunity. The FBI granted him full immunity (some lawyers say that means a grand jury most likely has been impaneled) and interviewed him, along with other lower level aides that were willing to cooperate without immunity.

Latest word is the FBI has started setting up interviews with the top aides. Hillary will be last.

[ebayfool]

108. Hmmm. Didn't the DNC have a similar 'problem' with their firewalls being porous ...

(for want of a better word) during the 2008 campaign? So this IT specialist was employed by her for a long time. And is hired whenever she has need of a expert IT guy.

Sounds like the right guy to give immunity to, if they applt it in a way to make sure he's truthful.

[magical thyme]

138. the DNC software problem was due to their vendor's crappy software

and crappy procedures. VAN something is the name of the vendor.

That is a separate issue from Hillary's personal IT guy.

It's hard to keep track, I realize, there is so much corruption...everything the Clinton's touch is corrupt. Everything.

[magical thyme]

69. Forbes Hillary's Emails: How The Russians, The Chinese . . . And The White House, Have Benefited

Hillary's Emails: How The Russians, The Chinese . . . And The White House, Have Benefited

http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/paulcoyer/2015/08/29/hillarys-emails-how-the-russians-the-chinese-and-the-white-house-have-benefited/

The international implications of Hillary’s actions, however, are at least as important as the domestic political implications, and a distinct likelihood exists that they have negatively shaped the turbulent international environment of the past few years. It is highly unlikely that Hillary’s use of private email servers (and her private email account had no encryption at all for the first few months of her tenure as Secretary of State) were not penetrated by foreign intelligence, particularly the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians, all of whom would see such a target as high priority, and that such emails did not provide such hostile foreign powers a critically useful insight into foreign and national security policy decision-making at the highest levels of the Obama Administration.

[magical thyme]

70. Harpers on Clinton Foundation used to launder money & enrich Clintons & cronies

Journalists are going to be scouring through this new financial information and pumping out “balanced” stories that evade what is already evident, namely that the Clintons have used their foundation for crass profiteering and influence peddling.
If the Justice Department and law enforcement agencies do their jobs, the foundation will be closed and its current and past trustees, who include Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton, will be indicted. That’s because their so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich Clinton family friends.

It is beyond dispute that former President Clinton has been directly involved in helping foundation donors and his personal cronies get rich. Even worse, it is beyond dispute that these very same donors and the Clintons’ political allies have won the focused attention of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton when she served as Secretary of State. Democrats and Clinton apologists will write these accusations off as conspiracy mongering and right-wing propaganda, but it’s an open secret to anyone remotely familiar with accounting and regulatory requirements for charities that the financial records are deliberately misleading. And not coincidentally, those records were long filed by a Little Rock–based accounting firm called BKD, a regional auditor with little international experience.
http://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/

[magical thyme]

71. (Special Intelligence) Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email NYT

Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011...

[magical thyme]

72. The Observer: Blumenthal w/what appears to be SIGINT (signals intelligence, ie NSA satellite data)

http://observer.com/2016/01/hillarys-emailgate-goes-nuclear/
"In fact, the June 8, 2011 Blumenthal report doesn’t read like CIA material at all, in other words human intelligence or HUMINT, but very much like signals intelligence or SIGINT. (For the differences see here). I know what SIGINT reports look like, because I used to write them for the National Security Agency, America’s biggest source of intelligence. SIGINT reports, which I’ve read thousands of, have a very distinct style and flavor to them and Blumenthal’s write-up matches it, right down to the “Source Comments,” which smack very much of NSA reporting and its “house rules.”

But is this an NSA assessment? If so, it would have to be classified at least Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information, a handling caveat that applies to most SIGINT, and quite possibly Top Secret/SCI, the highest normal classification we have. In that case, it was about as far from Unclassified as it’s possible for an email to be.

No surprise, NSA is aflutter this weekend over this strange matter. One Agency official expressed to me “at least 90 percent confidence” that Mr. Blumenthal’s June 8 report was derived from NSA reports, and the Agency ought to be investigating the matter right now.

[Lone_Wolf]

73. Primary sources

I would imagine this is the best primary source material:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

You have an intriguing idea. I don't know if you saw this timeline, but it seems outdated since new emails were dumped recently.

https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/

[leveymg]

74. Another set of primary sources are the court documents in the Vice News law suit

Let's give the litigant some credit: https://news.vice.com/topic/clinton-emails

[sorechasm]

77. Great series of posts. Thank you paulthompson et. al. for this compiled info.

So what's wrong with a paranoid future President that sets up shadow servers transmitting secret intelligence open to hackers from enemies of the state to launder money in pay-to-play schemes that benefits the Family Foundation?

HRC obviously learned much from her role in the Watergate investigation. If even half of this data turns out to be true, then it seems that she should count Nixon within her list of mentors that also include such giants of integrity as Sam Walton and Henry Kissinger.

[emulatorloo]

78. Clinton will not be indicted over Emailghazi. Bernie will and needs to win fair and square.

Imho one's time could be spent better doing GOTV for Bernie.

[paulthompson]

85. It's not just a matter of indictments

Some people are saying that Clinton probably won't be indicted, so this is a big nothing.

Not true. Look at Chris Christie and his bridge scandal. It seems he's not going to get indicted for that. However, that scandal caused his popularity to plummet and probably did more than anything to stop him from being a viable major Republican presidential candidate.

This scandal is a real thing. There are 150 agents working exclusively on it as we speak. That in and of itself is extraordinary. Whether Clinton gets indicted or not, this scandal will reveal a lot about her judgment and her ethics. Will that influence many voters? Of course. How could it not? It already has been having an impact, and rightly so. Even Clinton has admitted she's made mistakes regarding her e-mail server.

99.99% of Sanders supporters are working on getting out the vote. But if, say, a dozen or two work on this, I think that's a very valuable use of time. Different people have different skills to offer. For instance, I would be a poor to average phone bank caller. But I have a particular ability with researching, and others do too.

[BillZBubb]

102. Your opinion is noted. I, on the other hand, will wait and see what the FBI says.

There is so much smoke in this email pile, that a conflagration is likely.

The FBI doesn't put nearly 150 agents on a case without there being an alarming indication of major crimes.

[emulatorloo]

261. The 147 agents number has been debunked. New estimate is 12 agents.

There were 125 agents investigating the Oklahoma City Bombing. Turns out a Republican leaked that false hyperbolically inflated number. I suspect Grassley.

[Zambero]

79. The FBI has no authority to indict anyone

The agency is not the Federal Bureau of Indictment. They conduct investigations. They do not hold sway over the DOJ, aside from providing findings, significant or otherwise. The oft-repeated predictions of "FBI will indict" and "FBI will not indict" both operate on a false premise.

[magical thyme]

82. correct. they make recommendations; it's up to Lynch to decide. nt

[paulthompson]

86. indict?

Do you really think that if the FBI recommends to indict, Lynch will say no? There have been plenty of leaks from the investigation already. Whatever the FBI's recommendation is going to be will undoubtedly be made public.

So if the FBI recommends to indict and the Justice Department agrees, that's really bad for Clinton. But if the FBI recommends to indict and the Justice Department does not agree, that's a big scandal too that also will really be bad for Clinton. There will be all kinds of charges of a political cover-up.

That's why the key is what the FBI does or doesn't do.

[Fast Walker 52]

80. Report: Clinton changed stance on trade deal after donations to foundation

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/238313-clinton-changed-stance-on-trade-deal-after-donations-to#

[paulthompson]

87. How to proceed?

I'm encouraged that this idea is getting some interest and energy.

I think it's time to get a little more organized. Many hands make light work. We should divide up tasks to maximize each person's skills and reduce duplication of effort.

I think we need to come at this from multiple angles. Different people have different levels of interest, so we should present the information in different ways. For instance, we could have a one-page summary along the lines of understanding Clinton's e-mail scandal in a 1000 words or less. We also could come up with visuals and photos and such to help attact the attention-challenged folks.

Then we could have more in-depth summaries, to make a more convincing argument. The Clinton campaign has put out a FAQ on the scandal that's several pages long. Or course it's nearly all partian spin. But it would be a good idea to have something of similar length from the other point of view.

Then, I think a timeline would be a good thing to have too. Fewer people would look at that, because it would be even more detailed, but it could provide the best understanding of what's going on, and it could be a resource for researchers and journalists to get fully caught up on everything.

Furthermore, the scandal is so big, we should try to break it into pieces to better understand it. For instance, there's the Clinton Foundation aspect that is a big can of worms all by itself, and apparently a whole branch of the FBI investigation is looking just into that. We could create a team just to look into that.

Then there's the IT/hacking/computer aspect. How secured was Clinton's server? Did hackers break into it or not? What about all the technical understandings of servers and their security and so forth? Hopefully, there are some people here who have a special knowledge or interest in that, and could make a team to focus just on that.

Then there's the legal aspect. The legal system is so complicated that it would be great if we could have some people with a special knowledge or interest in that form a team. They could look at the relevant law and try to parse which laws were broken, if any, quote legal experts, and the like.

Then there's the whole classification issue. What do things like "top secret" or "born classified" or "overclassified" mean? Who has the right to determine what's classified or not? What if the State Department says something isn't classified, but the CIA says it is? Hopefully we could form a team to help make that easily understandable.

I'm just brainstorming off the top of my head. There could be other teams formed. Suggestions are very welcome.

If you're interested on one particular aspect or another, and think you have time to help out, please let us know here.

The bottom line is, this scandal is sprawling and confusing. I just spoke to a friend yesterday about politics, and he asked me, "What is that e-mail scandal all about, anyway? I thought it was just another bogus Republican witch hunt, but now I'm not so sure." By the time I finished explaining, he was shocked and appalled. I think there are a lot of people like that out there. The media has done a REALLY poor job on this. We need to try to do the job they should have done.

I'm reminded of last night, how the media wasn't reporting at all on the results from Hawaii, so a few Sanders supporters got together and crowdsourced it. There was even an article in USA Today about their efforts, which turned out to be very accurate. We can do the same about this scandal, and have a real impact.

[paulthompson]

88. more about timelines

Oilwellian, you've already expressed an interest in this thread to make an updated e-mail scandal timeline. If you want to take the lead on that I would be grateful. Even though I've been the "timeline guy" in the past, in this case I'd prefer working on some kind of FAQ document.

So, if you want, you could take the lead on that team and work with whomever else is interested with timelines.

Leveymg has found a very interesting timeline, here:

http://www.unbiasedamerica.com/hillary-clinton-email-controversy-timeline/

However, it only goes up until August 2015. Plus, it only lists sources in one big blob at the bottom. We should have each timeline entry sourced, with the name of the media outlet, the date, and the HTML link.

Check out this essay I did on "Sanders, automation, and the fate of the US." You could mimic the style of sourcing I did there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280156726#post33

Furthermore, there are other timelines. Here's an interesting one that goes to January 2016:

http://histowiki.com/history/politics/2565/the-clinton-email-scandal-of-2015-timeline-and-how-the-media-covered-it/

And here's another one:

https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/

If you Google "Clinton e-mail scandal timeline" and the like, you'll find yet more. A lot of mainstream media outlets have made their own timelines. Oilwellian, I hope you do conduct a search. However, all the ones I've seen so far are lacking. They're incomplete, not up to date, poorly sourced, and so on. But working together, we could make something that's truly definitive.

Oh, one more thing. Probably Clinton's main defense about this scandal is that it's all a right wing smear. We should already be careful not to cite any blatantly biased sources in the first place, but it's especially imperative in this case to avoid biased right wing sources.

[Joy of Fishes]

89. NTRB - The Clinton System, by Simon Head, publshed Jan 30, 2016

"Among the most striking and troubling aspects of the Clinton System are the large contributions corporations and foreign governments have made to the Clinton Foundation, along with Bill Clinton’s readiness to accept six-figure speaking fees from some of them, at times when the donors themselves had a potential financial interest in decisions being made at Hillary Clinton’s State Department. An investigation published in April 2015 by Andrew Perez, David Sirota and Matthew Cunningham-Cook at International Business Times shows that during the three-year period from October 2009 through December 2012, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, there were at least thirteen occasions—collectively worth $2.5 million—when Bill Clinton received a six-figure speaking fee from corporations or trade groups that, according to Federal Government records, were at the time engaged in lobbying at the State Department."

...

"During Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, US defense corporations and their overseas clients also contributed between $54 and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation. (Because the foundation discloses a range of values within which the contributions of particular donors might fall, only minimum and maximum estimates can be given.) In the same period, these US defense corporations and their overseas government clients also paid a total of $625,000 to Bill Clinton in speaking fees.

"In March 2011, for example, Bill Clinton was paid $175,000 by the Kuwait America Foundation to be the guest of honor and keynote speaker at its annual Washington gala. Among the sponsors were Boeing and the government of Kuwait, through its Washington embassy. Shortly before, the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, had authorized a $693 million deal to provide Kuwait with Boeing’s Globemaster military transport aircraft. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton had the statutory duty to rule on whether proposed arms deals with foreign governments were in the US’s national interest.

"Further research done by Sirota and Perez of International Business Times and based on US government and Clinton Foundation data shows that during her term the State Department authorized $165 billion in commercial arms sales to twenty nations that had given money to the Clinton Foundation. These include the governments of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, all of whose records on human rights had been criticized by the State Department itself. During Hillary Clinton’s years as secretary of state, arms sales to the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation ran at nearly double the value of sales to the same nations during George W. Bush’s second term. There was also an additional $151 billion worth of armaments sold to sixteen nations that had donated funds to the Clinton Foundation; these were deals organized by the Pentagon but which could only be completed with Hillary Clinton’s authorization as secretary of state. They were worth nearly one and a half times the value of equivalent sales during Bush’s second term."

There is much, much more - http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/

[Joy of Fishes]

90. IBTimes - Firms Paid Bill Clinton Millions As They Lobbied Hillary Clinton, Sirota et al, 4/28/15

The article mentioned above ....

"Former President Bill Clinton accepted more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 major corporations and trade associations that lobbied the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, an International Business Times investigation has found. The fees were paid directly to the former president, and not directed to his philanthropic foundation.

"Many of the companies that paid Bill Clinton for these speeches -- a roster of global giants that includes Microsoft, Oracle and Dell -- engaged him within the same three-month period in which they were also lobbying the State Department in pursuit of their policy aims, federal disclosure documents show. Several companies received millions of dollars in State Department contracts while Hillary Clinton led the institution.

"The disclosure that President Clinton received personal payments for speeches from the same corporate interests that were actively seeking to secure favorable policies from a federal department overseen by his wife underscores the vexing issue now confronting her presidential aspirations: The Clinton family is at the center of public suspicions over the extent of insider dealing in Washington, emblematic of concerns that corporate interests are able to influence government action by creatively funneling money to people in power."

Continued - http://www.ibtimes.com/firms-paid-bill-clinton-millions-they-lobbied-hillary-clinton-1899107

[I_Make_Shirts]

91. Great thoughts! I just hope they reach a decision sooner rather than later.

Mid-May could be too late, particularly if she isn't indicted. The last voting for the primaries takes place in June, so even if the new information utterly shattered public opinion of her and drastically swayed future votes, Bernie may not have enough time to make up lost ground. Having Clinton indicted would be a wonderful boon, but we still can't count on Bernie getting the nomination based on that alone.

[paulthompson]

95. June

Keep in mind that 781 delegates are chosen in June. 475 of those are in California.

I just did the math. I think that Sanders is going to continue to narrow the gap between now and June. But let's say that he roughly just maintains the deficit he has now, which is about 220 delegates.

That means he would need to win 64% (or 500 delegates) of the June vote to get ahead. Clinton would then get 36% (or 281 delegates). If Clinton is indicted or otherwise severely damanged by the e-mail scandal, is it likely for voters to turn on her and vote for Sanders by 64% or more? Yes, I think that's very likely.

And if she's seriously damaged by the scandal, that seems like one of very few scenarios where a majority of super delegates switch over to Sanders. Plus, it will be another month after the end of June voting until the convention, more time for more about this scandal to come out.

Plus, I think Sanders will narrow the gap before then, and it's possible the FBI will come to a decision before mid-May. Also, I think it's very likely there were be more damaging leaks from the investigation before then. We'll see.

[Joy of Fishes]

92. Paul, thank you for taking this on.

I look forward to following your project and contributing as I am able.

I am very new to DU and just getting a handle on how the site works. I found how to bookmark this post, but have not found whether there a way to "subscribe" to your future posts. Is there a DU feature for following a writer's work?

[Joy of Fishes]

94. Politico - Clinton Foundation paid Blumenthal $10K per month while he advised on Libya

Kenneth Vogel, 5/28/15

Has some dates for the timeline; remember the Obama admin forbade hiring SB

"Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant of Bill and Hillary Clinton, earned about $10,000 a month as a full-time employee of the Clinton Foundation while he was providing unsolicited intelligence on Libya to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to multiple sources familiar with the arrangement.

"Blumenthal was added to the payroll of the Clintons’ global philanthropy in 2009 — not long after advising Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — at the behest of former president Bill Clinton, for whom he had worked in the White House, say the sources.

"While Blumenthal’s foundation job focused on highlighting the legacy of Clinton’s presidency, some officials at the charity questioned his value and grumbled that his hiring was a favor from the Clintons, according to people familiar with the foundation. They say that, during a 2013 reform push, Blumenthal was moved to a consulting contract that came with a similar pay rate but without benefits — an arrangement that endured until March....

continued - http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359

[Joy of Fishes]

97. WaPo - How Clinton’s email scandal took root, by Robert O'Harrow, 3/27/16

"Hillary Clinton’s email problems began in her first days as secretary of state. She insisted on using her personal BlackBerry for all her email communications, but she wasn’t allowed to take the device into her seventh-floor suite of offices, a secure space known as Mahogany Row.

"For Clinton, this was frustrating. As a political heavyweight and chief of the nation’s diplomatic corps, she needed to manage a torrent of email to stay connected to colleagues, friends and supporters. She hated having to put her BlackBerry into a lockbox before going into her own office.

"Her aides and senior officials pushed to find a way to enable her to use the device in the secure area. But their efforts unsettled the diplomatic security bureau, which was worried that foreign intelligence services could hack her BlackBerry and transform it into a listening device.

"On Feb. 17, 2009, less than a month into Clinton’s tenure, the issue came to a head. Department security, intelligence and technology specialists, along with five officials from the National Security Agency, gathered in a Mahogany Row conference room. They explained the risks to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, while also seeking “mitigation options” that would accommodate Clinton’s wishes.

"“The issue here is one of personal comfort,” one of the participants in that meeting, Donald Reid, the department’s senior coordinator for security infrastructure, wrote afterward in an email that described Clinton’s inner circle of advisers as “dedicated [BlackBerry] addicts.”

"Clinton used her BlackBerry as the group continued looking for a solution. But unknown to diplomatic security and technology officials at the department, there was another looming communications vulnerability: Clinton’s Black­Berry was digitally tethered to a private email server in the basement of her family home, some 260 miles to the north in Chappaqua, N.Y., documents and interviews show.

Those officials took no steps to protect the server against intruders and spies, because they apparently were not told about it."

More - https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

[IdaBriggs]

99. I'm in, but honestly don't know if my threads are much help.

I was focused on the Blumenthal connection when I posted this thread on March 17, 2016 as I started to learn more: "This fire needs gas." (Sidney to Hillary, 10/26/2012) http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511517415

By March 19, 2016 I was (mostly) convinced it is really an Obama / Clinton showdown: Call Me Cassandra: I am no longer worried about Hillary. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280152505

And in that thread, I shared some of the posts that had helped me realize it was bigger than "lots of emails = working hard" -

Hillary Clinton Has an NSA PROBLEM http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511524355

It's not just about the CLASSIFICATION of the emails - it's about the CONTENT http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511529406

An exerpt of the emails from Wikileaks, specifically between Clinton and Blumenthal http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511527603

Hillary Clinton's Felony. The federal laws violated by the private server http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

so here's what we know from the newest dump of HRC emails. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511509720

I have been bookmarking threads since then, and will review to see if they are already here.

[IdaBriggs]

100. LAT: FBI to interview Clinton

Last edited Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:30 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511589657

ON EDIT - Link to primary source - http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

[IdaBriggs]

103. Wikileaks release of Hillarys emails reveals Google, al Jazeera aided overthrow of Syrian government

Last edited Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:40 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017345155

ON EDIT - Link to Primary Source - http://truepublica.org.uk/global/google-able-effect-regime-change-appears/

FYI, going forward I am now linking to DU threads dealing with this topic when I bookmark them (if I don't see them at the bottom of the chain). Hope this helps!

[felix_numinous]

101. Great idea, we need to be the free press

because we sure don't have one.

[paulthompson]

104. Warning: dodgy source!

I don't know what the DU rules are these days about linking to dodgy, right-wing sources. That said, here's an article that contains information not found anywhere else. This should not be used in any summary or timeline material we make, since the source is questionable. But some people here might find reading it interesting anyway. Just please be mindful about the source before you do, and take it with a very big grain of salt. (The New York Post is part of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News empire.)

This is from March 20, a week ago.

New York Post: Will Hillary Get Charged, or What?

FBI chief James Comey and his investigators are increasingly certain that presidential nominee Hillary Clinton violated laws in handling classified government information through her private email server, career agents say.

Some expect him to push for charges, but he faces a formidable obstacle: the political types in the Obama White House who view a Clinton presidency as a third Obama term.

With that, agents have been spreading the word, largely through associates in the private sector, that their boss is getting stonewalled, despite uncovering compelling evidence that Clinton broke the law.

http://nypost.com/2016/03/20/will-hillary-get-charged-or-what/

[paulthompson]

105. Deleted e-mails not all personal in nature

I found a key news article I was looking for. It's from Bloomberg News, Sept. 22, 2015.

Clinton said the personal e-mails were deleted from the server and her staff turned over paper copies of the remaining work-related e-mails in December to the State Department for processing and archiving. The FBI obtained Clinton’s server from the Colorado-based company managing it.

Outside computer specialists have said the FBI has the technical capability to recover deleted e-mails. The exact number of personal e-mails recovered by the FBI could not be learned.

Once the e-mails have been extracted, a group of agents has been separating personal correspondence and passing along work-related messages to agents leading the investigation, the person said.

That last part is key. Clearly, Clinton was lying when she said all of the 30,000 plus deleted e-mails were not work related. I think it's probable she deleted a many damning e-mails, assuming they would never be found. But they were.

[amborin]

106. this site might be of interest:

https://www.kaggle.com/kaggle/hillary-clinton-emails

[Bubzer]

109. I'll help out as soon as I have more time to do so.

[grasswire]

112. thoughts

1. We post here at the mercy of the site owners who have connections to HRC. Perhaps someone could come up with an idea for an alternate site if there's a crackdown? And perhaps someone ought to be archiving this thread daily? And archiving source materials at links, as well? I found that two linked articles posted today here are no longer available at NBC and at FOX already.

2. Perhaps Jackpine Radicals is the place to replicate this thread every day? What think ye?

[paulthompson]

114. Good idea

I know nothing about Jackpine Radicals. I've never been there. But it's a good idea to have back-ups at more than one site. I'm totally open to suggestions, including that one.

And you probably know what's happened to Clinton criticism at DailyKos. Although, ironically, the more the comes out about this scandal, the more it may turn out that Clinton is the non-viable candidate.

As an aside, this really is a weird election, the weirdest of my life, by far. On both Repub and Democrat sides too. And it's probably going to get a lot weirder before it's over!

[grasswire]

115. jackpine radicals is an offshoot of DU

Some of our best posters who have been banned ended up there, away from the flacks and drumbeat of negativity.

[TBF]

122. We are all there Paul -

the site was formed to honor "Jackpine Radical" (a very popular DUer, Jim Peterson, who passed away last yr) - he was a big supporter of Bernie from the early days.

Would love to have you join us.

[grasswire]

113. Has this wrinkle been posted yet?

http://truepublica.org.uk/global/google-able-effect-regime-change-appears/


Last week truepublica reported that four months ago, Google created a new holding company called Alphabet and that Eric Schmidt the new Executive Chairman of Alphabet, and therefore Google had decided to accept the offer of leading the Pentagon advisory board with a view to “bringing Silicon Valley innovation and best practices to the US military.”

We questioned the ethics and moral judgement of both Schmidt and Google in joining forces with the biggest killing machine in modern times, certainly since the world wars.

We pointed to the meeting between Eric Schmidt and Julian Assange back in 2011, supposedly organised to discuss a book Schmidt was writing who was unexpectedly accompanied by a Jared Cohen. Cohen had moved to Google from the U.S. State Department in 2010. He had been a slick ideas guy at two U.S. administrations, known to be something of a courtier from the world of policy think tanks sympathetic to US foreign policy. He was a senior advisor for Secretaries of State Rice and Clinton. Newsweek reported that:

“It was Cohen who, while he was still at the Department of State, was said to have emailed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to delay scheduled maintenance in order to assist the aborted 2009 uprising in Iran. His documented love affair with Google began the same year when he befriended Eric Schmidt as they together surveyed the post-occupation wreckage of Baghdad. Just months later, Schmidt re-created Cohen’s natural habitat within Google itself by engineering a “think/do tank” based in New York and appointing Cohen as its head. Google Ideas was born.”


lots more at link

[IdaBriggs]

116. Harper's Magazine: Shaky Foundations (Clinton Foundation)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016149265

ON EDIT: Link to referenced article - https://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/

[IdaBriggs]

117. Forbes: The Mystery Of Hillary's Missing Millions

It's in the same thread, but looks like it should be called out on its own -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016149265#post7

Link to Story:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2015/09/29/the-mystery-of-hillarys-missing-millions/#71d6f37d5505

[riderinthestorm]

119. Great idea Paul! Welcome back! Here's the latest news from The Vice FOIA

FBI Reveals New Details About Its Probe Into Hillary Clinton's Use of Private Email Server

Source: Vice.com

The FBI submitted a classified declaration to a federal court judge late Friday explaining details about the bureau's "pending investigation" into the use of a private email server by Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton. The declaration addresses why the FBI can't publicly release any records about its probe in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by VICE News. 


In a separate public declaration, David Hardy, the chief of the FBI's FOIA office, said there are a number of documents exchanged between the FBI and the State Department relating to the FBI's ongoing investigation of Clinton's use of a private email server, which stored all of the official government emails Clinton sent and received during her tenure as Secretary of State. But the FBI, which consulted with attorneys within its Office of General Counsel "who are providing legal support to the pending investigation," cannot divulge any of them without "adversely affecting" the integrity of its investigation. 

Some of the documents at issue concern "server equipment and related devices obtained from former Secretary Clinton," Hardy said. The documents "consist of memoranda from the FBI to the Department of State regarding evidence. The purpose of these communications with the Department of State was to solicit assistance in furtherance of the FBI's investigation." 

VICE News sought a wide-range of records from the FBI last December related to Clinton's private email server. Specifically, we asked the FBI for any emails and other documents retrieved from her server, thumb drive, and any other electronic equipment that has not been publicly disclosed; any correspondence and other documents between the FBI and Clinton or her representatives; correspondence between the FBI and the State Department about Clinton's server; and any documents memorializing authorizations granted to the FBI to disclose to the media what the bureau seized from her server. In his declaration, Hardy said the FBI does not have any documents showing that the bureau communicated with Clinton or her aides nor does the FBI have any records about disclosures to the media. The FBI has asked US District Court Judge Randolph Moss to dismiss VICE News' FOIA lawsuit on grounds that the documents it does have about Clinton's private email server are located in files pertaining to a pending investigation that is exempt from disclosure because their release would interfere with active law enforcement proceedings... 

Snip

Read more: https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-investigation-hillary-clinton-email-server-details 

[TBF]

121. I think we can get the delegates -

but I am livid that she has cheated her way through the primaries.

Wikileaks Hillary emails: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

[DemocracyDirect]

126. I want to express solidarity with you all.

I will also participate when I have a little more time.

[HassleCat]

127. I would rather talk about Sanders.

Bernie has many fine qualities, and I don't like Hillary Clinton. But hammering on the email scandal will not accomplish much. I already know why I don't like Clinton, and I don't have a burning desire to hear a lot of semi-factual accusations against her. In fact, the email thing is a waste of time, in my opinion, because it's unlikely to result in a Sanders victory. If Bernie wins, it will be because voters see the positive aspects of his candidacy, not because they fear and distrust his opponent. I don't think your proposal will be very productive, and certainly not very positive.

[paulthompson]

129. Different strokes for different folks

I love that Sanders is running a positive campaign. However, he's not running in a vaccuum; he's running against somebody else. So it's not just a matter, say, or how honest or trustworthy he is, it's how honest or trustworthy he is compared to Clinton. An informed voter needs to know the plusses and minuses of both candidates.

So by all means please keep emphasizing the positive aspects of Sanders. But others will be looking into Clinton too, just as you already have (since you say you don't like her).

[Mike Nelson]

128. If there is something criminal...

...in one of the emails, she and many top people - including Obama - most likely know. Even the deleted emails; they were sent and re-sent, so another recipient has any damning email and it would be political "gold" for Clinton opponents. Yet, we don't hear anything. They all have an idea about where this is going. What those hoping for a real problem need is a new public or behind-the-scenes revelation. The way Obama, Biden and Kerry act is also enlightening. If they caught a hint about anything really crippling, they would have challenged Bernie for the nomination. Even he hardly mentions the Hillary email story.

[paulthompson]

130. Indeed

Check out the article in post #104 in this thread, which claims to be based on leaks from the FBI agents involved in the investigation. Even though that's from the dodgy NY Post, it seems logical to me that something like that is happening right now. Namely, the FBI is on to something substantial, but there are powerful forces trying to shut the investigation down.

And by the way, if you haven't noticed, there are multiple reports that ALL the 30,000 deleted e-mails have been recovered. But so far there's been no leaks about what's in them, except that some are work related (which means Clinton lied about them all being personal in nature). Check out post #105.

[questionseverything]

133. don't know if you saw this info or not

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016149265

[grasswire]

131. If it weren't for Paul, the detailed history of 9/11 would be disappeared.

He didn't compile it just for our time. He compiled it for all time. For history.

And the same effort is being undertaken here, right now.

We, under Paul's able guidance, are gathering bits of information to document what appears to be the greatest treachery against the American people since Bush-Cheney.

IMO, it's only tangentially about Bernie. It's about rooting out massive corruption and not allowing the perpetrators of that corruption to occupy the oval office.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[Bubzer]

132. Consolidated link list

Last edited Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Lacks any link that was not a full link (links that included ellipses "...&quot .
All links point outside DU, and should be unique iterations of the link.
The links are not in any particular order, and may be out of context with an associated post.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-investigation-hillary-clinton-email-server-details
https://news.vice.com/topic/clinton-emails
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2015/09/29/the-mystery-of-hillarys-missing-millions/#71d6f37d5505
http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/paulcoyer/2015/08/29/hillarys-emails-how-the-russians-the-chinese-and-the-white-house-have-benefited/
https://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/
http://truepublica.org.uk/global/google-able-effect-regime-change-appears/
https://www.kaggle.com/kaggle/hillary-clinton-emails
http://nypost.com/2016/03/20/will-hillary-get-charged-or-what/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-email-scandal-why-it-might-be-time-for-democrats-to-draft-joe-biden/2016/02/05/cd69dfea-cc18-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.htmlv
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/hillary-clinton-email-discovery-221338#ixzz44JlCCqxO
http://www.ibtimes.com/firms-paid-bill-clinton-millions-they-lobbied-hillary-clinton-1899107
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/
http://www.unbiasedamerica.com/hillary-clinton-email-controversy-timeline/
http://histowiki.com/history/politics/2565/the-clinton-email-scandal-of-2015-timeline-and-how-the-media-covered-it/
https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/238313-clinton-changed-stance-on-trade-deal-after-donations-to#
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/271005-feds-release-more-clinton-emails-on-eve-of-sc-primary
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/274230-lost-emails-discovered-from-clintons-server
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/265402-report-fbi-expanding-clinton-investigation-to-look-into-public-corruption
http://observer.com/2016/01/hillarys-emailgate-goes-nuclear/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/08/us/politics/document-hrc-emails-january-2015.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/us/politics/investigators-find-emails-hillary-clinton-said-were-erased.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/us/clinton-did-not-consult-cia-chief-on-pardon-official-says.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillarys-other-server-scandal-1457653794
http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/
http://www.c-span.org/video/?406228-4/washington-journal-joseph-digenova-hillary-clintons-emails
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3307197/Hillary-signed-State-Department-contract-saying-job-know-documents-classified-secret-laid-criminal-penalties-negligent-handling.html
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/03/petraeus-plea-agreement.pdf
http://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/general/Petraeus.pdf
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/11/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-crumbles-justice-department-laws-broken.html
http://observer.com/tag/emailgate/
http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-request-for-secure-smartphone/
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/15/analysis-cia-role-in-benghazi-underreported/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-emails_us_560930a0e4b0768126fe00f8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-emails-dem-debate_us_561db516e4b0c5a1ce610f86
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/4/8140103/hillary-clinton-emails-explained
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-flashback/index.html
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mercedes-schlapp/2015/03/06/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-is-self-inflicted-and-not-going-away
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-email-scandal-she-knew-the-security-risk-but-took-it-anyway/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/25/1136158/-Libya-Attack-Casts-Unwanted-Spotlight-on-CIA-and-Blackwater-Role-in-Syria
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/24/blackwater-founder-erik-prince-under-federal-investigation/
https://cryptome.org/2015/06/guccifer-letter-01.htm
https://www.facebook.com/niko.m.house
http://caucus99percent.com/content/ryan-hughes-mi-and-pa-bernie-state-director-accused-accepting-hillary-super-pac-money
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-uncovers-new-hillary-clinton-email-withheld-from-state-department/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0WR00X
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blprespardons.htm

[paulthompson]

134. Thanks!

Although it would be good not to strip the source, date, and snippet/quote info.

The next step, if you or someone else would like to do it, would be to sort them by category. One way to do that would be to use the subdivisions of the Wikipedia page:

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

One could also pillage that page for lots of useful links too. We could also keep adding new categories as we see fit. For instance, I don't know why that page doesn't have a special section on the Clinton Foundation, and the Sid Blumenthal, Guccifer, and inspector general report aspects are all worth their own sections, at a minimum.

Then, as new links come in, we could keep adding them to the relevant categories. It's definitely good to get more organized, to cope with all this info.

[paulthompson]

135. By the way...

Oh, and by the way, did you come across any dead links? If so, we should find replacements.

[leveymg]

142. Add-on link here

Judge cites "indications of wrongdoing and bad faith" in new HRC email ruling.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/hillary-clinton-email-discovery-221338#ixzz44JlCCqxO

[Bubzer]

143. Added it. Thanks!

[leveymg]

144. Thank you! One suggestion>

Might make sense to add the article title back in as an aid to indexing. Maybe, the date, and some keywords, too? If you don't want to do this alone, maybe a bunch of us can help?

[Bubzer]

145. Some help would be fantastic.

I've been in a crunch for time. It's a miracle I've been able to post at all, let alone work on that list.
A huge thank you to anyone who can help!

[leveymg]

146. I'll take the first ten links and add back the title, some key words, and the date. Other helpers?

I'll put that into the the thread below your original list, and you can cut and paste later into a new post on the thread. Please title it "Master Article Index" Is that okay?

Thanks for what you're doing, Bubzer!

[Bubzer]

148. That's awesome! Thank you! This'll definitely help! "Master Article Index" is a good title.

[leveymg]

151. Here are the first ten with titles, extracts, notes, related posts, dates. Who will do the next 10?

Last edited Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:04 PM - Edit history (1)

REVISED 3.30.16. Please note the correct protocol for listing: Name of Source, date of source. Article URL link, description, extract (optional), related link (optional), (recommendation of contributor)(optional).

* Wikileaks, accessed 30 March 2016. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/ Wikileaks Hillary Clinton Email Archive, searchable by keyword or case number, 50,547 pages of documents (29 March 2016) span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. Source: State Dept. FOIA, federal court order.

Related:

US State Dept FOIA Reading Room, accessed 29 February 2016, https://foia.state.gov/Search/Results.aspx?collection=Clinton_Email_February_29_Release U.S. State Dept. FOIA Virtual Reading Room Documents Search, Feb. 29, 2016 release, 3800 documents. Searchable - indexed by topics, dates, case number, To/From. All USDOS FOIA releases are searchable on this site, including the complete set of Clinton Email releases.

Vice News, 30 March 2016. https://news.vice.com/topic/clinton-emails
Roughly 30,000 Clinton emails have been released since May, 2015 under a court order in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed in January 2015 by VICE News that sought all of Clinton's emails. Site contains numerous related news releases tracking the results and releases of documents by the USDOS in response to the law suit. Many references and links to specific documents released.
Related:
Vice News, 29 February, 2016. https://news.vice.com/article/the-final-1700-hillary-clinton-emails-were-just-released-and-one-was-not , Vice.com summary of last email batch release and review of classification status as determined by USDOS and intel agencies. Reviews the final 3,800 pages released : one email in this batch was being withheld as Top Secret at the request of an unnamed law enforcement agency. Another email, previously classified Top Secret by the Intelligence Community Inspector General, was downgraded to Secret. The July 2009 email pertains to North Korea's nuclear program. Twenty-two emails were previously classified Top Secret. 261 other emails released Monday were marked Secret and "confidential," bringing the total to 2,115 emails that contain classified information.
One email, linked at site, released in this batch was sent to Clinton on January 25, 2013 by her longtime confidante Sidney Blumenthal. It concerned "internal Libya security deliberations" and was based on "sources with direct access to the Libyan National Government, as well as the highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services."
Clinton's response: "Pls print," she told her aide Monica Hanley.

Related:
Vice News, 29 February 2016. https://news.vice.com/article/why-the-controversy-over-hillary-clinton-emails-is-not-over
There Are 1,800 Reasons Why the Controversy Over Hillary Clinton's Emails Is Far From Over. More than 1,800 emails were withheld or heavily redacted under exemptions to the FOIA law, including 22 that were not released because they were deemed Top Secret and would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if disclosed. About 65 others were classified Secret and were heavily redacted. VICE News is currently fighting in federal court for a summary of the information contained in those emails.
Moreover, VICE News and dozens of other news organizations and good government groups are still in the process of obtaining emails from Clinton's top aides in response to separate FOIA lawsuits filed against the State Department. There is little doubt the issue will continue to play out through November's election. Posted February 29, 2016 | 3:15 pm

* Forbes.com, 29 September 2016. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2015/09/29/the-mystery-of-hillarys-missing-millions/#71d6f37d5505 Since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, they have earned more than $230 million. But in federal filings the Clintons claim they are worth somewhere between $11 million and $53 million. After layering years of disclosures on top of annual tax returns, Forbes estimates their combined net worth at $45 million. Where did all of the money go? No one seems to know, and the Clintons aren’t offering any answers.

* Forbes.com, 29 August 2016. http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/paulcoyer/2015/08/29/hillarys-emails-how-the-russians-the-chinese-and-the-white-house-have-benefited/ Both current and former intelligence officials have spoken privately, and with alarm, about how casually Hillary and her circle appear to have handled highly sensitive information, and have suggested that this may have caused much damage to American interests and significantly assisted American opponents. Some have expressed the belief that it is highly unlikely that Hillary’s use of private email servers (and her private email account had no encryption at all for the first few months of her tenure as Secretary of State) were not penetrated by foreign intelligence, particularly the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, all of whom would see such a target as high priority, and that such emails did not provide such hostile foreign powers a critically useful insight into foreign and national security policy decision-making at the highest levels of the Obama Administration, to say nothing of the actual classified information contained in those communications, which would have revealed sources and methods of intelligence gathering.


* Harpers, 17 November 2015. https://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/ Shaky Foundations. The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends. Canadian charity called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership—which is run by one of Bill Clinton’s close friends, Frank Giustra—has been moving significant sums of money into the Clinton Foundation’s flagship in New York. There’s no way for the public to know precisely how much total money the CGEP has taken in over the years—or how much it has forwarded on to the Clinton Foundation—because, unlike in the United States, under Canadian non-profit law charities don’t need to report donors to tax authorities. Earlier this year, after being severely criticized by the Canadian press, the CGEP released the names of twenty-four of its donors, but more than 1,000 are still unknown. (CGEP wrote in an email that “going forward [it] will publicly disclose all future donors.”)
The Clinton Foundation’s list of donors on its website puts the CGEP in the top category of $25 million-plus, however a financial-industry source who has seen the relevant records estimated that the figure is at least $33 million. According to Ortel that number is certainly understated. “There are no effective controls over the Clinton Foundation or the Giustra entity,” he told me. “No independent party has had access to the bank account records, including wire transfer records. There are no independent directors ensuring compliance with the law. Only a fool would have any confidence in their numbers; it’s like Al Capone forming a foundation.”
One money-laundering expert and former intelligence officer based in the Middle East who had access to the foundation’s confidential banking information told me that members of royal families in Middle Eastern countries, including Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, have donated money to the CGEP that has then been sluiced through to the Clinton Foundation. . . There are other signs that the Clintons and their foundation may have violated federal, state, and international law. Under Treasury Department money-laundering rules, the Clinton Foundation is required to disclose every financial account it holds abroad. It has failed to disclose an account linked to the CGEP on its past eight tax returns.
I have been told by a source with firsthand knowledge that the Treasury Department, the IRS, the FBI, and Canadian tax authorities were informed of this and other transgressions many months ago but thus far have done nothing. Posted Nov. 17, 2015

* Truepublica, 23 March 2016. http://truepublica.org.uk/global/google-able-effect-regime-change-appears/ “Google in 2012 sought to help insurgents overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to State Department emails receiving fresh scrutiny this week. Messages between former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s team and one of the company’s executives (Jared Cohen) detailed the plan for Google to get involved in the region.
It appears that Jared Cohen emailed in July 2012 “Please keep close hold, my team is planning to launch a tool … that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from.” Cohen continues: “Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition.” Cohen then admitted that the plan was for Google to covertly give the ‘tool’ to Middle Eastern media. Cohen, deeply involved in the geopolitical outcomes of the region was partnering up with the media friendly to US foreign policy with a view to broadcasting the defections back into Syria to encourage more of the same.
“Please keep this very close hold and let me know if there is anything [else] you think we need to account for or think about before we launch. We believe this can have an important impact,” Cohen concluded. The Cohen emails were directed to Clinton’s senior advisors and deputy secretary of state and then forwarded to Clinton herself with one advisor describing the technology tool as “a pretty cool idea.”

* Kaggle, accessed 29 March 2016. https://www.kaggle.com/kaggle/hillary-clinton-emails Independently run search engine of Clinton e-mails drawing upon State Department release. Has a discussion page of persons who have used it. However, the last update of the software was seven months ago (about September 2015) so this data set may be incomplete. Requires uploading a large body of documents and coding. (Use at your own risk. Recommend against inclusion – leveymg)

* NY Post, 20 March, 2016. http://nypost.com/2016/03/20/will-hillary-get-charged-or-what/ “FBI chief James Comey and his investigators are increasingly certain that presidential nominee Hillary Clinton violated laws in handling classified government information through her private email server, career agents say.” (Anonymous sourcing, article is largely opinion. NY Post is not held to be highly credible. Recommend against inclusion – leveymg)

[Bubzer]

170. Baring any unforseen issues, I should be able to devote some time to the list tommarow.

[questionseverything]

184. i do not have the skills to help with list but

i want to say thanks and give it a kick

[Bubzer]

186. Master Article Index

Also posted here for ease of access: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280161710

* Wikileaks, accessed 30 March 2016. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/ Wikileaks Hillary Clinton Email Archive, searchable by keyword or case number, 50,547 pages of documents (29 March 2016) span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. Source: State Dept. FOIA, federal court order.

Related:

US State Dept FOIA Reading Room, accessed 29 February 2016, https://foia.state.gov/Search/Results.aspx?collection=Clinton_Email_February_29_Release U.S. State Dept. FOIA Virtual Reading Room Documents Search, Feb. 29, 2016 release, 3800 documents. Searchable - indexed by topics, dates, case number, To/From. All USDOS FOIA releases are searchable on this site, including the complete set of Clinton Email releases.

Vice News, 30 March 2016. https://news.vice.com/topic/clinton-emails
Roughly 30,000 Clinton emails have been released since May, 2015 under a court order in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed in January 2015 by VICE News that sought all of Clinton's emails. Site contains numerous related news releases tracking the results and releases of documents by the USDOS in response to the law suit. Many references and links to specific documents released.

Related:

Vice News, 29 February, 2016. https://news.vice.com/article/the-final-1700-hillary-clinton-emails-were-just-released-and-one-was-not , Vice.com summary of last email batch release and review of classification status as determined by USDOS and intel agencies. Reviews the final 3,800 pages released : one email in this batch was being withheld as Top Secret at the request of an unnamed law enforcement agency. Another email, previously classified Top Secret by the Intelligence Community Inspector General, was downgraded to Secret. The July 2009 email pertains to North Korea's nuclear program. Twenty-two emails were previously classified Top Secret. 261 other emails released Monday were marked Secret and "confidential," bringing the total to 2,115 emails that contain classified information.
One email, linked at site, released in this batch was sent to Clinton on January 25, 2013 by her longtime confidante Sidney Blumenthal. It concerned "internal Libya security deliberations" and was based on "sources with direct access to the Libyan National Government, as well as the highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services."
Clinton's response: "Pls print," she told her aide Monica Hanley.

Related:

Vice News, 29 February 2016. https://news.vice.com/article/why-the-controversy-over-hillary-clinton-emails-is-not-over
There Are 1,800 Reasons Why the Controversy Over Hillary Clinton's Emails Is Far From Over. More than 1,800 emails were withheld or heavily redacted under exemptions to the FOIA law, including 22 that were not released because they were deemed Top Secret and would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if disclosed. About 65 others were classified Secret and were heavily redacted. VICE News is currently fighting in federal court for a summary of the information contained in those emails.
Moreover, VICE News and dozens of other news organizations and good government groups are still in the process of obtaining emails from Clinton's top aides in response to separate FOIA lawsuits filed against the State Department. There is little doubt the issue will continue to play out through November's election. Posted February 29, 2016 | 3:15 pm

* Forbes.com, 29 September 2016. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2015/09/29/the-mystery-of-hillarys-missing-millions/#71d6f37d5505 Since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, they have earned more than $230 million. But in federal filings the Clintons claim they are worth somewhere between $11 million and $53 million. After layering years of disclosures on top of annual tax returns, Forbes estimates their combined net worth at $45 million. Where did all of the money go? No one seems to know, and the Clintons aren’t offering any answers.

* Forbes.com, 29 August 2016. http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/paulcoyer/2015/08/29/hillarys-emails-how-the-russians-the-chinese-and-the-white-house-have-benefited/ Both current and former intelligence officials have spoken privately, and with alarm, about how casually Hillary and her circle appear to have handled highly sensitive information, and have suggested that this may have caused much damage to American interests and significantly assisted American opponents. Some have expressed the belief that it is highly unlikely that Hillary’s use of private email servers (and her private email account had no encryption at all for the first few months of her tenure as Secretary of State) were not penetrated by foreign intelligence, particularly the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, all of whom would see such a target as high priority, and that such emails did not provide such hostile foreign powers a critically useful insight into foreign and national security policy decision-making at the highest levels of the Obama Administration, to say nothing of the actual classified information contained in those communications, which would have revealed sources and methods of intelligence gathering.


* Harpers, 17 November 2015. https://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/ Shaky Foundations. The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends. Canadian charity called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership—which is run by one of Bill Clinton’s close friends, Frank Giustra—has been moving significant sums of money into the Clinton Foundation’s flagship in New York. There’s no way for the public to know precisely how much total money the CGEP has taken in over the years—or how much it has forwarded on to the Clinton Foundation—because, unlike in the United States, under Canadian non-profit law charities don’t need to report donors to tax authorities. Earlier this year, after being severely criticized by the Canadian press, the CGEP released the names of twenty-four of its donors, but more than 1,000 are still unknown. (CGEP wrote in an email that “going forward will publicly disclose all future donors.”)
The Clinton Foundation’s list of donors on its website puts the CGEP in the top category of $25 million-plus, however a financial-industry source who has seen the relevant records estimated that the figure is at least $33 million. According to Ortel that number is certainly understated. “There are no effective controls over the Clinton Foundation or the Giustra entity,” he told me. “No independent party has had access to the bank account records, including wire transfer records. There are no independent directors ensuring compliance with the law. Only a fool would have any confidence in their numbers; it’s like Al Capone forming a foundation.”
One money-laundering expert and former intelligence officer based in the Middle East who had access to the foundation’s confidential banking information told me that members of royal families in Middle Eastern countries, including Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, have donated money to the CGEP that has then been sluiced through to the Clinton Foundation. . . There are other signs that the Clintons and their foundation may have violated federal, state, and international law. Under Treasury Department money-laundering rules, the Clinton Foundation is required to disclose every financial account it holds abroad. It has failed to disclose an account linked to the CGEP on its past eight tax returns.
I have been told by a source with firsthand knowledge that the Treasury Department, the IRS, the FBI, and Canadian tax authorities were informed of this and other transgressions many months ago but thus far have done nothing. Posted Nov. 17, 2015

* Truepublica, 23 March 2016. http://truepublica.org.uk/global/google-able-effect-regime-change-appears/ “Google in 2012 sought to help insurgents overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to State Department emails receiving fresh scrutiny this week. Messages between former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s team and one of the company’s executives (Jared Cohen) detailed the plan for Google to get involved in the region.
It appears that Jared Cohen emailed in July 2012 “Please keep close hold, my team is planning to launch a tool … that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from.” Cohen continues: “Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition.” Cohen then admitted that the plan was for Google to covertly give the ‘tool’ to Middle Eastern media. Cohen, deeply involved in the geopolitical outcomes of the region was partnering up with the media friendly to US foreign policy with a view to broadcasting the defections back into Syria to encourage more of the same.
“Please keep this very close hold and let me know if there is anything you think we need to account for or think about before we launch. We believe this can have an important impact,” Cohen concluded. The Cohen emails were directed to Clinton’s senior advisors and deputy secretary of state and then forwarded to Clinton herself with one advisor describing the technology tool as “a pretty cool idea.”

* Kaggle, accessed 29 March 2016. https://www.kaggle.com/kaggle/hillary-clinton-emails Independently run search engine of Clinton e-mails drawing upon State Department release. Has a discussion page of persons who have used it. However, the last update of the software was seven months ago (about September 2015) so this data set may be incomplete. Requires uploading a large body of documents and coding. (Use at your own risk. Recommend against inclusion – leveymg)

* NY Post, 20 March, 2016. http://nypost.com/2016/03/20/will-hillary-get-charged-or-what/ “FBI chief James Comey and his investigators are increasingly certain that presidential nominee Hillary Clinton violated laws in handling classified government information through her private email server, career agents say.” (Anonymous sourcing, article is largely opinion. NY Post is not held to be highly credible. Recommend against inclusion – leveymg)

* Los Angeles Times, March 27, 2016: Clinton email probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom
Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

*The Washington Post, March 27th: How Clinton’s email scandal took root
Hillary Clinton’s email problems began in her first days as secretary of state. She insisted on using her personal BlackBerry for all her email communications, but she wasn’t allowed to take the device into her seventh-floor suite of offices, a secure space known as Mahogany Row.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

*Politico, 01/19/16 04:43 PM EST: Clinton's server had classified material beyond 'top secret'
Intelligence officials have discovered sensitive national security information on Hillary Clinton’s server that goes beyond the “top secret” level, the intelligence community inspector general told lawmakers in a letter last week.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

*Politico, 05/28/15 05:02 AM EDT: Clinton Foundation paid Blumenthal $10K per month while he advised on Libya
Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant of Bill and Hillary Clinton, earned about $10,000 a month as a full-time employee of the Clinton Foundation while he was providing unsolicited intelligence on Libya to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to multiple sources familiar with the arrangement.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359

*Politico, 03/29/16 12:46 PM EDT: Second judge grants discovery in Clinton email lawsuit
Citing indications of wrongdoing and bad faith, a federal judge has overruled government objections by declaring that a conservative group is entitled to more details about how Hillary Clinton's private email account was integrated into the State Department recordkeeping system and why it was not searched in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/hillary-clinton-email-discovery-221338#ixzz44JlCCqxO

*IBTimes, 04/28/15 AT 9:05 AM: Firms Paid Bill Clinton Millions As They Lobbied Hillary Clinton
Former President Bill Clinton accepted more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 major corporations and trade associations that lobbied the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, an International Business Times investigation has found. The fees were paid directly to the former president, and not directed to his philanthropic foundation.
http://www.ibtimes.com/firms-paid-bill-clinton-millions-they-lobbied-hillary-clinton-1899107

*NYR Daily, January 30, 2016, 10:00 am: The Clinton System
On January 17, in the final Democratic debate before the primary season begins, Bernie Sanders attacked Hillary Clinton for her close financial ties to Wall Street, something he had avoided in his campaigning up to that moment: “I don’t take money from big banks….You’ve received over $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year,” he said. Sanders’s criticisms coincided with recent reports that the FBI might be expanding its inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s emails to include her ties to big donors while serving as secretary of state. But a larger question concerns how Hillary and Bill Clinton have built their powerful donor machine, and what its existence might mean for Hillary Clinton’s future conduct as American president. The following investigation, drawing on many different sources, is intended to give a full sense of the facts about Clinton and not to endorse a particular candidate in the coming election.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/

*Unbiased America, August 17, 2015: HILLARY CLINTON EMAIL CONTROVERSY TIMELINE
During her time at the State Department, Hillary Clinton used email addresses hosted not by government servers, but by a server set up in one of her residences. Officials from the National Archives and Records Administration say Clinton may have violated Federal laws that required any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records. Clinton and her top aides failed to do so. Also, Clinton may also have violated federal law by sending classified information from her personal server, and by taking classified material with her upon leaving the State Department.
The following is a comprehensive timeline of the email controversy.
http://www.unbiasedamerica.com/hillary-clinton-email-controversy-timeline/
Histowiki, March 11, 2015 :The Clinton Email Scandal of 2015 Timeline (and how the media covered it)
Collection site for the e-mail scandal. (loads very slow!)
http://histowiki.com/history/politics/2565/the-clinton-email-scandal-of-2015-timeline-and-how-the-media-covered-it/

*Sharyl Attkisson, on January 20, 2016: Hillary Clinton’s Email: the Definitive Timeline
Timeline
https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/

*The Hill, April 09, 2015: Report: Clinton changed stance on trade deal after donations to foundation
The Clinton Foundation reportedly accepted millions of dollars from a Colombian oil company head before then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to support a trade deal with Colombia despite worries of human rights violations.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/238313-clinton-changed-stance-on-trade-deal-after-donations-to

* The Hill, 02/26/16 05:56 PM EST: Feds release more Clinton emails on eve of South Carolina primary
The State Department on Friday released 881 new emails from Hillary Clinton’s personal server, a day before Democrats in South Carolina head to the polls.
The new release brings the total number of classified emails on the former secretary of State’s machine up to more than 1,800.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/271005-feds-release-more-clinton-emails-on-eve-of-sc-primary

*The Hill, 03/24/16: Lost emails from Clinton server discovered
Conservative legal watchdogs have discovered new emails from Hillary Clinton private email server dating back to the first days of her tenure as secretary of State.
The previously undisclosed February 2009 emails between Clinton from her then-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, raise new questions about the scope of emails from Clinton’s early days in office that were not handed over to the State Department for recordkeeping and may have been lost entirely.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/274230-lost-emails-discovered-from-clintons-server

*The Hill, January 11, 2016: Report: FBI expands investigation of Clinton
The FBI has expanded its investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her time as secretary of State to determine whether her Clinton Foundation work violated public corruption laws, according to Fox News.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/265402-report-fbi-expanding-clinton-investigation-to-look-into-public-corruption

*Observer, 01/09/16 5:49pm: Hillary’s EmailGate Goes Nuclear
Back in October I told you that Hillary Clinton’s email troubles were anything but over, and that the scandal over her misuse of communications while she was Secretary of State was sure to get worse. Sure enough, EmailGate continues to be a thorn in the side of Ms. Clinton’s presidential campaign and may have just entered a new, potentially explosive phase with grave ramifications, both political and legal.
The latest court-ordered dump of her email, just placed online by the State Department, brings more troubles for Team Hillary. This release of over 3,000 pages includes 66 “Unclassified” messages that the State Department subsequently determined actually were classified; however, all but one of those 66 were deemed Confidential, the lowest classification level, while one was found to be Secret, bringing the total of Secret messages discovered so far to seven. In all, 1,340 Hillary emails at State have been reassessed as classified.
http://observer.com/2016/01/hillarys-emailgate-goes-nuclear/

*The New York Times, SEPT. 7, 2015: Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email
WASHINGTON — A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?_r=0

*The New York Times, JAN. 8, 2016: Hillary Clinton Emails Released by State Department
Email screen captures at link
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/08/us/politics/document-hrc-emails-january-2015.html

*The New York Times, SEPT. 22, 2015: Investigators Find Emails Hillary Clinton Said Were Erased
WASHINGTON — F.B.I. investigators have recovered work-related and personal emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton said had been deleted from the server that housed the personal account she used exclusively when she was secretary of state, according to two government officials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/us/politics/investigators-find-emails-hillary-clinton-said-were-erased.html?_r=0

*The New York Times, February 17, 2001: Clinton Did Not Consult C.I.A. Chief on Pardon, Official Says
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16— George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, was not consulted by President Clinton on his decision to pardon the former director John M. Deutch on Mr. Clinton's final day in office, a United States intelligence official said today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/us/clinton-did-not-consult-cia-chief-on-pardon-official-says.html

*The Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2016: Hillary’s Other Server Scandal
Bernie Sanders keeps refusing to hit Hillary Clinton over her email. Or so it seems. But maybe the Vermont senator’s relentless assault on Mrs. Clinton’s corporate ties is about her email after all. Maybe Mr. Sanders is betting that Hillary has a bigger problem than classified information.
***HAS A PAYWALL
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillarys-other-server-scandal-1457653794

* The Wall Street Journal,March 1, 2016: Search Hillary Clinton’s Emails
Searchable database of e-mails
http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/

*C-SPAN, MARCH 18, 2016: Investigation Into Hillary Clinton's Emails
Video
http://www.c-span.org/video/?406228-4/washington-journal-joseph-digenova-hillary-clintons-emails

*DailyMail, , 6 November 2015: Hillary signed State Department contract saying it was HER job to know if documents were classified top secret, and laid out criminal penalties for 'negligent handling'
Hillary Clinton's claim that she was unaware top secret documents on her private email server were highly classified took a hit on Friday, with the revelation of a State Department contract she signed in 2009.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3307197/Hillary-signed-State-Department-contract-saying-job-know-documents-classified-secret-laid-criminal-penalties-negligent-handling.html

*Observer, 03/24/16 9:00am: Democrats Should Run From Clinton While They Still Can
Hillary Clinton’s controversial use of a private email server while she served as Secretary of State has loomed over her presidential campaign, and will certainly be an often-cited argument against her candidacy as the general election in November draws nearer. Regardless of speculation that Emailgate is a smear campaign by Republicans, as the case filters through the FBI and Department of Justice, attention is focused on whether or not Ms. Clinton will be reprimanded for her actions—and, if so, what that will mean if she is the Democratic Presidential nominee.
http://observer.com/2016/03/democrats-should-run-from-clinton-while-they-still-can/

More pending------

[leveymg]

188. OMG this is awesome!!!! Can someone else please give us a hand completing this?!

Thank you, thank you again, Bubzer!

Okay, to avoid overlap, I'll take the last ten on the list, and do those too.

[Baobab]

136. Healthcare trade deal cover up

is I think a much bigger/worse story

[amborin]

139. saw this today, which seems tangentially related:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/02/feds-fight-disclosure-of-hillary-clinton-whitewater-indictment-drafts-218681

haven't had time to thoroughly digest it:

Feds fight disclosure of Hillary Clinton Whitewater indictment drafts

By Josh Gerstein
| 02/03/16 05:33 PM EST


The National Archives is fighting a lawsuit trying to force disclosure of several draft indictments of Hillary Clinton prepared by a Whitewater prosecutor in the 1990s.

In a brief filed late Tuesday, Justice Department lawyers and the Archives argue that disclosure of the draft indictments would lead to an unwarranted invasion of Clinton's privacy and violate a court rule protecting grand jury secrecy.

"Despite the role that Mrs. Clinton occupied as the First Lady during President Clinton's administration, Mrs. Clinton maintains a strong privacy interest in not having information about her from the files of the Independent Counsel disclosed," wrote Martha Wagner Murphy, chief of the Archives "special access" branch that stores records of former independent counsels. "As an uncharged person, Hillary Rodham Clinton retains a significant interest in her personal privacy despite any status as a public figure."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/02/feds-fight-disclosure-of-hillary-clinton-whitewater-indictment-drafts-218681#ixzz44G4fM1ZT
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[blueintelligentsia]

140. also tangentially related....well more of a tangenial non-sequitor.

https://anonymousinvestigationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/anonymous-report-was-arizonas-voter-registration-database-hacked/

[2banon]

154. Scratching head over the notion that these files can't be released.

baffled on the rational. Not looking forward of enduring the specter of another White Water Horror Show..

The party establishment and all of their infinite wisdom in advancing her bid for the office, is another head scratcher.

Just insane.

[leveymg]

141. Judge cites "indications of wrongdoing and bad faith" in new HRC email ruling.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order Tuesday agreeing that Judicial Watch can pursue legal discovery — which often includes depositions of relevant individuals — as the group pursues legal claims that State did not respond completely to a FOIA request filed in May 2014 seeking records about talking points then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice used for TV appearances discussing the deadly attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi in September 2012.

Lamberth is the second federal judge handling a Clinton email-related case to agree to discovery, which is unusual in FOIA litigation. Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan gave Judicial Watch the go-ahead to pursue depositions of Clinton aides in a lawsuit for records about former Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin.

"Where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases," Lamberth wrote in a three-page order. The judge noted that State argues it had no legal duty to search Clinton's emails when Judicial Watch's request arrived because her emails were not in the agency's possession and control at that time. It was not until December 2014 that Clinton turned over a portion of her email archive to State at the agency's request.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/hillary-clinton-email-discovery-221338#ixzz44JlCCqxO

[Bob_Roony]

147. I'm not sure if this has been published here

but a very interesting read. This was published 2 days ago on WP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

[paulthompson]

150. Yep

There's a link to that one higher up. It doesn't have much new info, and it misses a lot of important stuff, but at least by being the headline front page story at a big newspaper, it'll help more people take this issue seriously.

By the way, I'm trying to clear away some other work so I can spend a significant amount of time on this project. I hope to start to have some time later this evening.

[GreenPartyVoter]

149. Apologies if it's a dupe:

https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-concluding-remarks/

[paulthompson]

153. Thanks!

That looks like a very good resource. I haven't read it yet, but I'm going to. It looks like someone who is very similar to us, meaning normal progressives who didn't think there was much to this scandal, if anything at all, only to sort of fall down a rabbit hole and realize it's a really serious thing.

I hope others will give this link a read, starting from here:

https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/how-should-i-feel-about-hillarys-emails/

Like I said, I haven't read it yet, but any effort to make sense of this confusing mess of a scandal can only help.

[GreenPartyVoter]

156. Might I suggest you contact him with your thread of resources?

[paulthompson]

161. Response

Okay, I just read all that. I found it very interesting. I highly recommend that anyone here interested in these issues should check it out. He points out a lot of stuff in an interesting, well-sourced manner, though he misses some things too.

That said, he loses me at the end with his political musings, especially his opinion that, in light of the scandal, people should seriously consider voting for Trump, and that Trump may not be as bad as he first appears. I don't believe that at all, and it taints his entire effort.

If the election comes down to Trump vs. a Clinton under indictment, that would be terrible for the country. But I'm confident it won't come to that. If nothing else, some third party candidate would step forward, because those two would literally be the two most disliked candidates of all time. (Already, they're the two with the highest dislike ratings since polling began.) A ham sandiwch could run against those two in that scenario (the key being Clinton facing indictment) and possibly win.

I like doing this all out in the open. We have nothing to hide. But I'm very wary about having any Trump supporters join our effort.

[paulthompson]

169. One more thing

I want to add a bit more. I most definitely wouldn't be working on explaining this scandal if I thought it would help elect Trump! I wouldn't vote for Trump if he was the last person on Earth!

That said, I'm fully confident it won't come to a Trump vs. indicted-Clinton general election. The FBI is working full speed to make a decision one way or another by mid-May, as has been reported, precisely to avoid having some shocking thing come out right before the November general election. If this scandal is as bad as some fear, there still will be time for voters to pick Sanders, or for the Democratic establishment to find a replacement for Clinton to win the nomination with her delegates.

There are about 800 delegates chosen in June, so as long as any bombshell drops before then (if there's a bombshell!), Sanders should win the nomination. I'll bet that's part of the reason why the FBI has a self-imposed mid-May deadline, at the latest. It's not that they're pro-Sanders, but it would be crazy for them to come out with an indictment recommendation just after literally all the states have voted in the primaries!

The bottom line is, the facts are the facts, and if Clinton did a lot of unethical and/or criminal things, the powerful Republican media echo chamber will make sure the voters know all about them if it's Clinton in the general election. What we need to do is educate voters now, while there's still time for a Clinton alternative, so we can avoid the worst case scenarios.

What would be a tragedy is if it turns out that Clinton is obviously politically mortally wounded, but the media is so pro-Clinton that most voters don't learn about that until after she wins the nomination. Look what happened to Rahm Emmanuel in Chicago recently, where he managed to hide some awful things until just after his reelection. Then, once it was too late to matter, his popularity plummeted.

We have to fight hard to make sure that doesn't happen in this case.

[GreenPartyVoter]

180. I suspect the May deadline comes down from much higher than the FBI.

[GreenPartyVoter]

179. I hear that about his being a Trump supporter. At least we know other people are

following this thing.

[paulthompson]

196. Trump

I was just looking at the Jackpine Radicals forum, where this person's essay is also being discussed. Someone there found that the author wrote an on-line essay in support of Trump's Mexico wall idea, which has since been erased.

So clearly, the person is a Trump supporter and is using the Clinton scandal issue to try to get more people to vote for Trump.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, and a scandal that hurts Clinton obviously could help Sanders AND Trump or whoever wins the Republican nomination. There's no way around that, but I'm not willing to work with Trump supporters or the like on this.

[GreenPartyVoter]

197. Strange bedfellows, indeed!

[Jarqui]

155. On these outcomes from the top post:

A) she could get indicted. It's been reported that the FBI is going to make that decision by mid-May, perhaps earlier.

B) some of her top aides could get indicted, but not her. That would bring out a lot more damning information and still leave open the possibility of her getting indicted later.

C) perhaps no indictments, but for blatantly political reasons. However, the vast majority of intelligence agency employees are Republican and thus aren't friends to Clinton. So under this option, there will be all kinds of leaks from disgruntled FBI agents outraged at the lack of indictments. If so, the exposure of a cover-up could end up being even worse than the original crime(s).

D) pro-Clinton forces try to run out of the clock, pushing off a decision on indicting until after Clinton is nominated. But see the above point about disgruntled leakers. There have been lots of leaks already and I'm sure that's going to continue, so Clinton could be dragged down by the drip drip of leaks alone.

E) Clinton is properly investigated and it just turns out she did nothing wrong, so there's no need for any indictments. I'm 100% convinced this is not the case. To cite just one example, in a 2011 e-mail, Clinton advisor Jacob Sullivan told Clinton that "They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it." Clinton hersef responded, "If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." That right there is a smoking gun! She was being sent classified information, she knew it, and she tried to disguise it by removing the classified heading.

I agree that E is very unlikely. They haven't put in all this effort for no reason. And they put in that effort because two Inspector Generals thought the FBI should look at the situation.

I think C&D will go together. Attorney General Lynch will get a report from the FBI and one report from each Inspector General. She may get some additional direct or indirect input from others (ie the defense department) on the classified material. Because she works in the Obama administration, to stay clear of conflict of interest, she will refer all of this to a Special Counsel (replacement for Independent Counsel) and ask them to recommend what is to be done. The Special Counsel report will not be completed before the election (took about a year for CIA Director Deutch). So it seems unlikely Clinton or anyone else would get indicted before the election - a short term running out the clock. The FBI may well try to keep their mouth shut until the Special Counsel does their thing.

I suspect Cheryl or Huma will try to fall on their swords to protect Hillary. They have to know they're in trouble. BUT we may not know any details of that until after the election.

Obama could pardon them on his way out the door.

A key to me is the GOP control the House and the Senate. They'll be dying to know what went down. They provide some oversight to the FBI and Attorney General. Grassley, chairing the Judiciary Committee (for example), can call FBI Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch before him and ask "what's going on with Clinton's emails? We've got some Senate & House investigations waiting to know where you are going." (maybe behind closed doors)

So it probably leaks out and Clinton lays low to see what the polls are going to do and whether they can continue. If it's just Huma taking the fall, Hillary probably can continue and try to ride it out. If the FBI want to indict Hillary she's probably toast and the Dems bring in Biden and/or Warren because the DNC have been determined to not allow an independent represent the party.

That's my guess at this point.

[paulthompson]

157. Maybe

You may be right. However, I think if it's a case of C and D, she's going to be sunk anyway.

Keep in mind that as a major political player for decades, Clinton has made many friends, but she's also made many enemies. Trump has already said he's going to make a big deal out of this scandal in the general election. And that makes perfect sense. I think it would be an utter disaster if Trump ever becomes president. But, looking at things from his point of view, he has no realistic chance of winning the election (his negative ratings are way too high) UNLESS he can make hay out of this scandal. He can argue, "You may not like me, but at least I'm not soon to be a jailed felon."

Democrat powers-that-be can't be oblivious to this. They certainly don't want Trump as president, and they know that if the evidence against Clinton is strong, the entire Republican side will push this story as hard as they can. But there's still a chance for the Democrats to go with someone else, like Sanders. (They also could try to get someone else to use Clinton's delegates, like Biden, perhaps.)

That said, I think there's a good chance the FBI WILL recommend Clinton for indictment. The reason? Mainly the fact that Comey is head of the FBI. He's a right-winger. Obama has had a habit of appointing or keeping right wingers in the top posts of the military and intelligence agencies, and maybe that will come back to bite him here (since he clearly wants Clinton to succeed him). It sucks that people are so predictably partisan, but they are. Just look at the nakedly political 5-4 Supreme Court decision of Gore vs. Bush that decided the 2000 elecction. In that case, the key decision making body had a majority of right wingers. In this case, the key decision maker, Comey, is a right winger.

Furthermore, Comey is known to be a stickler for the law. Recall his whole role in the 2004 Ashcroft hospital incident, where he stuck his neck out and threatened to resign if Bush didn't follow the letter of the law. If he did that with a Republican president, why wouldn't he do that with a Democratic one? Also, He's like an attack dog that won't let go after he finds his target. He has a history of prosecuting cases based on rather minor technicalities, and if you look at the letter of the law in this case, there's no doubt Clinton broke a number of laws. It's just that a lot of people are assuming the FBI will go easy on her due to her political power.

Check out the New York Post article in post #104 of this thread. True, that's a questionable source, but still, it's worth noting that it claims to have inside sources who say there would be a mass resignation of FBI agents, possibly including Comey, if Clinton's indictment doesn't go forward.

To me, it all comes down to if the evidence is significant or not. The Republicans tried hard to use Benghazi to sink Clinton's career, but that failed because there wasn't much there (or if there was, the Republicans didn't find it). Despite Fox News pushing the story nearly 24 hours a day, it failed to sway many people beyond the usual die-hards because people could see it was a witch hunt without substance.

I predict it won't be long before the gist of the evidence in this scandal becomes public (through media leaks, through high-ranking Republicans with security clearances talking who have seen the evidence, through official FBI sources, etc). Then it will be up to the general public to decide. I don't think it's possible for Clinton to put the genie back in the bottle at this point. She may run out the clock in terms of legal proceedings for this election, but not in terms of information reaching the public.

We'll see soon enough. It can't be denied we're in totally uncharted waters. No major presidential candidate has ever been in this much legal trouble while an election's going on, so anything could happen.

[2banon]

163. Excellent points...

I remember Ashcroft in that hospital bed refusing President's Bush's orders. it was a rather astonishing and jaw dropping moment in our corrupted political world.

I've been of the mind that Clinton will not have to face any legal consequences per her position of power who tend rarely if ever to face consequences of their illegal actions no matter what the scale.

However the points you make here is interesting.. as you say, it remains to be seen how this unfolds, and the timing could be extremely dire, not necessarily for Clinton, but for the rest of us.

[paulthompson]

166. Ironic!

Here's a bit more I just came across. These are comments from Obama about Comey on the day he nominated Comey to be head of the FBI:

To know Jim Comey is also to know his fierce independence and his deep integrity. Like Bob (Mueller), he’s that rarity in Washington sometimes -– he doesn’t care about politics, he only cares about getting the job done. At key moments, when it's mattered most, he joined Bob in standing up for what he believed was right. He was prepared to give up a job he loved rather than be part of something he felt was fundamentally wrong. As Jim has said, “We know that the rule of law sets this nation apart and is its foundation.”

Jim understands that in time of crisis, we aren’t judged solely by how many plots we disrupt or how many criminals we bring to justice -- we’re also judged by our commitment to the Constitution that we’ve sworn to defend, and to the values and civil liberties that we’ve pledged to protect.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/21/remarks-president-nomination-james-comey-director-fbihttps://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/21/remarks-president-nomination-james-comey-director-fbi

I'm sure Obama was alluding to the Ashcroft hospital incident with those words, since Comey had a key role in that. That's probably a key reason why Obama nominated him.

But wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out Obama didn't fully mean those words, and in a pinch he wants Comey to make a political decision to save Clinton's career, only to have Comey be the person with independence and deep integrity he claimed he was?

On a different note, one scenario is that Clinton ends her campaign due to the scandal, but then doesn't support Sanders. Then establishment forces who find Sanders too radical try to convince all of Clinton's delegates (who would be free to vote their conscience) to support some other establishment candidate like Joe Biden at the convention.

Wouldn't it be crazy if both Trump and Sanders end up just shy of winning enough delegates on the first ballot, and then have their nominations snatched away from them by establishment forces within the party? Things could get very ugly, on both sides.

That's why even if Sanders can't win a majority of the pledged delegates, it's vital for him to at least keep it close. Then only a small portion of Clinton's former delegates would need to support him to push him over the top.

Definitely bring a big box of popcorn, 'cos things are going to get interesting.

[2banon]

174. hmm.. Curious..

Have you reviewed Comey's bio on wikipedia recently?

I haven't until just now did a quick skim, as a reminder of when Obama appointed him to head the FBI.

His career path seems a bit odd.

But I don't have the time or inclination to go down that rabbit hole, at the end of the day, there's going to be a shit storm and we're going to be covered in it before the clash of the titans get done with this.

[questionseverything]

183. more about comey

http://bradblog.com/?p=10123



During the three-hour Senate hearing, Comey admitted to having given his approval, during his time as Deputy AG in the Bush Administration, for programs that he felt included torture. Waterboarding, he said on Tuesday, "is torture".

When asked again by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT), "Do you agree that waterboarding is torture and is illegal?," Comey answered directly: "Yes."

Would Comey, as Director of the FBI, investigate and prosecute those who carried out such illegal policies while he reportedly authorized some of them during his years serving in the Bush Administration? It's unclear that anybody asked Comey that question, or that he volunteered as much.

Comey also offered his general approval for the controversial surveillance techniques recently disclosed by Snowden.

"Do you believe the bulk collection of metadata for domestic telephone or emails is appropriate," asked Leahy, "even when the majority of individuals with whom the calls or emails are associated are law-abiding Americans?"

"Senator, I'm not familiar with the details of the current programs," Comey responded. "Obviously, I haven't been cleared for anything like that and I've been out of government for eight years. I do know, as a general matter, that the collection of metadata and analysis of metadata is a valuable tool in counter-terrorism."

[Jarqui]

168. I think you make a lot of good points

A couple other things I'd toss out:

1. We've been talking about this for a year. Hillary did not use a @state.gov email account for secure emails. There has been some talk that they used other means of secure communications. But if you read about the born classified stuff, the State Department is right smack in the middle of that- they're tied into foreign agents/spies, they're tied into foreign intelligence, their tied into defense/drones/terrorist responses/warnings etc and she's emailing the President.

And we know that a bunch of material periodically gets classified retroactively.

How come nobody has talked about "we did this and this and this to classify our material. We copy the classified emails/documents and then we purged them and sent them by secure courier to person XXX at the State Department sdecurity vault" (whatever). They have to do a lot of things for securing classified info by the very nature of their jobs. How come there has been nearly zero talk about that?

I find that strange. It's not what people do say - it's what they don't say - if i'm in hot water like them, I'd be kicking up a bit of a fuss about that for PR. But they don't seem to have much to say about it. Weird.

2. Let's just imagine for a moment a scenario that ties into #1 above and to many things that have happened since. What if Hillary ran a really loose ship - "if it was already classified, it's classified and if it wasn't then, we're too busy for that tedious crap - that's the Intelligence community's job to retroactively classify it."

And so they roll along doing what Hillary wants for four years until she packs it in in 2013. She's answered a few questions on Benghazi. So it's time to lay low for her run in 2016.

Then this digging around for emails comes up in 2014 or so from the House. Hillary then asks Bill and their lawyer about it. "Holly shit!! You can't do that!! Classified info?!?!? Damage control!! Now!!" But it's a problem because there are 60,000 friggin emails - and they have destinations that have copies - you can't just get rid of them - you have to be careful. But they do not have 147 FBI agents to give them a hand for a few months sorting them out.

So when they go through them with search criteria, they short list the big problems - the ones that are obviously classified or troubling for her career aspirations. "We're screwed if we give them copies so we'll just have them inadvertently deleted with the personal emails. There's 60,000 of these things - it would take 150 people months to figure this out! That'll never happen. It would be an overwhelming task."

I say that because
State Department: "˜Limited' Number of Hillary Clinton Emails Are Missing
- apparently all predated Benghazi

Missing Clinton E-Mail Claims Saudis Financed Benghazi Attacks

Lost emails from Clinton server discovered

The previously undisclosed February 2009 emails between Clinton from her then-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, raise new questions about the scope of emails from Clinton’s early days in office that were not handed over to the State Department for recordkeeping and may have been lost entirely.

Clinton’s presidential campaign has previously claimed that the former top diplomat did not use her personal "clintonemail.com" account before March 2009, weeks after she was sworn in as secretary of State.

Though Clinton has claimed to have turned over 55,000 pages of records, another 50,000 remain missing — including at least nine emails between Clinton and President Obama.

Government finds new emails Clinton did not hand over

The U.S. Defense Department has found an email chain that Hillary Clinton did not give to the State Department, the State Department said on Friday, despite her saying she had provided all work emails from her time as secretary of state.

The correspondence with General David Petraeus, who was commander of U.S. Central Command at the time, started shortly before she entered office and continued during her first days as the top U.S. diplomat in January and February of 2009.

FBI Said to Recover Personal (deleted) E-Mails From Hillary Clinton Server

Once the e-mails have been extracted, a group of agents has been separating personal correspondence and passing along work-related messages to agents leading the investigation, the person said.

- that's not supposed to have happened - these were supposed to be deleted emails unrelated to her work


In sum, they're finding missing emails all over and nearly all described have some concerns or are eyebrow raising (Petraeus, Obama, Benghazi, Dept of Defense - almost certainly classified, etc).

Now we've been talking about all these criminal laws surrounding classified material. All kinds of them. But this case may not be that complex.

Hillary has been dishonest since day 1 and she's not very good at it. She gets caught being dishonest a lot. Nixon or her husband were much better liars - much harder to catch.

And so, they've got this server and the heat is on. They don't have 150 FBI agents so they just hack away as best they can quickly purging the personal emails ... and just happening to drag a few others of the 60,000 that are damning with them.

If the FBI find a bunch of damning emails that got deleted and do not fit their purging rules, they'll have a pretty good case for obstruction of justice. And then there's no legal debate about what was classified when or "knowingly" etc. And not even Obama can be reasonably expected to save her from that charge.

It wasn't the breakin that got Nixon - it was the cover up.

Again, some conjecture from pulling together some of the media findings a certain way.

[paulthompson]

177. Good thinking

Your thinking is very similar to my thinking. I think those 30,000 deleted emails are key. We already know that some of them were work related, and you pointed to a couple of links I wasn't aware of that prove that more of those deleted ones were work related.

It only takes a few e-mails to see that Clinton's claim that they were ALL personal in nature is untrue. My personal theory is that a big percentage of those deleted e-mails in fact were work related, and these contained things she didn't want the rest of the world to ever know.

It's just a theory, but my working theory is that Clinton thought she was above the law. Remember how Patrick Fitzgerald wanted to indict Karl Rove? But he needed evidence, and when investigators went to look at Rove's e-mails, they were all gone. Rove got away scot-free. Clinton figured she could do the same thing. Except her people were sloppy and/or incompetent, and they didn't manage to cover their tracks by deleting those e-mails forever.

Furthermore, I'm theorizing that the reason that Clinton wanted to keep all her e-mails away from prying eyes was because her government work and her Clinton Foundation work got tangled together, and she didn't want to bother to keep a clear firewall between them. The possibility of conflict of interest was enormous, but to her, that wasn't a bug, it was a feature. Of course she knew that when, say, the State Department was negotiating a big military weapons contract with Saudi Arabia, the Saudis would done tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation to influence her. She was trying to encourage that, not discourage that.

The Clinton Foundation wasn't a real charity. It only spent 20-something percent on actual charitable works. Even then, the money for charitable work could be given to reward political allies. In the same way that some unethical people use the non-profit status of religious organizations to their advantage, Clinton was taking advantage of non-profit charity status to get hundreds of millions of dollars from overseas sources, esp. foreign governments, that otherwise wouldn't have been able to give money to her political campaigns.

Her aides she was communicating with the most were in on it too. In fact, one of her top aides, Huma Abedin, was working for the State Department and the Clinton Foundation at the exact same time for the whole four years! Clinton wanted to communicate with them frequently about this openly corrupt quid pro quo way she did business, and there was too much going on to do it all face to face. So she did it all through her private server.

That explains why she refused to even check her e-mails a single time from any government computer. She had to spend many hours a day in SCIF rooms (secure rooms) where she wasn't allowed to use her Blackberries or any other electronic devices. And they had a desktop computer all set up for her, but she refused to touch it. Because if she did, State Department security officials might get a look at her e-mails and see the vast corruption she was a part of.

That's my theory. The main question in my mind is how sloppy were they? For instance, did they openly discuss quid pro quo deals in e-mails? I think they did leave some trails. We know the FBI probe has spread to investigating the Clinton Foundation, and one thing I heard is that they're specifically looking into conflict of interest in a particular Boeing deal.

I really think she's in a world of hurt. This could be the Watergate scandal of our time.

I think hubris is going to do her in. Look at how no bankers have been prosecuted for the 2008 financial meltdown, and look how rarely other politically powerful people ever get prosecuted for anything. She saw that too and figured she was above the law. Even now, a lot of people are saying she's just too powerful to ever be indicted, no matter what the evidence is. That's what she figured all along.

So she pushed and pushed, creating what is literally the largest political money making machine the world has ever seen. She and Bill increased their own political wealth by $150 million, and they raised another two BILLION for the Clinton Foundation on top of that. No one has ever come close to raising so much money in return for political influence. But what she did was so blatant and outrageous, and she was so sloppy in covering her tracks, that the law is catching up to her.

That's my theory, anyway. We'll see.

[paulthompson]

178. Boeing

By the way, since I mentioned Boeing, here's an article related to that, from a week ago.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/as-hillary-clinton-bolstered-boeing-company-returned-the-favor/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511549624

And here's more on that kind of conflict of interest in general:

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

[Jarqui]

182. Good theory and remarks

Here's a few more thoughts:

"I think those 30,000 deleted emails are key."

Most people, particularly people in Clinton's position, with power and assets, do things for a reason. When the media asked her why she had a server at home, she lied a few times over. Nixon's famous words were "I have nothing to hide". Lying was hiding the real reason that server was in her home. That made the authorities and the media want to look all the more. Could turn out rather ironicly that her rotten lying could be the trigger to her downfall.

"We already know that some of them were work related, and you pointed to a couple of links I wasn't aware of that prove that more of those deleted ones were work related."

Another Hillary lie or deception unraveling.

Obstruction is doubly bad because it's an admission of the toughest part to prove in some of these criminal laws on classified info: "knowingly". Very arguably, obstructing them from finding the emails they did, is an act of admission that she knew if they saw them, that they could see what she'd done with classified information was illegal. She can no longer credibly claim in her defense that she didn't know because she committed a crime (if our theory is accurate) so others wouldn't know = she must have known her handling of classified emails was bad.

Then when they find missing (deleted) emails that were work related and who they were from would almost automatically be classified, they had another deceitful act beyond the lies that were thrown out during her first press conference. The snowball gets bigger that she's going to all this deceptive effort for some reason.

Now they have the IT guy, Brian Pagliano, with immunity. Everybody in the media talks about how they think they're picking his brain on the setup of the server ... overlooking what he might know about the deletions of the emails. The FBI have got deleted emails that don't fit what they were told about the purging criteria and he has to tell the truth or he goes to jail. Big problem for Hillary. And the media are not really up to speed on that vulnerability. I suspect his testimony on the deletions could be far more important than the set up. At set up time, there might be a conspiracy to commit a crime but at deletion time, you've committed the crime and are covering your tracks - far more damning.

So they may very well already have a very credible witness to the obstruction to back up their data findings in the deleted emails.

Now, Cheryl, Huma, Brian Pagliano and quite possibly Hillary have to subject themselves to discovery questioning by Judicial Watch in two FOIA cases. As much as folks around here want to criticize Judicial Watch for being right wing sympathetic, those guys know what's going on, where some of the bodies are buried and they're going to try to dig them up in court. How could the Clinton employees lawyers do anything except tell them to plead the 5th? And you can just imagine the media fall out and public perception from that: "why is everybody related to Hillary's server pleading the 5th?" The stench gets bigger.

"My personal theory is that a big percentage of those deleted e-mails in fact were work related, and these contained things she didn't want the rest of the world to ever know."

At this point, in the wake of all the evidence, it's getting pretty tough to not imagine a good percentage were work related. They appear to already have that evidence. She's always been more secretive than most politicians.

"Furthermore, I'm theorizing that the reason that Clinton wanted to keep all her e-mails away from prying eyes was because her government work and her Clinton Foundation work got tangled together ...

The Clinton Foundation wasn't a real charity. It only spent 20-something percent on actual charitable works. ..."

I've looked at their financials too. They strike me like a slick fluff overlay of a black hole of money. You do not seem to see specifically where their money goes. It's complex with all these initiatives and partnerships and hard to get a clear picture of what's happening and what they're actually doing. You certainly don't see Sidney Blumenthal's salary revealed as a line item in their annual report. What Clinton Foundation charity paid for his services? Fundraising?

Folks have culled more out of the emails on the interaction of the State Department with the Clinton Foundation. Some of that doesn't look good.

"So she pushed and pushed, creating what is literally the largest political money making machine the world has ever seen. She and Bill increased their own political wealth by $150 million, and they raised another two BILLION for the Clinton Foundation on top of that. No one has ever come close to raising so much money in return for political influence. But what she did was so blatant and outrageous, and she was so sloppy in covering her tracks, that the law is catching up to her. "

If you tally up the Clinton Foundation, her political campaigns, the Clinton Library and the speeches, it's over $4 billion dollars since leaving the White House ... by effectively panhandling.

Here's one other thing kind of being overlooked:
- FBI interviews of Clinton staff and Hillary
- discovery testimony of Clinton staff and maybe Hillary in FOIA case
- discovery testimony of Clinton staff and maybe Hillary in second FOIA case
- FBI report on their investigation
- Inspector General of the State Department Report on their investigation
- Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Report on their investigation
- Issa and the House resume their investigation of Hillary and her emails
- a second House investigation on Hillary and FOIA resumes
- Grassley and the Senate Judiciary Committee resumes investigating Huma, Cheryl & Hillary, etc
- FOIA proceeds from 36 other lawsuits related to Clinton information are going to be flowing out into the media -many between now and November

Anyone who thinks she's going to get through that gauntlet unscathed while trying to run for President is fooling themselves. She could be the most innocent person in the world but anyone going through what she's about to is going to get significantly damaged. Yes, the GOP know it.

There's even a court case going on right now trying to get the draft of her indictment for Whitewater. This is nasty. They're leaving no stone unturned to prevent her from winning the White House.

So far, the media has been pretty decent about it. For a long time, it was just the Washington Post going after Watergate. With all the stuff coming up in the calendar, she's running through a media mine field. One false step or digging up one damning fact and critical mass is reached such that the pendulum swings the other way towards media fission. It's over.

She can pretend all she wants that nothing is wrong but the fact is, she's in a very precarious place.

[paulthompson]

185. Agreed

It looks like you and I are thinking along very similar lines, Jarqui.

After Benghazi turned out to be such a trumped up nothing, I think the media and the general public are having a "once bitten, twice shy" attitude. Everybody is waiting for the other shoe to drop, some undeniable revelation that says this scandal needs to be taken very seriously. I don't know what that'll be, but my gut feeling is that something like that will come along before any FBI recommendation to indict or not. As you point out, there are all sorts of things on the horizon.

The big question is, what can we do to help educate the public?

One thing I don't know much about yet is the Clinton Foundation angle. That's really confusing. You seem to know more. Would you be willing to help with that specifically? Are there other people out there who know more about that, and could help out?

[grasswire]

187. Holy Crow, Paul. Holy Crow.

Your phrase "Look at how no bankers have been prosecuted for the 2008 financial meltdown" just rattled my brain.

Is there any possibility that Clintons could have influenced this? Any possibility?? Maybe we need to find out if any of those not prosecuted have (through any means or identities) donated to the Clinton Foundation. We know that Hillary pushed Obama on Libya. Maybe she shielded her cronies the banksters in the same way.

Leave no stone unturned, sez I.

[paulthompson]

192. hmmm

I don't think that's very likely, other than her being part of a general pro-business cabinet. The State Department should have had nothing to do with that. If Clinton did influence that in some way, it would be next to impossible to prove, unless some smoking gun came out.

Unfortunately, I think the sad truth is that nobody had to twist Obama's arm because he wanted to stay cozy with Wall Street. Look at his support for the TPP. I lost a ton of respect for him on that.

[thereismore]

162. How did I miss this thread? Bookmarking! K&R

[questionseverything]

189. PAUL CHECK THIS OP OUT

https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/

seems well researched but lots of info

[paulthompson]

191. Already

We already discussed this above. Check out post #149 and onwards.

I agree it's got a lot of good information in it, well presented. But he ruins it for me near the end when he says voters should seriously consider voting for Trump, and maybe Trump isn't that bad. Perhaps he's just brainstorming out loud, but still, that's what's there.

And yes, Trump IS that bad!

[questionseverything]

193. i didnt get to the trump stuff....just wanted to make sure you had seen it

appreciate your work

[paulthompson]

190. For reference

For reference,

here's the FAQ from the Clinton campaign giving their case:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

[eridani]

194. We should put our heads together and drop it, period

However it pays out, we have one hell of a lot of much more important work to do.

[paulthompson]

195. What do you mean?

Drop what?

If you mean drop the Clinton e-mail scandal, I disagree. Whether you like it or not, it's going to be a big issue in this election. This story is starting to heat up again after being on the backburner for a while. We know the FBI is planning to make a decision on recommending an indictment for Clinton and/or her aides by mid-May. Something is bound to happen. This story can't simply be avoided.

Nor should it be avoided. It's not just about e-mails and servers, it's about the Clinton Foundation, and political corruption. In an interview today, Clinton said that she would not disconnect herself from the Clinton Foundation if she's elected president, which means the potential for corruption is immense.

Already we've seen foreign government give millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation right at times when Clinton as Secretary of State was involved with negotations involving those countries. Imagine the same thing happening with her as president, with untold foreign millions pouring into her "charity" to influence her presidential actions! That is absolutely frightening to me!

[paulthompson]

198. Timeline!

I've decided the first step is to put together a timeline. I'm working on that today, and I'm making quick progress. What I'm doing is cobbling together timeline information from some of the timelines already out there. Then I'm going through the Wikipedia page on the Clinton scandal, and reorganizing that into timeline form.

Once I have something presentable, I'll let you all know, and publicly post it as a work-in-progress for us to tinker with. Then we can go through the links posted on this page and figure out what's been missed. I'm sure it'll be a lot. For instance, the Wiki page and the timeline pages I've seen hardly cover the Clinton Foundation at all.

[paulthompson]

200. Warning: dodgy source!

Amborin, regarding that link, we've discussed it already. Check out post #104, I think. The short version is it has a lot of good stuff in it, but the author is also a Trump supporter, so we're keeping our distance from it.

On another note, I was just e-mailed a very interesting new Fox News article. Given the rules about sourcing around here, I want to make a big caveat that anyone checking it out should beware of right-wing bias.

That said, if you don't mind talking a walk on the dark side, here's the link:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/31/one-shot-at-queen-fbi-ag-intensify-focus-on-clinton-email-probe.htm.html

[amborin]

203. i see what you mean; i only read the opening paragraph, where he said he's

a liberal democrat; but now I see at the end he does endorse Trump. I will delete it! Thanks for the heads up!

[leveymg]

204. There's some useful information in here, i.e.,Sec 1001 and Teneo Holdings, regardless of the source.

About the FBI's focus on suspected violations of USC 1001 Obstruction of Justice in statements made last year to FBI investigators:

As the interviews evolve, the FBI . . . will explore possible violations of Criminal Code section 1001, which covers "statements or entries generally," and can be applied when an individual makes misleading or false statements that cause federal agents to expend additional resources and time. Legal experts, as well as a former FBI agent, . . . Section 1001 could apply if Clinton, her aides or attorney were not forthcoming with FBI agents about her emails, classification and whether only non-government records were destroyed.

High-profile names convicted of violating Section 1001 include Martha Stewart, as well as former CIA Director David Petraeus.

About Huma Abadin's moonlighting with a second Clinton-allied foundation, Teneo Holdings, one worth $60 Billion:

Key Clinton aide Huma Abedin told the State Department in a July 5, 2013, letter that, “in addition to my work for the Department of State, I performed work for three others.”

Those jobs included working during parts of 2012 and 2013 for the Clinton-allied firm Teneo Holdings, which paid Abedin $105,000 even as she earned another $135,000 as a State Department “consultant.” Teneo, which was founded by longtime Clinton insider Doug Band, “advised clients on communications and investor relations for 10 different merger and acquisition deals worth a total of over $60 billion,” according to Fortune magazine.

[paulthompson]

202. Good news on a timeline!

I have good news. I worked many hours today on a timeline for the scandal, and I made a lot of progress. It went from not existing to being over 9,000 words long! I'm making fast tracks because what I'm doing is drawing from existing timelines and the Wikipedia page on the scandal, so I don't have to hunt down each article or fact on my own.

I think it's already the best timeline out there, and it's only going to get better and more comprehensive. I'll post what I've got soon, once I finish gathering up all the "low hanging fruit" in the next couple of days.

But that's just the first step. The timeline is going to be TOO comphrehensive in a sense, because it'll be so long that only a limited number of people will want to read it. But it can be the raw material to draw from to make shorter and different versions of this information to get the facts out to a wider audience.

[grasswire]

205. awesome!

and amazingly fast.

[paulthompson]

206. Does anyone want to help with pictures?

As I'm working on making a timeline, one thing that occurs to me is that it would be nice to illustrate it with pictures. Human nature being what it is, it's a lot easier reading a lot of text if there are pictures to go along with it, no matter what they are.

So could anyone volunteer to help find some good pictures to go along with the text? Just by clicking on the links of the articles linked up above, you'll usually see pictures with them, for instance of Hillary using her phone or of the people mentioned in the stories, like her aides. We can use those as long as we properly attribute them (meaning keeping track of the copyright info).

[grasswire]

207. a few tidbits

I was monitoring freerepublic for any news. This is what I found.

Huma does not have the same attorney as the other aides. Those other aides are represented by a brand-new group of lawyers paid for by a "benefactor."

[paulthompson]

208. Details, please, with links

I saw a Politico article about this issue from today, but I don't remember those detais.

[grasswire]

209. Some members there were discussing it in a thread...

...so there isn't really anything to back it up that I could find. I will keep nosing around.

[paulthompson]

210. Huma

We can figure out the bit about Huma via process of elimination. If four of Clinton's aides have the same lawyer, and Huma isn't mentioned as one of the four, that pretty much means she has a different lawyer. No?

[antigop]

214. Politico article mentions Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, Heather Samuelson, and Reines

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-fbi-strategy-emails-221435

Four of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides appear to have adopted an unusual legal strategy, hiring the same ex-Justice Department attorney to represent them in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton's private email server.
...
The quartet includes Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, who counseled Clinton politically and legally; deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan, whom sources say authored a number of emails to Clinton that are now considered “top secret”; Heather Samuelson, Mills’ deputy who initially sorted Clinton’s work-related emails from personal messages that were then deleted; and Reines, who served as Clinton’s spokesman and also used personal email for work purposes at State.

[sorechasm]

211. K&R nt

[paulthompson]

212. More timeline news

I had another productive day making the timeline. I added another 6,000 words for a total of 15,000 so far.

Here's a sample of the first three entries, so you can get a sense of what it'll be like:

October 30, 1995: The State Department orders that all employees must preserve their e-mails, "as such messages are considered Federal records under the law." (The Washington Post, 3/10/2015)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/10/hillary-clintons-emails-a-timeline-of-actions-and-regulations/

June 9, 2000: Home video footage from a private fundraiser shows Senator Clinton talking about how she has deliberately avoided using e-mail so she wouldn't leave a paper trail. "As much as I've been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I? I don’t even want... Why would I ever want to do e-mail? Can you imagine?" But apparently necessity will force her to change her mind, and it is known she is using a BlackBerry to send e-mails by 2006. (ABC News, 3/6/2015)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-emails-timeline-rules-allegedly/story?id=29442707

2005: Former national security advisor Sandy Berger pleads guilty to the unlawful removal and retention of national security information. He was caught trying to smuggle classified documents out of the National Archives. (The Los Angeles Times, 3/27/2016)
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-86338414/

---

The long URLs will disappear later once we get the formatting sorted out, so don't worry about those.

If you want to get directly involved, please send me a PM! I don't want to post the whole thing here until it's ready, because once something get on the Internet, there's no telling where it'll go. We need to get it shipshape first. So it's probably better to work via PMs or emails for some thngs.

[JonLeibowitz]

215. By the way, I recommend that you add each and every page to the Internet Archive

As you add the links to your timeline. We may just find that content is changed on some pages after the final timeline is published. Or pages might disappear. Then we can link to persistent URLs.

[sorechasm]

213. State Department halts review of Clinton emails at FBI request

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141399951

[antigop]

216. Hillary Clinton Says She Hasn't Been Contacted By the FBI (includes video)

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-says-she-hasn-t-been-contacted-fbi-n549886

Former Sec. Hillary Clinton said Sunday she had not yet been contacted by the FBI in the inquiry surrounding the use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press."

Reports indicated that Clinton and her top aides could soon be interviewed by the FBI, but she quickly shot that down. She also pointed out that back in August she "made clear" she was "happy" to answer any questions.

The Democratic front-runner reiterated that her decision to use a personal email as a government official was "a mistake" but challenged anyone else in public office to release his or her emails.

[paulthompson]

218. Thanks

Just to show you all what I'm doing, when I get a news link like that, I turn it into a timeline entry like this:

April 3, 2016: Asked if the FBI has reached out to her for an interview, Clinton replies, "They haven’t. But, you know, back in August, we made clear that I’m happy to answer any questions that anybody might have. And I stand by that." When she's asked if she's worried the FBI's investigation will hurt her presidential campaign, she responds, “No, I’m not. Because I don’t think anything inappropriate was done.”
(Bloomberg News, 4/3/2016)

[paulthompson]

217. Another update

Here's another update on the timeline. It continues to grow fast. A few days ago it didn't exist, and now it's 22,000 words long. Now that it's taking shape, I could use more help with a variety of tasks. If you want to volunteer, please PM me.

Also, simply posting relevant news links here in this thread as you see them is a help too.

And as a reminder, the timeline is just phase one. Since it's going to be so long and comprehensive, a lot of people won't be willing to read all that. So I figure we'll slice and dice it in other ways. For instance making a FAQ, and also making one or more essays that summarize the important points in a more digestible way. But we need to get all our facts sorted out into the timeline first.

One problem is still figuring out where this is going to go on the Internet. Can anyone help set up a website, for starters?

[paulthompson]

219. Strange

I just came across something strange, and I'm wondering what other people think of it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/06/clinton-created-multiple-email-address-on-private-server-data-show.html

Clinton's famous e-mail was [e-mail]. But according to the article, there actually were a bunch more:

A screen grab of The Harvester’s findings provided to Fox News by the source in the hacker community – whose professional resume also boasts extensive experience in the U.S. intelligence community – lists rather similar, but nonetheless different, email addresses, including [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], and [e-mail].

Also unearthed by the hacking tool were email addresses of a slightly varied structure, including [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], and [e-mail].

This could be really significant. What if she had a bunch of emails for different purposes, but investigators have only been looking into one? Could anyone here look into this? Especially computer savvy people. What would be the reason for making these if they're never used? Or could the whole story be Fox News bullshit?

[paulthompson]

220. Also

Also can any tech savvy person make heads or tails of this kind of stuff? It's beyond me:

http://andstillipersist.com/2015/03/curiouser-and-curiouser/

[antigop]

221. here is what HRC's website has to say about it

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

Why did the Select Committee announce that she used multiple email addresses during her tenure?

In fairness to the Committee, this was an honest misunderstanding. Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of her initial weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had previously used). In March 2013, a month after she left the Department, Gawker published the email address she used while Secretary, and so she had to change the address on her account.

At the time the printed copies were provided to the Department in 2014, because it was the same account, the new email address established after she left office appeared on the printed copies as the sender, and not the address she used as Secretary. In fact, this address on the account did not exist until March 2013. This led to understandable confusion that was cleared up directly with the Committee after its press conference.

Probably doesn't help...just makes it even more confusing, but I thought I would pass it along.

[paulthompson]

222. yeah but

Yeah, I've seen that already, but that just refers to one other address, not a whole bunch. After the Guccifer leak, she switched email addresses, but to another one at the same server. (Duh!)

[antigop]

223. Was an Asian government reading Hillary Clinton’s emails in February 2009?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/04/was-an-asian-government-reading-hillary-clintons-emails-in-february-2009/

I continue to be fascinated by the very early chapters of the Hillary Clinton homebrew email saga. For one simple reason: the clintonemail.com server apparently didn’t have the digital certificate needed to encrypt communications until late March 2009 — more than two months after the server was up and running, and after Secretary Clinton’s swearing-in on January 22.

Two questions are raised by this timing: First, why didn’t the server have encryption from the start? And second, why did it get encryption in March, at a time when Clinton should have been extraordinarily busy getting up to speed at State, not messing with computer security protocols?

The simplest answer to the first question is that the lack of a certificate was just a mistake. But what about the second? What inspired the Secretary to get an encryption certificate in March when her team hadn’t bothered to get one in January or February?

The likely answer to that question is pretty troubling. There now seems to be a very real probability that Hillary Clinton rushed to install an encryption certificate in March 2009 because the U.S. intelligence community caught another country reading Clinton’s unencrypted messages during her February 16-21, 2009, trip to China, Indonesia, Japan, and S. Korea.

Speculation in this opinion piece...but the question remains:
"And why, despite evidence that Clinton was using the server in connection with work in January and February, did Clinton turn over no emails before March 18?"

[Oilwellian]

224. Message from Paul Thompson

Hi everyone, I've been helping Paul work on the timeline and wait until you see it. He has left no stone unturned on this blockbuster piece. I've seen several attempts at timelines on this issue, but they don't hold a candle to Paul Thompson's timelines. LOL I can't wait til you see what he's put together. It's simply stunning.

If you're interested in helping, he's taking volunteers. There's still a lot of clean up work to do in the Word Doc, hyperlinking needed, and other various chores that Paul can assign to you. If you're interested in joining us, just PM me your email address and I'll pass it on to Paul. I'll check in a few times a day and respond back to you in short time.

[paulthompson]

225. yep

Thanks for that Oilwellian. We've got a small group and we're making a lot of progress. I'd love to see more people join in so we can get this done faster, and have a real impact on the election. A lot of people don't know what to think about the Clinton e-mail scandal, and I think we're going to open a lot of eyes.

[haikugal]

226. K&R AND bookmarking! Wonderful work being done here. Thanks so much! nt

[paulthompson]

227. Update

Things have been pretty quiet on this issue the past couple of days, as there hasn't been much in the news about it.

That said, I'm still working hard on making the timeline. I've reached 40,000 words, and it's still growing! If anyone is interested in helping, esp. with proofreading it, please PM me and I'll send it to you. I'm hoping to finish it soon.

[paulthompson]

228. Check this out

Man! I continue to work on the Clinton e-mail timeline (it's 45,000 words long and growing), and I continue to learn lots of things I didn't know. The evidence of her crimes growing more convincing all the time.

For instance, check out this timeline entry I just made. I'd hadn't heard of this. Had any of you?

March 24, 2016: It is reported that more of Clinton's work-related e-mails that Clinton did not turn over have been found. Clinton has claimed that she turned over all her work e-mails and deleted only the ones that were personal. She also has claimed that she only began using her private e-mail account on March 18, 2009. However, Judicial Watch forced the State Department to release the e-mails due to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all of Clinton's records relating to her iPhone or BlackBerry use. It's not clear why the e-mails did not appear before. Judical Watch makes public an e-mail to Clinton from her chief of staff Cheryl Mills on February 13, 2009 about her BlackBerry, and Clinton's short e-mail response. Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch, says, “So now we know that, contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Hillary Clinton did not turn over all her government e-mails. We also know why Hillary Clinton falsely suggests she didn’t use clintonemail.com account prior to March, 18, 2009 - because she didn’t want Americans to know... that she knew her Blackberry and e-mail use was not secure.” (The Hill, 3/24/2016)
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/274230-lost-emails-discovered-from-clintons-server
(Judicial Watch, 3/24/2016)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-uncovers-new-hillary-clinton-email-withheld-from-state-department/
(Judicial Watch, 3/17/2016)
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/JW-v.-State-Hillary-email-pre-March-18-00646-pg-3.pdf

This proves/confirms a few things.

1) There were lots of work-related e-mails in the 30,000 "personal" e-mails Clinton had deleted. This is the third case that I know of where e-mails she should have turned over have been found in other ways. We also have reports that the FBI has recovered all those e-mails and has been sorting them into work and personal.

2) She lied that she started e-mailing on March 18, 2009. That's key, because from January until late March 2009 there was no encryption whatsoever on her private server. Classified e-mails discovered from that time period would make an even stronger case of "gross negligence" on her part.

3) The State Department has more of Clinton's deleted e-mails that they're keeping from the public. They only released these ones because it fit into a narrowly defined Freedom of Information Act request. What else do they have?!

By the way, I've figured out that Clinton still has a major ally in the State Department by the name of Patrick Kennedy, the Under Secretary of State for Management. He held that job since 2007 and he's still got it now. The State Department is still doing all they can to help Clinton (except for the inspector general's office), and it's usually Kennedy trying to block information from coming out. And that makes sense. He's the guy who hired Byran Pagliano, the IT guy who now has cut a deal with the FBI. And there's a report that he was CCed on some of the top secret e-mails sent to Clinton. How he's still allowed to keep his job and security clearance through the FBI's investigation is beyond me!

4) The mainstream media is doing a terrible job reporting what's important in this scandal. There was almost no coverage about this.

5) Clinton is in trouble. At the very least, it should be an open and shut case about the destruction of some work-related e-mails. But there's so much more.

By the way, I'm surprised that more people haven't taken up my offer to get an early read of the timeline I'm making. Again, if you're interested in proofreading it, please send me a PM.

[paulthompson]

229. More

I just learned somethng else related that could be very important. Check out this timeline entry:

January 11, 2016: The State Department agrees to begin publicly releasing nearly all of Huma Abedin's e-mails to or from a private e-mail account that she used while she was Clinton's deputy chief of staff. The department has determined it has 29,000 pages of e-mails from Abedin, using an account from the same clintonemail.com server Clinton used. (The number of e-mails in those pages is unclear.) The department will process in batches of 400 pages a month, with the processing starting on March 1, 2016. Most of the e-mails in each batch will released except for a few exceptions, such as forwards of news articles. The last batch is due to be released in April 2017. The release is due to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) brought by Judicial Watch. Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch, says, "Obviously, [Abedin] was as close an aide as you could have had to Mrs. Clinton. If Mrs. Clinton didn't keep records she should have or destroyed or deleted them, maybe we can find them through Ms. Abedin. And Ms. Abedin's activities are also controversial." (Politico, 1/11/2016)
www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/01/state-department-to-release-huma-abedin-email-trove-217588
(The Hill, 1/12/2016)
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/265539-feds-to-process-emails-from-clinton-aide-abedin-for-release

---

So, if they're releasing a batch every month, and they started March 1, that should mean that the first batch should be released this month! The next month at the latest. Furthermore, from my above post, one can see that there ARE more Clinton e-mails that the State Department has. Out of the 30,000 Clinton e-mails that were released, about 5,000 of them were to or from Abedin. Since Abedin was Clinton's deputy chief of staff (and probably her "right hand man" more than anybody else), I would guess that nearly all of Abedin's important e-mails would have been CCed to Clinton. So I think the odds are good that even in the first batch, more Clinton-Abedin e-mails will be found.

If they process the e-mails choronologically, that would be even more damning since Clinton said she didn't start using her e-mail until March 2009, but some of her e-mails have already been discovered from January and February 2009. Why did she lie about those two months in particular?

If the media picks up on the story, that would reveal A) that Clinton lied when she said all the 30,000 e-mails she destroyed were personal in nature, and B) that this scandal is for real and Clinton was clearly hiding something.

Furthermore, the news related to Abedin's e-mails is likely to break within a month or so, pushing this scandal forward regardless of how slow the FBI investigation is going.

Also, keep this in mind. In 2015, Clinton signed the following statement under oath: "I directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done."

So what happens when more and more of those deleted e-mails keep popping up? How does Clinton not get prosecuted for that alone?

[grasswire]

239. she lied about the first two months (unsecured) because...

....she went on a trip to Asia then using that unsecured method, and has been informed that her correspondence was intercepted.

[paulthompson]

240. That's just a guess

We don't know that. There was a recent Washington Post op-ed about it, but that's just speculation about it too.

It's probably one of those things that would be very hard to prove. For instance, let's say you leave some top secret documents lying out in the open in a cafe. You come back the next day and they're still there. Did anyone read them? How can you know? But what an idiot for leaving them out. Lots of officials have been fired for that very thing. And that's exactly what Clinton did with her emails.

So I doubt there's solid proof she was hacked then. But yeah, it makes her look bad that she made that trip while she didn't even have the most basic encryption on her server!!!

[grasswire]

241. yes...

...but until the FBI comes forward, all we can do is try to string things together and guess at actions that seem illogical and, frankly, incomprehensible, given the risks she took and is taking.

[antigop]

230. paul, take note

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1690179

[paulthompson]

231. Thanks

I just posted about that in that thread. I find that concerning. As president, he shouldn't be commenting about on-going investigations.

[antigop]

232. yes, I agree. He shouldn't be saying anything. nt

[antigop]

233. i just thought of something

He wouldn't be announcing a special prosecutor, would he?

[paulthompson]

234. Nah

The interview has already happened. Wallace, the interviewer, gave some hints, and there was nothing remotely about that.

Besides, appointing a special prosecutor would be putting the cart before the horse. First, the FBI has to finish their investigation and decide whether to indict or not. If they decide to indict, only then can a special prosecutor happen or not. But in my opinion that decision will be kind of a moot point, because an FBI recommendation to indict should finish off Hillary's political career.

Judging from Obama's recent comments supporting Clinton, I'm sure he'd love to make this go away. But I don't think there's anything he can do to stop the FBI from recommending an indictment, if that's what they want to do.

[antigop]

235. could the FBI already have finished its investigation and made a decision to indict? nt

[paulthompson]

237. No

Things are still progressing.

True, they could have made an informal decision to indict Clinton and/or her aides. I believe that has happened, if only because they've cut an immunity deal with Bryan Pagliano. Apparently, whe Paglinao started working for the State Department n 2009, he lied on a form, saying he had no other job. But he actually was secretly running Clinton's private e-mail server and getting paid for it. So that's an open and shut case. Why would they let that go unless they can catch bigger fish with him? In my opinion, the question is who will they recommend to indict, and how many, and on what charges. That's still unknown.

The wheels of justice turn slowly, and first the FBI has to interview Cliinton and her aides. That should take place in the next few weeks. Then they'll make the formal decision to indict or not.

[paulthompson]

236. WSJ article

Can anyone help me find the full text of this article? I can't get to it due to the pay wall:

Emails Indicate Clinton Involved in State Department’s Internal Watchdog Selection

http://www.wsj.com/articles/emails-indicate-clinton-involved-in-state-departments-internal-watchdog-selection-1456006189

Please PM me if you can.

[antigop]

238. paul, be sure to see this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511697159

[paulthompson]

242. Update

By the way, just as an FYI, a lot of work on the timeline is still being done behind the scenes. It's now 55,000 words long! It should be done soon.

Meanwhile, check out this article about CREW.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-04-11/with-all-due-respect-04-11-16

I can't believe how devious that is. Simply buy up and take over your chief critics!

[paulthompson]

243. Finished the timeline!

Good news! I've basically finished writing the email scandal timeline. It wound up at 57,000 words. One reason it's so big is that it includes a lot of misdeeds of the Clinton Foundation too. I stlll plan on adding to it, but mostly just whenever new news comes along.

So now my plan is to polish it and make it presentable to be publicly posted. That'll still take some more days. If you're interested in reading it now, please send me a PM (with your email address) and I can email you a copy. I already emailed a bunch of people who made a bunch of posts in this thread, but I'm sure I missed a lot of you.

One problem is that the timeline is so long, so I'm going to work on creating a "greatest hits" version. I could use feedback for that and other things, including ideas on how to spread the word about this once it's done. I believe the information in it is something voters need to know before this primary race is over.

Oh, and by the way, the timeline is nicely illustrated with lots of photos, thanks almost entirely to the help of Oilwellian.

[mmonk]

244. Excellent

[antigop]

245. GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley Asks Hillary Whether 'Guccifer' Hacked Emails

Ok, it's Newsmax -- however, there is a link to a letter from Grassley to HRC's lawyer, David Kendall, and it's on Grassley's letterhead

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Grassley-Clinton-emails-Guccifer/2016/04/13/id/723826/

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Chuck Grassley has asked Hillary Clinton if she knew whether her emails were hacked by "Guccifer" — the noted Romanian who first revealed that the former secretary of state had used a private server.

In a letter Tuesday to Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, the Iowa Republican referenced a "Meet the Press" interview she gave on Sunday in which she reiterated earlier positions that she was willing to answer "any questions that anybody might have" about the server.
"I hope this means you are reconsidering your refusal to answer the questions I asked you, through your attorney," Grassley said, referring to a January query on the issue. "I also hope it means you will substantively respond to this letter as well."

Grassley's letter says she was asked some questions in January through her attorney and did not respond.

eta: I found a link to Grassley's letter on the Senate Judiciary website:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016-04-12%20CEG%20to%20HRC%20%28Guccifer%20Victim%20Notification%29.pdf

[paulthompson]

246. Thanks

I don't want to use Newsmax though.

By the way, you know what's weird? The owner of Newsmax gave a $1 milllion to the Clinton Foundation.

[antigop]

247. But the link to the Grassley's Senate Judiciary Committee letter is valid.

It links to the Senate Judiciary website.

Grassley's letter is legit.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016-04-12%20CEG%20to%20HRC%20%28Guccifer%20Victim%20Notification%29.pdf

The letter was sent to David Kendall, Clinton's lawyer.

It specifically asks:
"1. Have you received any notice from the Department of Justice or other government
agency relating to Mr. Lazar?
2. Has the Department of Justice or any other government agency informed you that you
were a victim of hacking, other unlawful computer access, or any other crime, whether
attempted or realized, by Mr. Lazar or any other person or entity?"

[grasswire]

251. that is very weird

what a squiggly mess it is.

[IdaBriggs]

249. Congratulations!!!

[grasswire]

252. Hooray for Oilwellian!!

Good work.

[antigop]

250. interesting letter from retired FBI agents

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/15/letter-from-long-island-chapter-society-former-special-agents-fbi.html

Sorry...Fox News is the only website reporting on this that I could find.

[noretreatnosurrender]

253. Looks Like Bait to Me

A lot of things about this post do not ring true. Why would a professional author need people at DU to do his work for him? Think about it. Remember we are on the internet and just because someone claims they are this person does not mean that they are. Anyone knows that if a candidate is in serious trouble their opponent and his supporters would be well advised to stand back and let them fall all on their own. Discussing this matter on DU like any citizen would do is fine but there is NO way I would get involved with helping to spread speculation far & wide as this poster suggests. I also disagree that the only way Bernie can win is by latching onto an FBI investigation that has not even been completed.

Thank goodness Bernie has excellent political instincts on this and hasn't taken the bait to jump on this story prematurely. Our time is better spent actually working on the election not spinning negative stories far and wide about our opponent at the behest of an anonymous person on the internet. We don't want to become mirror images of the Clinton crowd. They are the ones that spread negative lying stories far and wide thinking that they must do so in order for their candidate to win. It's total nonsense. Thanks but no thanks.

[paulthompson]

256. Sigh

Of course you're free to have your opinion on the merit of this. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise, since you sound very convinced.

But as for me being me, you can easily look at my DU account and see that it's the same person who has been posting since 2002.

[abelenkpe]

255. Nothing will happen

If Clinton wins the nomination Republicans will push for indictment and start or restart more investigations attacking her that way. It will mask that the aren't doing anything else constructive and cause democrats all kinds of grief. After alienating Bernie supporters the investigations, whether they have merit or not, will make it possible that republicans will win in November. It's a nightmare really. Republicans love attacking the Clinton's. It really riles up their base and turns out voters.

[antigop]

258. depositions for Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, and Bryan Pagliano in joint proposal

Feds, Judicial Watch strike deal on Clinton email depositions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1280&pid=158157

The conservative group Judicial Watch and lawyers for the State Department have struck a deal to govern sworn depositions from three former aides to Hillary Clinton about the private email server and account she used during her tenure as secretary of state.

The joint proposal detailed in a Friday night court filing calls for the depositions of former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and information technology specialist Bryan Pagliano during a two-month discovery period that would follow approval of the agreement by a federal judge. The deal suggests the politically sensitive interviews could be videotaped.

Approval of the plan by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan could come as soon as next week. He ruled in February that Judicial Watch should be permitted to take depositions in the watchdog group's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for information about Abedin's employment arrangements.

[paulthompson]

259. Update again

Hi there,

Things have been quiet on this thread for a while, but there's still a lot of work going on behind the scenes. I've continued to make progress on the timeline. I've finally reached the stage where I'm ready to put it on the web, and that's what I'm working on today. So it could be posted as soon as tomorrow or the next day, depending on how long it takes to get converted to a web format. Also, there's a lot of collaboration going on, but it's all moved to email.

I've also spun off The Clinton Foundation into a timeline of its own, since it's related but makes sense to see with all that put together. That's 15,000 words long. The main timeline meanwhile is 60,000 words long. Since that's so very long, I've created a shorter version that 35,000 words long. I'll also make an even shorter version, but I think the 35,000 version is all really compelling stuff.

Furthermore, by looking at Clinton's emails, I've discovered some very interesting things that nobody has reported on before. With 30,000 emails dumped onto the Internet, not many people have taken a close look, and some important things got missed. So I've been reaching out to some reporters in the hopes of getting some new articles written.

So hopefully I'll be back soon with the web link. Meanwhile, if you want me to send you the new shorter version, please drop me an email or a PM. Thanks.

[slipslidingaway]

260. Thank you So much for your hard work, I would be pleased to receive and share the shorter version...

again thanks so much!!!

[BillZBubb]

262. Post the web link. I'd like to see what you've discovered.

[obamneycare]

264. Any updates on that weblink?

Dying to see what you've put together.

[paulthompson]

265. Kind of

I DO have a link ready! However, I'm making some final changes before I want the website to go public. I figure I'll be done in the next 24 hours or so. If you want to see it now, and can keep it a secret (for now), please send me a PM, and I'll send you the link. Ditto for anyone else who is interested.

[obamneycare]

267. :popcorn:

[img][/img]

[Babel_17]

263. The FOIA aspect

The State Department, the President, The Defense Department, and all the intelligence people, are free to say "No harm, no foul" and "Nothing to see here".

But for over a year the State Department was telling people that documents that should exist were not to be found. The public's rights to those documents was harmed.

Let's sit back and take a long hard look at how that came to pass. And we need to look extra carefully at who knew what, and when.

[mmonk]

266. So the State Department admits it withheld certain emails

to cover up the fact of the private server both from the Benghazi hearings and the courts and lied. Who is going to take the fall for that? I still find the fact the party is so big on this nomination with the clouds overhead maddening.

[Oilwellian]

269. The timeline is now live on the web

I can't believe Paul's post above was hidden by a jury for simply posting a link to his now public timeline. How very embarrassing for DU.

I'm willing to take the risk as well and post the link. Hiding from truth never works out well.
I think everyone who contributed to this thread, deserves a link to the fruits of their hard work and participation.

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

[Lokijohn]

270. Kicked for relevancy

Thanks Paul and everyone who helped.