Clinton Email Scandal: State Department Was In On Cover-Up

[4bucksagallon]

Is Mike Malloy also considered a RWer? Since now on DU the TYT's are considered RW trash equivalent to Fox Snooze. These emails that link Bill's speeches to donations to the Clinton Foundation are to glaring to be ignored.

[Jemmons]

1. Makes your think about the process that would lead to such a decision...

After her first primary defeat, she is persuaded to become sec. of state. At that time she might had been a bit hesitant and cautious, even if it was not the main trust of her way of thinking. So to protect herself from unwanted intrusions into her communications she sets up an independent mail system.

Did she distrust Obama enough for that to be her motivation?

Was she oblivious to legal implications of doing that - or did she mull over the pros and con in great detail before she made the move?

The sense I get of this is that must have thought that it might come back to bite her, but not get her into enough trouble that she could not get around it.

So question then becomes what kind of trouble would it save her from, making it worth the risk associated with her choice.

[4bucksagallon]

3. The way it's coming across now is that it's the content of those emails and the donations that went

to the Clinton Foundation which are the subject of the intense scrutiny. If it is determined ....... well I won't go any further because some Hillary supporter will be screaming conspiracy theory at me. Just follow the money.....

[pnwmom]

7. Why are you promoting Justice Watch's lawsuit against the "radical Obama administration"?

Didn't you watch your own video? Couldn't you read the words on the screen?

[Android3.14]

13. Why are you supporting someone who peddles their influence, supports wars based on lies, etc.?

And it's Judicial Watch, and they often have an actual case that stands up in court. Just because someone calls themselves a Democrat (despite her many moves to the contrary) doesn't mean her behavior is above reproach.

This email scandal is just one aspect of the weakness of this candidate and her many disqualifications to be the President.

[pnwmom]

14. Judicial Watch is a far right wing-nut org that shouldn't be promoted here by anyone.

If you can't make a case without Judicial Watch, then you don't have a case worth making.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/richard-mellon-scaifes-cash-pays-for-judicial-watchs-ideologically-motivated-lawsuits-6446911


The local press normally softballs any reference to Judicial Watch, characterizing it in print as a "conservative think tank" or a "watchdog group."

It is more than conservative. In fact, Judicial Watch specializes in far-right-wing advocacy, and though the group is designated by the Internal Revenue Service as non-partisan and tax-exempt, it pursues a relentless wing-nut agenda, one that includes the insidious cause of nativism.

For example, in Judicial Watch's alternate reality, the DREAM Act — the proposed federal legislation that would allow young, undocumented men and women brought to this country when they were tots to legalize their status — is "amnesty."

Senate Bill 1070? Manna from heaven. State Senator Russell Pearce, Arizona's biggest bigot? A hero, whom the organization represents in federal court and whom it recently hosted in D.C. as a speaker at a panel on immigration.

[glowing]

17. Yes, they are a nasty organization to be sure... However, they have gone to court in a civil law

suit to press FOIA requests of e-mails. The judge in the case is a Bill Clinton appointee. Over the next 8 wks, top aids will be brought in for depositions. If the Judge feels that Clinton herself would need to be deposed after the staff are deposed, then legal requests may be made at that time.

Quite honestly, CREW, used to be the type of organization that went after FOIA requests in legal cases. However, they were "bought" up by Brock before the election. There have been several persons that have quit in protest over the "direction" CREW has been told to take in regards to working for the American people in obtaining information that the govt is involved in. They did some really phenomenal work during Bush years. It's a pity that so much was set in motion well before the primary seasons even began to protect a candidate. It's absolutely crazy.

[pnwmom]

21. What is crazy are DUers posting this request for help in a lawsuit against Obama's radical agenda

[glowing]

31. This has nothing to do with "Obama's radical agenda"! This is the information that is being gleaned

by a nasty organization and most of us have ignored it because it is Judicial Watch and Republicans and most of their shit is partisan, witch hunts. But keep deflecting the actual information that is being revealed due to Judicial Watch's diligence in pursuing partisan agendas. It's not as if you can hide what is coming to light. The collusion between the Clinton Foundation donations and favorable State Dept decisions while she was at the head. AND that all of these e-mails were on a private server. That she was told how hack-able her mobile device was, and she refused to do anything differently. Her private server was unsecured for a number of months.

AND I know I'm sort of skipping around between 3 different items... The FBI investigation, the Civil Lawsuit, and the Foundation/ State collusion. AND the FBI said it would be 2017 when they begin investigating that mess. If she's President, is she going to Pardon herself and Bill at the same time?

AND all of this will be smeared all over the TV in ads and in interviews and during debates. If the Republicans do end up running "2" different candidates, this will be double the attack on her.

So, you can keep trying to say "Obama's radical agenda" in hopes that people will not actually look at what is surfacing within this e-mail debacle or look at her record at State, but it looks like to me, President Obama's legacy is going to be tarnished by Clinton scandal... AND he's been pretty much scandal free for 8yrs.

[pnwmom]

33. This video contains that message printed boldly across the picture. Can't you see it?

Along with the Justice watch.org.

So if people want progressives to take it seriously then they need to post from a source that isn't a crazy right wing-nut org.

You seem to think that Trump won't have plenty of dirt to be smeared all over him. Don't worry. He will.

[glowing]

41. Everyone laughed at the Enquirer breaking the John Edwards affair because it was the Enquirer.

Most people haven't paid any attention to this civil suit because its Judicial Watch.... However the e-mails being released to the public (that haven't been redacted due to classified information within the e-mails) is real information. E-mail chains sent to her and around staff members... It's also no revealed that there may be 3 or 4 different e-mail accounts which she used while at state that may have "work product" contained within them. AND that her staffers had a couple of different e-mail accounts.

If she was smart, she would have conducted absolutely anything that had to do with State on a .gov account. AND then it would be much harder for anyone to justify gaining access to her private e-mail accounts... No remember, in 2008, we were just coming off of the Bush years, in which, they used private e-mail accounts, and rnc server, etc, and dumped millions of e-mails (lost forever). AND that stunk to high heaven for everyone. Knowing all that, she decides to set up a private/ work e-mail on a private server at her home? Why? It is the MOST idiotic move anyone could ever make. AND she knows in 2008 that she's going to State to boister her foreign policy experience for her run in 2016. She knows that every Republican is gunning for her. Why in the world wouldn't she make sure everything she did was above board and transparent as all hell?

Yelling, partisan witch hunt, when people can read what has been made available doesn't change what is revealed.

[Android3.14]

45. Look, pnwmon, we already know you don't vet your sources

Your link is to an editorial opinion, not fact.

I'm hoping you can learn to make an effective argument rather than just thrash around with anger.

I'm not debating whether Judicial Watch is a right wing organization. It is. The question is whether Judicial Watch is lying.

As their past shows, those yahoos are also an effective tool for rooting out corruption in the Democratic Party, just as organizations on our side are good at the same thing for Republicans. Rather than make the the ad hominem error of attacking the source, please-please-please attempt to actually refute the claim.

Do you have proof and/or logic that shows the State Department was not involved?

[George II]

19. Do you think stuff like this is going to change anything at all?

[Android3.14]

44. As a matter of fact, I do.

Support for Clinton is weak, at best, and anyone with an ounce of commonsense knows this. Her main supporters are the uninformed, paid members of her glee club or the willfully ignorant. The only argument the Clinton camp had was that there was a time it looked like she could beat Trump. That time is done and gone.

Now I recognize that her die hard supporters lack the pragmatic fortitude to roll the dice for the best possible outcome for the country because of...you know...reasons. But there are the occasional non-sockpuppet newbies who will read these posts and recognize that Hillary is bad for America, the oligarchy owns her, and her supporters ape her bullying tactics.

[George II]

46. Her support is 3 million votes stronger than her opponent.

[zalinda]

49. This is disingenuous at best, an outright lie at worst

Those vote totals do not include popular vote totals from Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Washington, or Wyoming as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#cite_note-popularvote-2

Z

[George II]

51. Analysis of popular votes in caucus states has shown that Sanders only got about 300,000 more....

.....than Clinton.

[Android3.14]

50. And it only took voter suppression, party strong arm tactics & a unified corporate media

to stifle the efforts of an obscure New York Jew with actual ethics.

[pnwmom]

57. All the caucuses themselves are the biggest form of voter suppression. It's what they're for. n/t

[4bucksagallon]

58. The "superdelegates" are the the biggest form of voter suppresion IMO...

http://usuncut.com/politics/maine-democratic-party-just-got-rid-superdelegate-system/
My home State and I am proud of them. "As Maine goes so goes the Nation"?????

[pnwmom]

59. They haven't suppressed a single vote. Could you please name an election -- ever -- where the

super delegates didn't confirm the choice of the majority of the pledged delegates?

[JDPriestly]

60. How do you know that she was "persuaded to become sec. of state"?

Doesn't it make more sense that she was made Secretary of State either to unify the Democratic Party or because she made a deal that in exchange for shifting her voters to Obama she would get the Sec. of State position?

I'm just asking.

Why was she named as Secretary of State after losing such a bitter primary against Obama? What really happened there? Does anyone really know?

Did Obama out of the goodness of his heart just name her as Secretary of State, or was there more behind the scenes negotiation than that?

I don't know. I am asking.

Who was employed by the Clinton Foundation over the eight years between 2008 and the present? I have heard that Huma Abedin was there. Is that true? Was Sidney Blumenthal every paid by the Foundation? What is the story on that end?

Does anyone know?

[cantbeserious]

2. Duplicity Is As Duplicity Does

eom

[Arizona Roadrunner]

4. Accountable and responsible for what you don't know and should know.

In public administration, there is a principle that you are not only accountable and responsible for what you do know but you are also accountable and responsible for what you don't know and should have known. Frankly, Clinton is guilty of breaking this principle and if I were here boss, she would have been demoted and or fired. Also, take a look at the Clinton foundation and when speeches were "given" in timing and the appearance at best of conflicts of interests that apparently didn't matter to them.

They haven't even begun to investigate Hillary's and Bill's speeches, their "foundation" and ties to decisions made while she was Secretary of State such as the Swiss bank UBS situation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

Saying she didn't knowing know or commit a crime doesn't hold water either. She was supposed to know and or find out by the position she held. Again, you are accountable and responsible for what you don't know and should know.....

[IdaBriggs]

5. Bill went to Libya, picked up a $500k donation, two days AFTER Benghazi

as a GIFT FROM THE LIBYAN FOREIGN MINISTER?


Brought up at 3:45 -- anyone know anything else about this?

ON EDIT: I did not know that the "consulate" was a CIA holding facility for people to be tortured, and that the attack was basically a rescue mission to get some of the victims out.

I don't even know what to say.

[polly7]

32. That smells. Bad. nt.

[Jennylynn]

47. Also it looks like they knew where to attack in Bengazi because

Of her unsecured emails! (Allegedly, according to the video)

[pnwmom]

6. It isn't news that Bill has been making speeches and donating the fees to his charitable foundation.

And this has been fully reported in their personal and Foundation tax returns.

[cheapdate]

24. Thank you.

No, it isn't news. For good or ill, our system allows it. Donors can contribute to candidates' and office holders' charities, campaigns, and PACs. The bar for legal bribery is set very high. It requires an explicit and unequivocal quid-pro-quo. It's up to the voters to decide whether or not elected officials have betrayed the public trust. That's our system, for good or ill.

[pnwmom]

8. Why are you pushing Judicial Watch's promotion of its lawsuit against "Obama's radical agenda?"

Do you even watch your videos before you post them?

Where did you find your treasure trove of Judicial Watch videos? On Free Republic? Breitbart? Drudge?

[glowing]

25. It's not so much "Judicial Watch"... They have a civil law suit. The Judge is a Bill Clinton

appointee... AND yes, I would much prefer that CREW was the one's doing the due diligence they are normally known for, however, Brock got his hands on CREW, and any "looking" into Clinton anything became a big no- no. People that had done very good work at getting govt documents and such into the public, have quit the organization because of the partisanship that was set once Brock entered into the organization.

I wasn't all that big on the e-mails myself. I was like Bernie. However, the drippings that have come out of the releases of information, the means of which she conducted herself at the State with using a private, unsecured server, and her blatant refusal to acknowledge the NSA's warning about e-mails and her blackberry device (especially the special room they set up so she could use that device to look at her e-mails rather than use her SCIF office), is crazy. I'm surprised the Republicans didn't find this info out before? Then again, it did benefit quite a few of their corporate donors to ramp up wars with ISIS in the ME. AND she authorized a lot of weapons sales around the world, doubled the amount that Bush admin, under Rice, the previous time period just before Hillary entered State. That's a lot of money for the corporate world. AND following the money flow into the Clinton Foundation just stinks to high-heaven. AND how would they proceed with the Clinton Foundation once she becomes President? Will they step aside from involvement within the Foundation? Will their be a huge Fire-Wall between the President's office and the Foundation's donations? Will Bill and Chelsea and anyone closely associated, remove their-selves from involvement? It could look like the Office of The Presidency can be bought and sold by foreign donations.

[pnwmom]

27. It is "Judicial Watch." It's labeled clearly, a few seconds in. And I realize

that Bill Clinton made the mistake of appointing a RW judge previously appointed by Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.

Richard O. Lempert, Professor of law at University of Michigan

March 20, 2016

News reports suggest that the FBI is nearing the end of its inquiry into the legal issues surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal server for government emails and into the legal ramifications of classified information found in messages to and from her. Most of the reporting—and virtually all political discussion—reads as if reporters and pundits know little about the rules regarding the classification of information and what they imply not just for the likelihood of a Clinton indictment but also for whether she violated other rules regarding the proper handling of classified information, whether or not the violations constitute crimes.

What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate. In this discussion, I offer answers to questions about the former secretary of state’s email that have not been frequently asked, but should be.

SNIP

[glowing]

36. You are placing the two different items together.

One is an FBI investigation that has nothing to do with the civil law suit. The FBI is investigating. Once they are finished, it's up the the AG to decide if there is a reason to indict, if their was criminal malfeasance with her e-mails and classified information. More than likely, because their is a current Dem at the head of the party, and at the head of the depts, there will be probably be NO indictment over willful intent or what not... That doesn't mean items within the e-mails or issues regarding the Clinton Foundation won't be coming down the road... (I believe that is in 2017).

Now, the information inside of the e-mails which is being dripped and released over the next two months may be absolutely devastating to her campaign. It really could lead to a Trump presidency.

[pnwmom]

39. Oh, yeah, there will be devastating stuff in her emails. I just read a shocking article about that

today.

Guess what??? Hillary wrote an email asking her assistant to set up lunch for her with her friends -- AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD!!! What a scandal!

Well, Life News sure thinks it is.

Meanwhile the Donald is facing 2 lawsuits about his fraudulent University, and who knows what he's hiding in those tax returns that he's refused to release so far. And don't forget about his Mafia connections. . . .there will be plenty of stuff to uncover, that's for sure.

[glowing]

42. Ok, just think it's a Planned Parenthood luncheon... head in sand much.

[pnwmom]

43. There won't be incriminating stuff in her emails. If she wanted to do something sketchy

she wouldn't put it in a postcard or an email.

[Chico Man]

9. Don your tinfoil hats

Folks, this is some serious trash right here.

[freedom fighter jh]

10. Get the whole story from Paul Thompson's timeline

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

[Chico Man]

12. The hatred some people have for the Clintons is astounding

Why don't we talk about Vince Foster instead?

[pnwmom]

15. Or we could talk about the Christmas list scandal. Remember that one?

[freedom fighter jh]

22. Or we could talk about the facts.

Check out the timeline.

Documentation included.

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

[pnwmom]

23. He's pushing his book around here every day. I'm not buying it. n/t

[freedom fighter jh]

26. What book?

Paul Thompson has a book based on a timeline he did years ago.

This is separate.

Have you looked at Paul Thompson's email timeline? Every fact in it is supported by a link, mostly to mainstream sources. You don't have to "buy" it from Paul -- if you click on his links you will find the facts in reliable sources.

[pnwmom]

29. I'm not selling it, either. nt

[Chico Man]

30. It includes 60,000 actual words

That's impressive.

[IdaBriggs]

34. Hillary supporter mentions Vince Foster...DRINK!

So predictable.

[Chico Man]

38. Lovely

Bernie supporter in denial, drink!

[CoffeeCat]

53. The FBI investigation into Clinton's email server

is an issue happening within the Democratic party. This could affect Democrats and completely throw our primary into chaos.

Talking about this is not hate. Trying to flesh out the facts, so we can understand what might happen to our Democratic party--is not hate.

We are motivated by truth and living in reality.

As part of the Hillary cheering section, you seem to want everyone to stick their heads in the sand.

You're hurting the Democratic party when you encourage such ignorance.

I've read the Timeline and I've also read a great deal about what Clinton did--and the law regarding classified information. There is very good chance that the FBI will recommend indictment.

Should we all stand around, being ignorant and never asking questions--because Hillary's glee club wants discussion squelched? You are encouraging good Democrats to stand in the dark and be ignorant--when our frontrunner could be recommended for indicting within the next several weeks.

That's not a smart way to be a good Democrat.

[Chico Man]

55. conspiracy theories can be all consuming

But those consumed by them always believe they are "motivated by truth and living in reality".

So, someone put together a 40,000 word string of media coverage, encouraging the formation of conspiracy theories and logical fallacies, because an awful lot of people have an awful lot of time on their hands and it makes for good entertainment.

Beyond that, if there were a legitimate threat, it wouldn't be confined to the dark underbelly of Internet conspiracies.

Go ahead, form logical fallacies based on ignorance, and work yourself up into a tizzy. It also makes for good entertainment.

[stonecutter357]

11. .

[VOX]

16. Jesus H. Christ, give it a rest. n/t

[houston16revival]

20. +10,000

[Mustellus]

18. ... and SHE MURDERED VINCE FOSTER !!!!!!

.... AND SHE MURDERED 47 PEOPLE BACK IN ARKANSAS!!!!!
the 700 club said so, and they are Christian (TM), so they can't lie

But its ok if you trade TOP SECRET INFORMATION FOR SEX !!!!!
at least if you are a Rethuglican....

GENERAL PETRAEUS TRADED TOP SECRET COMPARTMENTALIZED INFO TO GET LAID...

(and thats only a misdemeanor )

[pnwmom]

35. And they sent 300,000 Christmas cards from the White House and that was another HUGE scandal!

(And the Bush administration routed email through the Republican Party server, but that's fine. And Colin Powell destroyed millions of his emails, and that's fine, too.)

[IdaBriggs]

37. Hillary supporter mentions Vince Foster...DRINK!

Two in one thread - NICE!

[riversedge]

28. So --Mike is pushing the RW smear of it being a cover-up! And Sanders fans will bow down and

believe this RW smear. Figures!

[FreakinDJ]

40. Hence "Sources close to the investigation"

HilBots keep touting "Sources close to the investigation" who claim the FBI hasn't found anything against Hillary in the investigation.

Its Hillary's State Dept Cronies trying to cover their own

[Chico Man]

56. Conspiracy theory

Replace the tinfoil hat, please.



It's a cover up!

[saidsimplesimon]

48. I support Senator Sanders.

I do not care about "her damn emails". Gratuitous attempts to post unflattering photos and no-new news about nothing do not appeal to me.

I admire TYT's Cenk Uygur. I do not agree with your premise that DU members should agree with you...just imo

[stopbush]

52. Desperate fantasies.

[Faux pas]

54. K N R-ed