Server

[H2O Man]

One of the more interesting dynamics on DU:GDP is found in the discussions of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “server” and e-mails. To the left are found many who believe that Hillary is very likely to be indicted; to the right are found those who insist the FBI’s investigation is yet another 1990’s republican attack on all things Clinton. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere else, and not necessarily “in the middle” of those polar viewpoints.

No thinking person can deny that there were “mistakes” made, including dealing with information that was of the nature known as “classified.” Likewise, only the brain-dead would deny that the rabid republican right engaged in a hostile program to smear both Bill and Hillary Clinton throughout President Clinton’s years in office.

Like everyone else here, I can only speculate on what the outcome of the FBI’s investigation may be. I suspect it will not be either Hillary being led away in handcuffs, or the FBI concluding the entire controversy was a 1990’s master-plan by republicans in the House of Mis-representatives. Of course, I could be 100% wrong, and both results could occur simultaneously.

I suspect the most likely outcome will be that the investigation will conclude there was some wrong-doing, and some people -- other than Hillary -- will be identified as being responsible. It may be that one or more will be charged. Or that no one will face any criminal charges.

Thus, I would think that a more relevant conversation for our consideration would be what the impact of this scenario would be, should Hillary be our party’s nominee.

Peace,
H2O Man

[FreakinDJ]

1. Those willing to "Fall on Swords"

Or legally Hillary losing her ability to hold a security clearance

You think the Republicans would have a field day with that one

[H2O Man]

24. I think that it

is important to consider how the "undecided" voters in the general election would view it, no matter if a lower-level person opts to "fall on the sword," or refuses to do so. One example that comes to mind is the "bridge" scandal in New Jersey. While Christie appears to have escaped any legal consequence, it certainly knee-capped his primary run.

[FreakinDJ]

30. You most certainly are quite correct

Does this mean Clinton would lose - probably not. Trump is doing ever thing he possible can to insure a Democrat - any Democrat will hold office.

But at the same time calling on the Sanders campaign to drop out is risky at best.

[H2O Man]

36. Interesting.

I believe that Sanders will defeat Trump in November. I think that Clinton vs Trump is 50-50. I say that, based not upon their qualifications, but rather the public's ability to make terrible choices.

[FreakinDJ]

49. Given the possible outcome and Republicans holding their powder dry

And most strategist suggesting "Not during an Obama administration"

But that was before the possibility of a Supreme Court Nomination.

How does Obama defend his Supreme Court Nomination when his administration's Justice Department has yet to rule on Hillary's involvement on handling of Classified information on email server. It could become quite clear if her chances are 50/50 at best that the prospects of back room dealings in Washington for a SCOTUS Nod would outweigh support for her run

[tblue37]

55. There will probably be 2 or 3 more SCOTUS vacancies over the next 4 to 8 years, so just

one SCOTUS pick is not worth risking a Republican in the WH before the seats get filled!

[FreakinDJ]

60. The point I am making exactly

Risking his pick for the court over some one who could "possibly" lose given rampant criticism of her use of the email server doesn't seem smart.

Republicans hold the house and senate, what is to prevent them from enacting laws or demanding the enforcement of laws that forbid some one from holding a security clearance that did what she did. You now have a presidential candidate who can't read the presidential daily briefing

At that point the backroom dealings would prevail

[leveymg]

158. I think we all have to face the possibility that neither candidate will be the Democratic

Candidate in November. If the FBI report is as damaging as the media reports and leaks indicate, and the report is released before the Convention, HRC will have to release or assign her delegates. She and the rest of the Democratic establishment, including Obama, clearly don't want Sanders to be the nominee. Everything is pointing toward this outcome - either Warren will be drafted or an old warhorse, perhaps Kerry. Biden has health issues.

[grasswire]

163. My preference would be for O'Malley to un-suspend his campaign.

Can she really assign her delegates? Just for the first ballot, I wonder?

[Waiting For Everyman]

170. I don't think people are going to accept that.

I know I wouldn't. It smacks of 1968 and Hubert Humphrey.

If the party thinks they're going to get away with that, I think they're delusional. I'm sure there would be a concerted effort to target and defeat for re-election any Super who did that.

There wouldn't be a Dem left in Congress for 2020. State level too.

If that's the level of betrayal the party wants, they can have it... "scorched earth to the sea".

[Major Hogwash]

178. The DNC can NOT appoint a nominee who didn't campaign.

That's not even plausible, except in the sudden unexpected death of the nominee.

[leveymg]

185. If that's a Conv. rule (and I don't think so) the Rules Cmte. can and will change it, if need be.

It's plausible. Hillary under formal threat of Indictment would be exigent circumstances enough to do whatever is necessary to replace her with someone of their choosing. Not very small D democratic, I agree. But, the big whigs would view it as the least damaging outcome.

[tex-wyo-dem]

208. But one wonders what Obama may be thinking...

Based on recent reports, Hillary basically betrayed Obama's trust by 1) using her private server for official SoS business, which he did not authorize and 2) she used Blumenthal as a consultant for State business. Obama explicitly forbade Blumethal from being employed in the State Department, so Hill went around him and employed Blumenthal through the Clinton foundation where he received (and provided) classified information even though he had no security clearance.

So one wonders just how favorably Obama views Hillary now.

[leveymg]

211. I'm not sure that he takes it quite so personally.

My understanding is a couple degrees different from how you lay it out. 1) I doubt if any gov't official really has a reasonable expectation that communications, particularly involving exchange of classified information with unauthorized parties abroad isn't at some point going to be known to the President or his designates, particularly the NSA; 2) to be more precise, I read that it was Rahm Emanuel who vetoed Blumenthal's appointment at DOS; and 3), the real differences, if Slaughter's email is accurate, was over Hillary's aggressive and wrongheaded advocacy of regime change under the guise of humanitarian intervention in Libya and Syria, a program that Obama was not as forcefully opposed to expanding across borders as the advocates were in regionalizing the conflict as a means to undermine Iran and Russia. Some people never learned from 9/11 and Iraq, but Obama tried to keep them leashed in. I can see how that might have been upsetting to him.

This led to the failure of policy across the region, the death of Ambassador Stevens, and to the vast expansion of Saudi and Qatari-funded militia groups that ended up expanding, funding, and arming al-Qaeda and al-Nusra (which became ISIS). I believe that what we will eventually learn is the catastrophy wasn't just failure of policy -- Obama was, after all, CIC for that -- but, there was some actual insubordination in the conduct of or misrepresentation of clandestine activities at the top of State and CIA. They wouldn't publicly talk about it because these programs are still ongoing.

[tex-wyo-dem]

214. Interesting...thanks for the info, leveymg...

It does seem, though, to point to a direction of Clinton running a (at least partial) rouge State Dept.

[senz]

88. But Christie wasn't perceived as a poor little picked-on thing, either.

Makes a difference. Poor little picked-on things can do whatever the hell they please and anyone who dares to object is the very definition of a big bad male bully.

[H2O Man]

90. Thanks!

[floppyboo]

2. good question

but I very much doubt you will get a thoughtful discussion here.
The MSM seems to have a blackout on the issue.
My opinion/best guess: The FBI will release their report after Hillary is appointed and she will gracefully step aside for whoever she has chosen as a VP running mate. This person will be endorsed by the DNC. Bernie supporters will revolt and insist a 3rd (4th or 5th) party nominee. Chaos will rule. The Koch's as yet undisclosed nominee will win.

Okay, that's pretty dark, but there is a choice!

[H2O Man]

25. Very good.

Thank you.

[H2O Man]

81. I'm thinking that

this thread is doing surprisingly good!

[floppyboo]

91. Yes! Great job with the thanks to all POV's!

[senz]

94. The "Hillary step aside" part doesn't ring true.

[floppyboo]

98. copying this pic for future use!

[senz]

192. LOL! The psychological similarity is obvious, isn't it?

[pdsimdars]

3. Lots of people in denial about this one. I've read some great articles and seen a great video

on this and it can't just be written off. One interesting point was that, yes, there were others who used a private email account, people generally mention Colin Powell, but he may have occassionally emailed himself something from work. But Hillary used ONLY her private server for 4 years, for both SoS business AND their foundation business. You can't really compare those 2 things.

[vintx]

6. The thing is a private email account is not the same thing as a private server.

I've seen a lot of claims that she only did what other SoSs did, but apparently that is not true.

[grasswire]

37. correct

the Clintons have used the initial story as a fig leaf. Plausible deniability.

[dchill]

92. Fig leaf - do you mean as a peace offering...

Or something to cover their "private parts?"

[grasswire]

97. the latter

it is an olive branch that is normally a peace offering.

[dchill]

103. Oh, right!

[floppyboo]

7. Agree. This is one of the biggest elephants in the room. nt

[H2O Man]

199. Right.

[H2O Man]

27. One of the things

that each of my children learned at an early age was that, if I was addressing their behavior, to not attempt to deflect attention by pointing towards other people's behaviors. I was only going to focus upon their behavior, and the "but look at what _____ did" always indicated they were aware that they had done something wrong.

[DURHAM D]

4. .

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/no-hillary-clinton-cant-be-indicted-over-her-email-shes-already-been-cleared/24184/

[Hoyt]

15. Thanks for some perspective on this. It's the last hope for Sanders, so his supporters are willing

to use it against her, just like Trump/Cruz/Romney will. Won't work.

[H2O Man]

28. Thank you.

[Contrary1]

32. One only needs to see their homepage:

A sample of some of their "news" headlines from the last three days...Conveniently, no reporter named:


Sally Field says Bernie Sanders is “losing his decency” with his attacks on Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton is funding congressional races so she can enter White House with a majority

One-fourth of republicans now say they’ll vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump

Millennials say they’ll vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by 3-to-1 margin

Bill Maher to Bernie Sanders fans: “stop booing Hillary Clinton”

Bernie Sanders abruptly ends television interview after answering hostile question

Sore loser Bernie Sanders has an idiotic plan to steal Hillary Clinton’s popular-vote delegates


http://www.dailynewsbin.com/author/dailynewsbin/

[H2O Man]

38. Thank you!

[senz]

96. Daily News Spin

[Oilwellian]

160. "Bin" is more appropriate

In Great Britain, the word "bin" means trash.

[senz]

168. lol, then it's well named.

[Hiraeth]

191. One needs only to see the word :opinion: in the link to realize they will be reading an editorial/

personal opinion .... and .... I hope we all know what those are akin.

[uponit7771]

39. +1

[grasswire]

40. daily news bin is not a legitimate site

but you knew that.

[Fawke Em]

78. Wow. That article is really wrong.

[kgnu_fan]

5. I am more concerned about her cozy relationship with Saudi and other corrupt regime, revealed in

those e-mail. She is unfit to be President of the United States as she is so supportive of anti-democratic dictators.

[floppyboo]

12. the republican party will not be able to argue this point

given their funding from arms dealers. The leading Democrat (at this point in time) has no need to fear defending their equal position. This, at least, will not be a scandalous smear. Small mercies.

[kgnu_fan]

16. You know how Republican Party has disintegrated... from inside. If we do not correct corruption in

the Dem, the party will corrupts and corrode from inside. It is already happening, look how Debbie Wasserman Schultz is destroying the Democratic Party.

[floppyboo]

23. I believe you are right

This 'issue' (funding extremists and human rights offenders) will NOT be raised by the Republicans, as they have just as much, if not more, blood on their hands.

Then the question is, where is the integrity of the Democratic Party? How many pounds of flesh to pay the devil?

If may take a newcomer in-name to flip the money changers tables. The only question left, imho, is when will there be enough ears to hear?

[senz]

99. That's one way to put it.

Amazing parallels.

[840high]

29. It has already corrupted, imo.

[MisterP]

57. Trump's an isolationist who's remaking the party in his own image

"stop blowing all our money on being the globocop and stop pouring money into regimes who literally embezzled their army's whole annual budget" isn't just gonna ring well with Pub and indeps

[H2O Man]

34. Right.

My focus here is on the potential impact on a general election, if a lower-level person is identified with some wrong-doing. Beyond DU's Bernie supporters, polls show that a lot of Americans do not trust Hillary Clinton. It doesn't matter if we believe that mistrust is warranted, or not. It is a reality, which will not go away, even if the FBI investigation officially clears everyone on the server-related issues.

However, if everyone isn't cleared, it will become a central issue of the presidential contest, if Hillary is the nominee. I'm surprised that our friends who support Hillary have convinced themselves that it will not be. This indicates an inability to be objective.

[Autumn]

8. Nailed it. Some wrong doing, and people other than Hillary will be identified as being responsible.

And should she win the nomination it will be an ethics bash 24/7 by the media and the republicans. That's what they do and she, above all people should have known that. I spent 8 damn years defending Bill and Hillary Clinton, I supported her until the very end in 2008, I lost friends and developed rifts with family members. The thought of defending her one more time on anything said about her, or defending anything she has done sickens me to the very core of my being.

[H2O Man]

42. Right.

I'll gladly defend Hillary Clinton on anything where I believe she is right. I will not defend her if I believe she is wrong.

That's the same position I took with my children when they were in school. Actually, I was only ever called to the school when my sons were accused of wrong-doing; my daughters behaved in a manner that no one accused them of any questionable behaviors. I told my boys that they needed to be honest with me from the giddy-up: if they were "innocent," I'd back them 100%. If they were "guilty," I'd support their facing consequences. And I did both, several times.

[KoKo]

76. ...! you were not alone..

Same experience for me...exactly.

I spent 8 damn years defending Bill and Hillary Clinton, I supported her until the very end in 2008, I lost friends and developed rifts with family members. The thought of defending her one more time on anything said about her, or defending anything she has done sickens me to the very core of my being.

[Autumn]

80. I don't want to do it again.

[dana_b]

100. I agree with both you and H2O Man

I do not think that she will be charged with anything. She will sail through this and someone else will have their hands slapped.

[Autumn]

102. The rich and powerful really are different from us.

[KoKo]

188. And, "Turning Washington into a Liar's Club" --Richard Reeves

“In the good old days, an honest politician was one who lied only when he had to. But now lies are becoming the accepted language of government at the highest levels, the theory being that sooner or later the people of the country will become so confused and disillusioned that they will just mind their own business, and leave governing to well-placed liars.”

Richard Reeves (b. 1936)
American newspaper columnist
“Bush & Co. Are Turning Washington into a Liar's Club”
From his syndicated column, December 17, 1989

http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2010/01/honest-politician-is-one-who-when-hes.html

[senz]

107. Same here

even when I felt kind of queasy about the things I was defending. They were "Democrats" and the VRWC (which of course does exist) was trying to destroy them.

But eventually I learned how to discriminate among behaviors and the doers of behaviors and what it means.

She shocked me in 2008; she had me shouting at the TV set. That was the end of Hillary for me.

[tex-wyo-dem]

209. Yep, me too...

It got really hard after Bill's infamous finger wag "I did not have sexual relations..." bit.

[mmonk]

9. That is the big question.

[H2O Man]

43. Indeed, it is!

[bigtree]

10. our party is accustomed to defending our candidates against spurious and invented charges

...rooted in republican fishing expeditions.

I'm surprised at the willingness by a majority here at DU to advantage their presidential politics off of such an obviously republican-engineered scandal. I guess I'm more concerned with the impact of those alliances, than I am with some outcome of this selective public prosecution.

I'm confident that the effect of any overt attempt to escalate potential jeopardy to Hillary will be met with an equal wave of support from voters, just as in the days where the overwhelming majority of Democrats rallied behind her husband when a failed 'Whitewater' investigation became an attempt to invalidate Democratic votes in an impeachment over lying to that creep Larry Klayman's probing into a consensual affair between two adults.

Almost everyone knows well that this is an outgrowth of the mind-numbingly absurd Benghazi canard, and an increasing number recognize the double standard being applied to Hillary for operating her emails just as previous administrations and Secretaries had for decades.

We used to defend against this nonsense because we recognized the effect of rolling over for republican stunts which have replaced any pretense they may have made of legislating. The impact of our acquiescence to this republican chicanery will be a decade of self-actualized defensiveness. It's as if folks have never fought this battle before, or, perhaps, find the opposition easier to join with than fight.

[H2O Man]

44. If one believes

the current FBI investigation is only "spurious and invented charges," you may be right.

[ucrdem]

118. Thread win.

This is a stinker.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

143. Maybe

It's as if folks have never fought this battle before, or, perhaps, find the opposition easier to join with than fight.

Maybe because they believe it inures to their benefit. I have very. very...very strong feelings about this but I will keep my counsel to myself out of deference to my friend who started this thread.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Yep. Shit flows down hill.

And, Private Snoggins will get blamed for the massacre because he didn't shine his boots.

The General who masterminded the massacre will be kicked upstairs and given another star.

[H2O Man]

45. It's the American way!

[MgtPA]

13. As someone who held a Secret Clearance throughout the 1970's-1980's and a Top Secret Clearance

throughout the 1990's, I can tell you that had I pulled a comparable stunt, I'd be in prison.

