HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Clinton’s Private E-Mail ...

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 02:36 PM

Clinton’s Private E-Mail Use Said to Frustrate Top Aide Huma Abedin

Source: Bloomberg

A top aide to Hillary Clinton said the former secretary of state’s use of a private e-mail server to conduct government business on at least one occasion got in the way of Clinton’s work and left the aide frustrated, according to two people who witnessed the aide’s deposition Tuesday.

Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and now the vice chair of her presidential campaign, was being deposed about the context of a November 2010 e-mail she sent Clinton that they “should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.” Prompting the note, according to the e-mail chain released last week by the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act, was a missed scheduled phone call, one of a number of communications mishaps detailed in Clinton's 55,000-page e-mail record.

Clinton responded in the 2010 exchange that she could get a “separate address or device” but said she didn’t “want any risk of the personal being accessible,” according to the e-mail chain. Abedin replied that the missed communications were “not a good system.”

Abedin testified that “the personal” referred to non-government messages Clinton was also exchanging via the e-mail address rather than any improper treatment of government records, according to one of the people who witnessed the deposition. Abedin, whose close relationship with Clinton has led her to be described as a surrogate daughter, was one of a handful of aides to have her own account on the clintonemail.com server.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-29/clinton-s-private-e-mail-use-said-to-frustrate-top-aide-huma-abedin

10 replies, 1822 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Clinton’s Private E-Mail Use Said to Frustrate Top Aide Huma Abedin (Original post)
alp227 Jun 2016 OP
Ash_F Jun 2016 #1
Bohemianwriter Jun 2016 #8
red dog 1 Jun 2016 #2
Shebear Jun 2016 #4
Shebear Jun 2016 #5
Hekate Jun 2016 #3
hollowdweller Jun 2016 #6
tallahasseedem Jun 2016 #7
DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2016 #9
DCBob Jun 2016 #10

Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 02:56 PM

1. She's been through a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 02:40 AM

8. All I see is double standards.

 

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/08/13/chelsea-manning-and-hillary-clinton-a-case-of-double-standards/

The “crimes” of Chelsea Manning weren’t crimes against people but against the US government, i.e. they were acts of conscience that should be rewarded rather than punished. Nothing she did hurt a single person, except those persons in power whose hypocrisy and venality was exposed: not a single US casualty in our interminable “war on terrorism” can be traced back to the leaking of the materials that have been posted on Wikileaks via Manning. Indeed, the material that was released to the world exposed the very real crimes of our rulers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. This is Chelsea’s real “crime,” one for which she is paying dearly.

On the other hand, let’s take a look at another lady who stands accused of mishandling US secrets, including material classified “Top Secret”: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

While serving as Secretary of State, she violated US government protocol by conducting both her professional and personal email correspondence on her own private server. This alone is illegal, but her crimes don’t stop there.

When this unusual arrangement was discovered, she refused to hand over the server: instead, she separated out those emails she deemed “personal,” handed some over to the US State Department, and then erased the entire contents of the server – thus covering up whatever violations of national security standards may have occurred during her tenure.

Clinton repeatedly denied having any classified documents either coming in our going out of her private inbox, but we have since discovered that this is not quite true.

So far, officials have discovered that at least four emails she turned over contained classified information. Two of these were deemed “Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information” – the highest level of secrecy in the government’s classification system. If you follow that last link, it will bring you to a heading that reads: “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN.”

“Top secret” is just what it implies: this material came from the top drawer of America’s most closely-guarded intelligence. “SI” means “special intelligence,” i.e. intercepted communications of the sort collected by the National Security Agency. This category of intelligence is rated so highly that it is stored in a special facility, with precautions taken against any intrusion, whether physical or electronic. “TK” means the material was acquired via satellite. “NOFORN” means only American officials (with a need to know) are permitted access: no foreigners.



&index=41&list=WL


Wonder what Wikileaks will reveal in due time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 03:41 PM

2. So when will the FBI be finished with Clinton's e-mail investigation?

I realize that going through 55,000 pages of e-mails must take considerable effort and time, but, damn, I wish the Justice Dept. and/or the FBI would wrap this thing up soon!

If there is evidence that she did something illegal, then DOJ and/or the FBI should say so.

If there is no evidence that she did anything wrong, then DOJ and/or the FBI should say that, and wrap this investigation up, ASAP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 05:26 PM

4. This needs to be wrapped up before the convention...

 

... or the FBI will be interfering with the political process. It should have been done earlier, can't imagine with over a dozen agents what they are doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 05:27 PM

5. No kidding... first her husband, now this...

 

... almost inhuman test of patience amid adversity...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 05:24 PM

3. I can't imagine a single other aide/assistant in the USA who has ever felt frustrated by their boss.

How about you?

This must be unique to Hillary, by gum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 05:36 PM

6. I don't get this whole exchange

 

OK so Huma tells her they should get her a State Dept email so her email messages to State reach their intended recipient.

Then Clinton suggests a separate device for personal and private emails but doesn't want the personal to be public?

But they never did so the personal and public were mixed and Clinton's people decided which was which when they turned them over.

Why didn't they do what apparently both were suggesting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 06:20 PM

7. Bloomberg...

the same ones who are peddling shit during the 6pm hour on MSNBC. Not buying it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tallahasseedem (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 03:11 AM

9. You're not buying her sworn deposition, huh? Good to know.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 08:31 AM

10. Asked if “Clintonemail.com was used.. to thwart FOIA obligations,” she responded, “Absolutely not.”

That is the bottom line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread