ORIGIN OF KEY CLINTON EMAILS FROM REPORT ARE A MYSTERY
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by tammywammy (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: AP
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was supposed to have turned over all work-related emails to the State Department to be released to the public. But an agency audit found at least three emails never seen before - including Clinton's own explanation of why she wanted her emails kept private.
After 14 months of public scrutiny and skepticism over Clinton's motives in keeping her emails secret, new questions emerged Thursday. They centered on her apparent failure to turn over a November 2010 message in which she worried that her personal messages could become accessible to outsiders, along with two other messages a year later that divulged possible security weaknesses in the home email system she used while secretary of state.
The Clinton campaign has previously denied that her home server was breached, but newly revealed emails show an aide worried it could have been compromised.
The existence of these previously unreleased messages - which appear to have been found among electronic files of four former top Clinton State Department aides - renews concerns that Clinton was not completely forthcoming when she turned over a trove of 55,000 pages of work-related emails. And it has drawn fresh criticism from presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_MYSTERY_EMAILS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-26-17-16-54
grasswire
(50,130 posts)drip, drip, drip.
It's a huge problem.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)played, played, played.
And, the unrecognized problem is some want it so bad ... they don't/won't recognize they are being played.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)can't see Hillary is playing them.
Funny how that can work both ways isn't it.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Can you fix?
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Reposted it.
think
(11,641 posts)tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)I believe the info parallels as they use AP resources
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_MYSTERY_EMAILS
-----
hope it assists
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Now there's a surprise...
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Two other emails sent to Abedin were cited in the inspector general's report, but also did not turn up among the emails released by Clinton. Those messages to Abedin contained warnings in January 2011 from an unidentified aide to former President Bill Clinton who said he had to shut down Hillary Clinton's New York-based server because of suspected hacking attacks.
In response, Abedin warned Mills and Sullivan not to email Clinton "anything sensitive" and said she would "explain more in person."
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)This is the link from the article works for me.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_MYSTERY_EMAILS
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)The link needed all the string and was loading from cache
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_MYSTERY_EMAILS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-26-17-16-54
Thanks‼️
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Interesting no one asks them.
unc70
(6,319 posts)The FBI investigation has been very careful to establish probable cause to follow the evidence, totally by the book. Guccifer hacking Blumenthal provided the initial probable cause to examine the previously unknown server. The FBI would not ruin the investigation by dragging in the NSA in a domestic criminal case.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)unc70
(6,319 posts)The IG report has critical emails not seen before. They are important for the report's narrative, and they raise significant issues concerning motivation and intent of Clinton and her staff. The fact that these specific emails with incriminating evidence were withheld and likely deleted by Clinton goes a long way in making the case for obstruction of justice, etc.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Hillary Clinton's Fingerprints Among Those Found on Papers
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/05/us/hillary-clinton-s-fingerprints-among-those-found-on-papers.html
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Jarqui
(10,421 posts)Unfortunately, the media hasn't been up to the task of nailing them.
Now, we have to settle for chronic liars because the Republicans have nominated someone considerably more inept, racist and dangerous.
Arguably the most important and powerful position in the world and this is the best we can come up with for candidates. So pathetic.
I was so high when Obama got elected. Since then, the pendulum of hope for me has swung completely the other way.
You know what my best hope is now? A good third party candidate. There has to be someone sitting there saying "there's an opportunity here - a lot of people are pissed off with the status quo"
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)Clinton is the status quo, a slightly right of centre corporatist neoliberal, with some moderately left of centre social positions. Here in Sweden, and also in many other EU countries she would be squarely in the right category. She also carries tremendous baggage.
Sanders would be barely in the left, as most of the "amazingly left" things he pushes (free tuition, universal health care, hardcore bank regulations, etc etc) WE ALREADY HAVE.
riversedge
(72,680 posts)greiner3
(5,214 posts)dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Firstly the Clintons Scandalathon are something most of us never want to see again.
Then there's the 90's hair and the two disastrous marriages I had...
scscholar
(2,902 posts)As in manufactured as a dishonest attempt to make her look bad?
pnwmom
(109,445 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)But then I'm sure that is a coincidence.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)probably just an oversight.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)what are the odds?!!!
pnwmom
(109,445 posts)got hundreds of thousands of emails hacked.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)The only top secret breaches I am aware of are the opm hack. Do you have a link where a government classified email system was breached?
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)It's 55000 printed pages of email. One email could print out to 10 pages or more, the actual number of emails has never been revealed as far as I know.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)HUGE.
riversedge
(72,680 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)or Whoopsie-dasiy? The pile of doo is mounting.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Is that why that particular email was "privatized" and deleted? This is a problem.
Jopin Klobe
(779 posts)By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: June 5, 1996
WASHINGTON, June 4 Republicans on the special Senate Whitewater committee released a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation today showing that the fingerprints of the First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, were found on records discovered in the White House family quarters two years after they were first sought by investigators.
The F.B.I. report also found that the documents, copies of billing records from Mrs. Clinton's work as a lawyer in Arkansas, revealed fingerprints of five others. They were Vincent W. Foster Jr., the deputy White House counsel who committed suicide in July 1993; a personal assistant to the Clintons who had also worked at Mrs. Clinton's law firm; an aide to the Clintons' current lawyer, and two other law firm aides. ...
... she had testified under oath that she had nothing to do with the documents during the two years they were missing and did not know how they ended up in the family quarters. ...
...Investigators have been trying to determine how the records ended up in the White House. A White House assistant who discovered them said she found them on a table in a library known as the Book Room, to which very few people other than the First Family have access. ...
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/05/us/hillary-clinton-s-fingerprints-among-those-found-on-papers.html
shenmue
(38,534 posts)unc70
(6,319 posts)I believe it was the Time article which discussed how Comey had been part of the investigation of the Rose Law records.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)that Hillary is too dumb to wear gloves
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)...didn't get wiped. (FBI recovered all or most of it.)
We need to devise some sort of test for our Presidential candidates that can tell us how clever they will be at covering their own assess.
That talent could be problematic in "the land of the free, the home of the brave," but, on the other hand, do we really want a president with no talent for it all?
We've got to achieve some balance--say, a C+--between being honest and being too incompetent to protect yourself within the snake pit that our nukey republic has become.
I had the stray thought a couple of months ago that maybe we need a president who is as unscrupulous as her enemies. I thought, is Bernie Sanders too honest to be president?
But, lately, I'm really down on Hillary's wily ways. She's not that wily. She laid herself wide open! A private email server! Jeez!
Never considered voting for her anyway. (Her emails revealed who it was, in the Obama administration, who did Honduras. It was she herself! So she's out, as far as I'm concerned. The fact that she couldn't keep this from me disqualifies her from the presidency.)
As for Sanders, anyone who could remain honest and relatively poor, in public office over the last four decades, has got to have some serious wiles. The best way to foil your enemies is to give them absolutely nothing they can smear you with, and to be absolutely clear with them about who you are and what you believe. You never need to cover your ass because you never do anything that requires cover. That's really high level wiliness. And I can see why the powers-that-be regard it as unscrupulous, unfair, sneaky, beneath contempt, not newsworthy, "damaging to the Democratic Party," crazy, fringey, dangerous, violent, sexist, racist...etc. How dare he be honest?
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)She said it was for convenience and now it seems privacy was reason. At least for now.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)NPR reports that yes, she turned over 55,000 emails, but 30,000 were deleted. Where are they? What's in them?
Though previous SOS's did a similar thing, i.e, they had separate non-DOS email servers over which they did SOS business sometimes, they never ran private emails from their home. They never blended their personal life in with their DOS life. They kept the boundaries in check.
More to the point, just because people in the Bush administration did itdoes that give Democrats a pass? Are we to be okay only when compared to the worst President and one of the worst DOS's in history that regarded all laws as nuisances to be discarded at will?
Then there's the word "personal". It can refer to so many things---private discussions with Chelsea about her weddingor Hillary's dealings with the Clinton Foundation involving SOS influence. So it matters. We only have her word for it that ti was about hair dresser appointments.
One reason the laws about SOS communications were created is so that history has a record of what actually happened. For instance, history may want to know about the involvement of our DOS and the coup in Honduras. The DOS can't be run like a private fiefdomunless someone is a Queen. Right? It speaks to attitudehow could an SOS actually ever think that SOS duties are her private affair. They belong to the country.
Jarqui
(10,421 posts)from the top post:
new questions emerged Thursday. They centered on her apparent failure to turn over a November 2010 message in which she worried that her personal messages could become accessible to outsiders, along with two other messages a year later that divulged possible security weaknesses in the home email system she used while secretary of state.
The Clinton campaign has previously denied that her home server was breached, but newly revealed emails show an aide worried it could have been compromised.
The existence of these previously unreleased messages - which appear to have been found among electronic files of four former top Clinton State Department aides - renews concerns that Clinton was not completely forthcoming when she turned over a trove of 55,000 pages of work-related emails.
If it isn't, it's flirting pretty darn close to it or something not good.
How she could avoid indictment if she was a 'normal citizen' is beyond me yet I doubt she will be indicted. I'm referring to this and the security breaches of confidential information.
You're losing.
Find another hobby.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Posting a laughing emoticon (which is your usual response as evidenced by your profile) and saying "nope" doesn't pass for intellectual discourse.
In other words, find another hobby.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)and not from the Clinton Library, well................................
see the rest here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1464778
paulthompson
(2,398 posts)I posted this in another thread yesterday, but it's revelant to this story too:
Clinton deleted 31,000 emails, claiming they were "personal." But what Clinton considers "personal" clearly isn't what other people consider personal.
At least 150 more previously unknown Clinton emails came out this month, mostly due to a batch of Huma Abedin emails being released, with lots of them between her and Clinton. I've looked them over, and nearly all or all of them were work related, and yet Clinton apparently thought they were "personal." Remember she said that if there were any emails that were borderline at all, she turned those over, just to be sure. That turns out not to be true. And other emails have come out that she didn't turn over that were clearly work related, including emails between her and David Petraeus and her and Sid Blumenthal.
People have said all along that it shouldn't have been up to her to decide what was personal and what was not, because what if she deliberately held back work emails? How would anyone know? And that's exactly what we're seeing, now that more of her deleted emails are coming to light through other sources. That's a clear violation of the law.
Due to another lawsuit, all of Huma Abedin's State Department emails have started to be publicly released. 400 pages are due to be released each month for a total off 29,000 pages. (I don't know why they're measuring in pages instead of emails, but they are.)
For some weird reason, the release of the first batch of Abedin's emails hardly made any news. (My guess is because reporters are too lazy or busy to go through them one by one to figure out which ones were released already.) But I looked them over carefully, because many of them are between her and Clinton. Now, out of those, most of them were from the first two months of Clinton's time as secretary of state, and Clinton released NO emails from that time. So that's not a fair measure of her emails as a whole.
Thus, I put those aside and looked at about 30 emails from that batch release that seemed to be a random sample of the rest of Clinton's secretary of state tenure. They're scattered all over, from 2009 to late 2012. I checked those carefully against the 30,000 emails Clinton publicly released. Out of them, I found 15 that were not the same, and 16 that were. So, about 50/50. They all looked work related to me, which isn't surprising since Abedin was Clinton's deputy chief of staff. Five of them were actually Clinton's replies to Abedin email that WERE turned over in Clinton's 30,000, so it makes no sense to argue the replies were somehow not work related.
But keep in mind that's just one small portion of the first batch of Abedin's emails, that make up far less than one percent of all of Abedin's emails. If it turns out that Clinton deleted work emails at the same ratio as he did with this small batch, some simple math shows that thousands of emails between Clinton and Abedin alone should have been turned over by Clinton but weren't. At least 3,000, if that sample is accurate. And that's just emails with one person! Of the 30,000 emails Clinton did turn over, about 15% of them were between her and Abedin. If that ratio is roughly accurate for her deleted emails, we should see thousands more work emails that she failed to turn over between her and other people. It could easily be over 10,000 emails were improperly deleted, out of the 30,000.
Of course that's just a back of the envelope calculation based on a small sample. But I don't see how it can be denied that Clinton failed to turn over a large number of emails that she should have. This is not just a few stray emails here and there.
And by the way, the next batch of 400 pages of Huma Abedin emails will be publicly released around the beginning of June. I'm sure we'll find many more "missing" Clinton emails there. Then there will 400 page releases of her emails every month into 2017 or 2018. Meanwhile, her other top aides' emails will be released in batches in the months to come, due to more Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. So get ready for stories about more of Clinton's "missing" emails literally for the next couple of years.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)I haven't really heard about humas email dumps. Thanks for the heads up.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Most of my "personal" emails are SUPER boring.
To-do lists, shopping lists, correspondence with people about birds, etc. I can't think of any emails that I've sent in months that have any potentially uncomfortable information in them.
What was Hillary saying that would be too personal for the public to read about?
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)And we'll also see if investigators have a pressing desire to learn more.
Kingofalldems
(39,171 posts)ALL CAPS FOR BAD THINGS ABOUT HILLARY?
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)And it's annoying...
Kingofalldems
(39,171 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Kingofalldems
(39,171 posts)rockfordfile
(8,726 posts)uwep
(108 posts)never mention any of the previous administrations complicity in this issue or the fact that they put a lot of CIA agents in real danger. Oh, yes, they did not do anything wrong. No investigations of any merit. Notice how all the repugs covered for each other, but the Democrats are attempting to destroy themselves. Hello pres trump.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)You can repost in General Discussion: Primaries