If any of my staff had done what Hillary had done, they would have been up on charges too. I would have seen to it.

I can't see that this issue is going away.

[840high]

31. When I leave the

safety of DU - this is exactly the public opinion I read.

[MgtPA]

62. Although I'm now retired, I still maintain contact with some of my similiarly-cleared colleagues

The consensus is - "Holy SHIT!!"

[H2O Man]

46. Thank you.

I agree.

[MgtPA]

66. I'm waiting to hear that Sidney Blumenthal/Clinton Foundation is under the FBI microscope.

When that happens...boom.

[H2O Man]

72. I believe that

there is a DoJ study going on at this time. Even if people believed that Bill and Hillary are "clean as a hound's tooth," if Hillary is our nominee, these will be campaign issues. And it is not hard to imagine a person of Sidney Blumenthal's character becoming a major factor. I know the primary group of Democrats who think highly of Sidney. Still, it surprises me how many people here do.

In every election, there are three groups: those who always support you; those that always oppose you; and the undecided. I'm curious if any of the Hillary supporters here on DU -- and I admire many of them, as good and intelligent people -- appreciate the importance of this. I don't think saying it's just a right-wing attack will cut in in a general election.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. I know that this will be shocking to some

but when Sanders said this did not matter, it told me that Sanders did not understand the seriousness of this either. He is with the vast majority of people who don't get it, and that includes the majority of HRC supporters, and a large number of Sanders supporters.

I had people who once held a clearance take me though the issues. This is not going away. The problem is how exactly will it explode.

[NWCorona]

105. Hillary had an obligation to fill out an ESAF for a lot of the enails

She received but not a single one was filed.

[Abouttime]

173. You cannot compare yourself to Hillary

A former First Lady, former Senator, former SOS and a figure of historical proportions. Nothing, zero, zip. Clinton walks without so much as a parking ticket.

[MgtPA]

175. Tell that to Richard Nixon.

A former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, a former Senator, a sitting U.S. President, and a figure of historical proportions.

[peacebird]

207. I had a TS from the 80's til 2005. If I had done what Hillary did, or Petraeus, I would be in jail.

But I do not think Obama wants his former SoS indicted, regardless of the merits of the case. I did read that there is a chance FBI directorComey would resign publically if he decides the evidence is there for a prosecution and he is refused one by Justice.

[w4rma]

14. The server was set up so that FoIA requests would return the answer, 'We have no records'.

This server was set up to do exactly what it accomplished. It was designed so that no records would exist at the State Department, so that when Freedom of Information Act requests were filed there, the answer would be 'We have no records'.

[H2O Man]

47. Right.

That is an important factor.

[senz]

108. If that's true, it gives me the willies.

[tk2kewl]

181. "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer."

The part people often overlook about this Kissenger quote is how he began the sentence:

Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer."

[DisgustipatedinCA]

17. I think the timing of their investigation report is important

If an indictment of a high level staffer were to happen between the convention and the election, I think she would lose in the general election. Trump would troll her with blimps, skywriters, bombastic tweets, and angry jugglers. The media would immediately go into full idiotic bloom. She would have a difficult time winning the election in those circumstances.

If the same indictment were handed down after a Clinton win and inauguration, and assuming continued Republican control of both houses, I believe they would call hearings immediately to try to link the indicted to Clinton in any way they could. Then the House would vote to impeach. The Republicans very much want to win the 2 Clinton Impeachment trophy.

If the FBI clears Clinton and her top staffers, the Republicans will continue to be the jackals they are. There will be plentiful right wing conspiracy theories around the FBI's clearing of Clinton. The Republicans will hold hearing after hearing. They'll bully. They may issue subpoenas just because they can. If they don't end up finding a successful way to impeach her, she'll be facing the same oppositional congress Obama has had to deal with.

Thanks.

[H2O Man]

63. Great answer.

Thank you.

[yodermon]

67. I believe this is what Bernie is telegraphing with his latest Superdelegate comments. N/t

[tex-wyo-dem]

213. Interesting...

Makes you wonder what was discussed between Obama and Sanders in their closed door meeting.

[senz]

111. Not convinced yet of Trump's opposition to Hill.

[NCTraveler]

18. I believe this statement to be very inaccurate....

Unless talking about the microcosm that is DU and other discussion boards that provide anonymity.

" To the left are found many who believe that Hillary is very likely to be indicted; to the right are found those who insist the FBI’s investigation is yet another 1990’s republican attack on all things Clinton."

Almost all on the left find the indictment discussion to be what it is. RW spin designed to cause division among the left.

The impact will be negligible. It's wrapping up and will be over soon. The "left" has already started moving to a new narrative which is the real reason behind this. "It's not the legality, it's the content." That was their goal the whole time. Get tens of thousands of emails in the public domain.

[H2O Man]

19. I believe that

the first sentence of the OP answers that question.

[NCTraveler]

20. You then moved on to address it as if it's a larger point.

That is what I was trying to highlight.

[H2O Man]

65. Fair enough.

Many polls indicate that a large number of potential voters do not trust Hillary. Do you really think that, if a lower-level person is identified for "wrong-doing," it will not influence those who are undecided? I find that one of the biggest weaknesses in the thinking of my friends here who support Hillary.

[bigtree]

86. people inclined to take stock in anti-Hillary scandalmongering

...aren't folks who are likely to vote for her.

I'm sure folks who can't or won't make those kinds of distinctions aren't waiting for actual charges to make a judgment.

[H2O Man]

89. True, that.

Yet, as you know very well, that has nothing to do this this discussion. At best, it's a failed attempt to distract.

I am surprised that you refuse to discuss this in a serious manner. What's up with that?

[bigtree]

106. I don't have any place in my mind where I find anything about the emails relevant

...to anything in my life or interest.

It was initially a republican political tactic, now it's a tactic for Sanders supporters to try and cast doubt or guilt on Hillary Clinton; all of this based on the flimsiest of evidence. It's a cheap political tactic promoting a manufactured scandal which I don't believe deserves the elevation of a serious discussion.

I think it opens itself to ridicule, right at the source of the inquiry which spawned this political attack on Hillary Clinton, and the Obama administration, by extension.

That's where I'd apply my political interest, in the republican chicanery which spawned this canard and the forces clamoring for political position in our party, many openly professing opposition to the Democratic party, who are seeking to perpetuate this for their own cynical political advantage.

[H2O Man]

109. I view this

election in the context of what country my children and their generation will live in. I guess I'd never think to only view it in the terms you described so well here. In almost every conceivable outcome, this election is unlikely to impact your life.

My #1 goal is to do my best to make sure that Donald Trump is not elected president. Like you, that would not necessarily change the day-to-day life I lead. But, again, it sure as fuck would damage my children's generation's quality of life. Thus, I do not hesitate to examine each and every issue that is involved in the primary season.

[bigtree]

112. I very much agree

...the outcome of this election is important. Nowhere have I written that 'this election is unlikely to impact your life.' That's a novel bit of editorializing.

I view the email nonsense as a political tactic leveraged off of a tempest in a teapot. Many have reacted to it by forecasting a political disaster. To me, that's exactly the reaction hoped for by the Benghazi committee who engineered the email search. Wedge politics du jour.

'Examine' away good sir. The heart of this scandal is rooted in cynical, right-wing politics which deserves condemnation, not mollycoddling.

[senz]

113. Some of us see great distance between Obama and Hillary.

I certainly do. I support him and not her. So please don't try to conflate the two.

[tk2kewl]

184. the end run around DoS with this server

and interaction with Blumenthal, help to illustrate the distance between Hillary and The President.

I think there isn't much daylight between them on economic issues, but it's pretty clear to me that Obama has tried very hard to chart a less belligerent foreign policy course fo the US. Hillary has repeatedly challenged him on this.

the private server seems to indicate a deliberate effort by SoS to operate without DoS or WH oversight.

[senz]

193. Yes, and no wonder they're investigating.

The Clintons routinely challenge the law in their behaviors, always choosing their own interests over that of the government and the people.

They would be a disaster in the WH.

[NCTraveler]

120. From everything I have read...

I don't think anyone is going to be identified for wrongdoing. I believe that aspect is currently in its "dud" stage. I see the "left" even agrees with me on that as they are now slowly changing the direction from legality to content. That is the clearest sign of ratfucking there is.

I also believe this is the weakest argument out there with respect to electability. It's based in hypotheticals that have been bandied about for almost a year. It's flat out propoganda ands being sold to the "left" in order to hurt Clinton. I have read damn near every article brought here on the topic. I don't feel I'm ill informed.

Additionally, a lot of people in the know wouldn't be sticking their necks out for Clinton if there was great concern. That isn't how establishment politics has ever worked. Some are now trying to redefine everything to meet their narrative. Further on that point, Obama has recently given the green light in my opinion. The clearest sign yet.

[hootinholler]

22. I wouldn't be so quick on the draw there

Comey can be quite the principled hardass.

Time will tell, but if there are examples of Hillary originating a classified email in the clear, he has few options but to refer charges. The law is clear that the originator is responsible for proper classification.

Personally, I don't see this as being about content, other than what goes to Hillary's character: Did she ignore the law?

[ucrdem]

116. Yes. Watching good DUers pile onto this failed Benghazi is just embarrassing.

Okay it's about Bernie but no "left" makes common cause with Daryl Issa and that whole circus. Plus the circumstances around this one make it look like Hillary outfoxed the VRWC from the start. Don't forget that Congress reformed the NSA shortly after this and made some major accountability changes including giving themselves advice and consent over the director.

[highprincipleswork]

176. It's just foolishness to ignore this, or blame it on Sanders supporters.

There remains a real possibility of this causing negative public reaction in the GE.

George McGovern didn't do anything illegal when he picked Eagleton for VP, but he sure paid the price for it later.

Objectively speaking one has to say this remains a sore point and a potential spoiler to our chances with Hillary in Novemer

[KoKo]

21. Not so much the e-mail's but what they may have revealed.

It's the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's actions as SOS that might have overlapped. And, then there is Bill (the former President who will be back in the WH) with Hillary. She is not running alone as we can see. Both her husband and daughter are on the campaign trail, with her and without her, as they go into rural parts of states she needs while she turns her attention to the larger cities.

Bill's activities since leaving the White House should be and probably are being scrutinized by someone, somewhere and eventually there will be more info when we would most likely not want to know it..i.e. after the election if she pulls out a win. This won't be just the RW Crazies who've always thrown dirt at the Clintons. I think their actions since leaving the White House have left them vulnerable to scrutiny of influence peddling and "pay to play" with their Foundation. Plus, there are her direct actions in promoting Regime Change in what has become the Libya disaster. This isn't RW Mellon-Scaife stuff, or womanizing charges. This is about the people we appoint to serve in the government and if their actions have broken any laws.

This may be what we will have to deal with after she is elected.

----------------

Don't know if you've had a chance to read this article from the "New York Review of Books" but its well worth it:

The Clinton System
by Simon Head
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/

[H2O Man]

74. As always, thank you!

I always appreciate your contributions to our community. I think that these issues deserve -- actually, require -- a deeper discussion than the knee-jerk "right-wing attack" response.

I haven't gotten that book yet. Thanks for the review link.

[KoKo]

124. Please give this a look...

I think you will find it interesting.

and OnyxCollie's extra info in the thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016143438

[cantbeserious]

26. Duplicity Is As Duplicity Does

eom

[H2O Man]

75. Thanks!

[Vinca]

33. Two things bother me.

First, that someone involved was given immunity. Immunity from what? If you haven't done anything wrong you don't need immunity. And, secondly, the way this thing is dragging on during a presidential election. You'd think if it was clear there was nothing there, this would be over and done with by now. This could turn out to be nothing or it could be a great big, stinking mess just before the election.

[H2O Man]

35. Key point.

[grasswire]

41. let's hope it comes before the convention.

Otherwise, chaos in America.

[Vinca]

51. The general election could be the biggest embarrassment ever.

We've got this crap happening on our side and the Trumpenfuhrer's got FlimFlam University and what might come of that on the other. When my husband and I were first married we debated whether to live in this country or Canada (he's a Canadian). We're starting to think we should have opted for Canada.

[floppyboo]

56. yup

timing will be crucial. The GE is shaping up to be a ratings bonanza if Hillary is nominated.

[dana_b]

104. it won't

no way. The Repubs WANT this to be an issue after the convention. SO either she gets a "don't do that again" and nothing happens, or the Repubs get to nail her to the wall. Bernie will NOT be the nominee because of this.

[randome]

48. That's already been discussed.

The immunity was keyed on the IT guy's reluctance to be at the center of a Republican witch hunt. This deal he made ensures that they won't be able to take their frustration out on him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vinca]

52. That makes no sense.

Republicans can hunt all they want, but charges won't be brought unless a crime has been committed. Trey Gowdy doesn't have the power to arrest anyone.

[randome]

54. The GOP can make someone's life a living hell if they want. They don't need charges for that.

Look, none of us really know what is going on with the FBI investigation. But to keep this fear/hope thing alive any longer than it deserves is foolish. From what we know right now, there is nothing Clinton needs to fear. If that changes, fine, but we should stop pushing this defeatist attitude.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vinca]

58. I disagree.

Frankly, I'm puzzled why so few people seem concerned about it. I wasn't either until the FBI got involved, but they don't investigate politicians because they haven't got anything else to do with their time. I hope she and her assistants are cleared, but hope isn't reality.

[H2O Man]

79. I agree, Vinca.

It's not like we are talking about Vince Foster or Benghazi : if Hillary is our party's candidate, the republicans will yap off about those, and it will hurt them.

The FBI investigations are serious things. They do not have to directly implicate Hillary of purposeful misbehavior to impact to her candidacy. If anyone is identified for wrong-doing, it will be harmful.

[tex-wyo-dem]

215. I find it interesting that you are so quick...

To poo-poo this whole issue as I remember you are vehemently anti-Snowden. Now, I understand we don't know much of the details yet, and I know Snowden purposefully released classified materials to the public to make a point, but what we can surmise from leaks is that Hillary's actions could have had the exact same results...exposing classified material to the wrong people.

A breech of national security due to risk taking and sloppy practices.

[randome]

50. There is a reason the GOP is not making anything out of this so far.

It's because there's nothing there.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

53. You are smarter than that.

...at least I thought so.

[Karmadillo]

59. LOL. Good one. Oh. Wait. You're serious. Sorry. My bad.

[H2O Man]

61. Respectfully disagree.

Having paid full attention during the eight years of the Clinton administration, I can say with zero chance of error that the republicans frequently attempt to make "something" out of "nothing." Should anyone question this, I would suggest they take a couple of hours to learn about the impeachment of President Clinton. And I could list another dozen examples.

The obvious -- and only -- accurate answer to why they are not focused on this at this point in time is "timing."

[Autumn]

73. Were you alive during the Clinton administration? 8 years making something out of nothing.

They have no love for Hillary and to them it matter not if nothing is there and she should have remembered that. The reason the GOP has made nothing out of this nothing yet is because they REALLY are keeping their powder dry. Should she win the nomination they will open up the floodgates.

[2banon]

64. That's the bottom line question for me.

Thus, I would think that a more relevant conversation for our consideration would be what the impact of this scenario would be, should Hillary be our party’s nominee.

To this day, I do not understand how this question continues to be avoided by her supporters here. I can imagine the D-pols are doing a great deal of hand wringing over it in private dinner parties and behind closed doors.. but here, it's as if "there's nothing to see here, nothing to be concerned about, it's all vast right wing conspiracy, move along now and fall in line"...

[H2O Man]

69. Thanks!

Last week, in one of my OP's, I asked who people thought the Bush family would favor, if the November election comes down to Clinton vs Trump? And why?

There were lots of interesting responses. And, of course, a few negative ones .....though if I said that the sky is blue, some of our friends here would find it offensive. Another response, not really negative, noted some discomfort with my evaluating people's level of understanding of the political world. And that surprised me -- because I thought that was part of every OP/thread posted on DU:GDP.

Still, I will say that it strikes me as either a lack of knowledge about our political system, or an inability to be objective, that could make a person believe that there is no chance of this to impact the November election.

[2banon]

71. I missed that post. My answer to that question would have been Hillary, of course!

although the debt to HRC in exchange for her vote to invade Iraq, may be a settled matter, they're still good friends and golly gee she backs his policies so there's that!

[Gregorian]

68. This is an election, not a pageant.

I happen to think it's irresponsible to both party and country to run a candidate with an FBI cloud over their head. Clinton supporters dismiss that notion.

I can only attribute the willingness to ignore this situation to the desire to see Hillary in the White House versus ensuring we have the greatest chances of beating a tyrant in this election. The possible consequences of a Trump win seem to go over the heads of many. I am all but positive Americans won't let Trump run in the nomination, regardless of how that happens. But I digress.

What I am saying is that I believe it is far more important to secure our chances of winning, than to ensure who actually wins.

[H2O Man]

82. All of the polls

that I've seen during this election cycle that focus on the "trust issue" indicate that a significant portion of the general public already views Hillary as untrustworthy. Hence, this is an issue that needs to be discussed during the primaries. Attempts to dismiss it as indistinct from 1990's attacks on her are not helpful to anyone in the Democratic Party.

[Gregorian]

122. Good point. This is new criticism of Hillary, based on today. Not the 90's.

[H2O Man]

140. Right.

We are not allowing republicans to think for us. We think for ourselves.

[panader0]

70. You have shown the spectrum of possible outcomes of the FBI investigation.

There is also the investigation into the Clinton Foundation. I agree with your points, but what I want is
for the FBI to work a little faster, before we, as a party, have a nominee. Indict or don't indict, but don't
leave this hanging over the election, it's very unsettling. I believe that HRC technically broke the law,
but I can't see her in handcuffs either. But the specter of this is almost as bad.

[H2O Man]

83. Well said.

Thank you.

[mmonk]

121. Nerve racking at least.

[tex-wyo-dem]

216. I agree...to me, it's highly irresponsible...

Of the DNC to tilt the playing field in favor of a candidate who has such a significant legal cloud over their head. If this does turn out to be something (and in some ways, even if it doesn't) and poop hits the fan and the wrong time, the Democrats are in a world of hurt, not to mention everyone else with a POTUS Trump.

This is a big risk the DNC is taking, and it only gets bigger as time creeps on.

They had better have a backup plan.

[Peace Patriot]

77. H2O Man, Clinton pay-to-play Saudi arms deal/Clinton Foundation...

...is as corrupt as I've seen in 50+yrs of political activism, except for Cheney/Halliburton. Point seems to be to ruin & ridicule our democracy. Does she have a brutal enough junta machine to get away with it? -- and what will it mean for our country either way? Is mind boggling corruption so routine we can't even hope to dislodge it? Cheney got 're-elected' in the midst of mind boggling corruption & war horrors. Is this our 'system' now? Nobody informs voters? Nobody cares? Corruption wins?

The Sanders campaign has done remarkably well as an example of NON-corruption, despite what looked like insurmountable handicaps. Will our exceedingly corrupt party & gov't system allow NON-corruption to win?

[H2O Man]

85. Thank you.

In my opinion, if the DoJ/FBI were to thoroughly investigate and prosecute political corruption in DC, both Houses of Congress would be rather empty. When Wall Street runs Washington, the level of corruption towards the top of each will always be equal. We really are facing a primary election that centers on that very issue. Are we okay with gross corruption? Or do we want change?

[senz]

84. Her supporters wouldn't care if she stood in the middle of 5th Avenue and

did something terribly regrettable.

We know that.

But would it affect the undecided? Perhaps.

[H2O Man]

87. Thank you!

[Samantha]

93. Respondeat superior

Last edited Sun Mar 20, 2016, 10:34 PM - Edit history (3)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/respondeat+superior

[Latin, Let the master answer.] A common-law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment.

The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The doctrine was adopted in the United States and has been a fixture of agency law. It provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called agency. The employer is called the principal when engaging someone to act for him. The person who does the work for the employer is called the agent. The theory behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent's behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the agent's actions.

An employee is an agent for her employer to the extent that the employee is authorized to act for the employer and is partially entrusted with the employer's business. The employer controls, or has a right to control, the time, place, and method of doing work. When the facts show that an employer-employee (principal-agent) relationship exists, the employer can be held responsible for the injuries caused by the employee in the course of employment.

In general, employee conduct that bears some relationship to the work will usually be considered within the scope of employment. The question whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the event depends on the particular facts of the case. A court may consider the employee's job description or assigned duties, the time, place, and purpose of the employee's act, the extent to which the employee's actions conformed to what she was hired to do, and whether such an occurrence could reasonably have been expected.

I am not going to disagree with you H20 Man, but I am going to add some food for thought. I worked for decades in the legal community in DC, for various law firms, in different support capacities, for some extremely intelligent, successful attorneys. I first learned this phrase from one of those attorneys when one day I said to my boss, "If I have made a mistake, I will take the full responsibility for it." He then quoted that phrase and told me that as his employee, he would be legally responsible for any mistakes on my part. I always remembered that and took extreme care with the work I performed during my employment in the legal community.

This concept leads me to believe that if one of Hillary's assistants is thrown under the bus and Hillary receives simply a slap on the wrist, those responsible for assessing if a crime or crimes were committed, how did it happen, why did it happen, and what harm resulted from these crimes will not feel satisfied with the outcome. Many of us here at DU look at most occurrences through a political lens, but in Washington, the political capital of the world, while politics is all-important, there is one terrain that is more important: national security.

Up until this last week or so, I just assumed this email debacle was a tactic summoned into the public view as an attack on Hillary Clinton's reputation. Then I took the time to read some of the emails, and in all honesty, I was appalled at the content. I thought immediately this will never fly with the Intelligence community, and someone will pay for this breach. I do think Comey is taking a very intense approach into delving into the details, and I see him as a man who is a stickler for playing by the rules.

There are a lot of rumors afloat in DC, and I will wait for the official announcement from the investigation as to what process will ensue.

But politics aside, H20 Man, I honestly do not believe that the Intelligence Community that protects our national security will overlook these events and simply give participants a slap on the wrist; I believe certain individuals will be taking the position that a person who has allowed these type of breaches to happen on his or her watch is not a person who can be entrusted to hold the reins of control over our national security.

In no regard is this an opinion presented to diss Clinton and promote Sanders politically. Sanders will not benefit if Clinton is charged or if she drops out of the campaign as a result of a deal reached with government officials. We will see Joe Biden jump in on the Democratic side of the aisle to take Clinton's place. After all, he supports the TPP and Sanders opposes it ....

With the highest regards,

Sam

[H2O Man]

144. Sam, I agree 100%

with everything you've wrote here. So much so, in fact, that I just re-read it for the third time.

I have a couple contacts in and around DC. Some work in places that I'm sure you would be quite familiar with, including the professional community that is separate from government, but have linkages to those who are. And so I've heard a few very similar impressions as your's from people I trust completely.

It's interesting to keep in mind that the US intelligence community -- beyond the basic intelligence the military had pre-WW2, came about when the government hired intelligence officers from -- who else? -- the oil companies. For a period, the corporate intel people were on the government payroll; today, much of the government serves as intel-waiters for industry.

I'm tempted to start posting a series of essays, not unlike those from the infamous Plame threads, that provide accurate information on how these things work .....including why the elite are never held accountable for crime.

[Samantha]

156. I think the series you mention would be an extremely worthwhile investment of your time

There are many young people here who would benefit by hearing the story for the first time. I do not know if you would be interested in keeping a loose journal of this as it unfolds, including what we have learned about the emails and the content of some of the most provocative ones, but should this turn into a major event, a chronicle of the how, when and why would be invaluable. Just something to think about. You have such a gift for detail, and depending on the outcome, this could be a whopper of a story to memorialize. As you know, these type of happenings have a way of "changing" as time goes by, so it is a good thing to get the facts down as they happen. Just think about it, H20 Man, it would be a very interesting undertaking.

Great talking to you, and I recommended your thread. Looking forward to the next one....

Sam

[ChiciB1]

95. My Cynical View As A Liberal Is This...

Whatever is or isn't found won't make a tinker's damn worth of anything! Why waste TIME & MONEY on investigations? Do we not already KNOW that nothing will be done either way.

Seems like the POWER BROKERS are still winning! It's even worse when I let myself think deeper about all the information we DON'T KNOW and WILL NEVER KNOW!

There have been too many times lately that I wish I didn't know so much, it has made me cynical, but it also HURTS more than I want to admit.

I have to stop checking in here because I once did believe we were so much better. Now more than ever I see us a WAR MONGERS and I was an activist back during Viet Nam.

We've fallen a long way down!

[grasswire]

101. this is the thing, then.........

Because millions of people no doubt fear the investigations and the discord and pain that will result, Democrats should not run a nominee who is so terribly flawed and who has made herself (through her own actions) the object of derision and hatred.

We do not have to have a nominee who is a perennial victim and appears to capitalize on that role for herself through unforced errors of poor judgment.

We CAN have a nominee who has no FBI on his tail, who has no enemies list, who is not beholden to special interests, who will not take us to wars of aggression, whose objective is truly to lift up all citizens and help them grow and live in peace and harmony.

In other words, we can have the America you want and deserve. One candidate will work to achieve that.

[ChiciB1]

110. I Agree, And I'm NOT GIVING UP... But What I See Going On NOW

is WORSE than anything I've ever seen in any political campaign in my life. I'm a Boomer and a very long time activist. And I'm seeing a Democratic Party or at least 3/4ths of them doing things to keep Bernie from being elected that I NEVER THOUGHT POSSIBLE!

I'm won't be taken over by THE BODY SNATCHERS! I KNOW! That sounds really, really weird... but I don't know how else to explain what's happening.

REAL FACTS are being presented about Hillary, facts that have been around for a very long time and The Bernie Supporters are being targeted as some sort of EVIL FORCE. Friends of mine who support Bernie say they walk away scratching their heads as they've seen well known DEMOCRATS who we once thought supported THE PEOPLE or at least worked to pass legislation FOR THE PEOPLE simply go out of their way to attack him.

THEY don't want any change, they just want it to stay the same!! This is the first election in my lifetime when I've seen a Party I always supported turn on it's own like this. THIS IS NOT LIKE 2008! If Hillary is the nominee, her victory will be VERY HOLLOW!

I know people here don't believe it or think NO DAMAGE has been done, but they have blinders on. Our only way forward is to adopt NEW ideas and BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER. Bernie does that, HILLARY NEVER WILL for many of us.

But so many Congress Critters and elected officials have been up front and VERY VOCAL about who they support and are doing things I NEVER thought possible. Bernie's groups ARE being mislead and directed by infiltrators and I'm sure we're going to see more of it.

I was a part of a REVOLUTION before and it got nasty, bloody and ugly. THIS TIME, it may be even worse. The question is: Do we have a BLOODLESS REVOLUTION or a BLOODY one? I don't think THIS Democratic Party has yet understood how very angry we are!

It really is breaking my heart! I feel so BETRAYED!

[grasswire]

128. well, what we are seeing is bigger than Hillary v. Bernie

It is a class war.

Hillary represents the rich, the corporations, the oligarchs, the private interests. Bernie simply represents the people who largely have had no voice.

And so it isn't like other recent elections, because there has been no one LIKE Bernie in recent elections.

He isn't just up against Hillary. All the most powerful forces in the country are aligned against him -- forces that transcend party.

But you know what? He has started a movement that cannot be shut down. So be proud of your participation in this moment, friend.

Yes, we have been betrayed by politicians who were supposed to be on our side, but turned out to be part of the 1 percent and thrilled to work for themselves and pretend to work for us.

You are right to be mad, and feel betrayed.

But you can put that energy to work. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.

[mmonk]

129. The struggle is ongoing. We keep going.

[ChiciB1]

162. I Got On Board For Bernie About 10 Months Ago...

People told me I was nuts. Then more people heard and more people heard and more and more. AND I BELIEVE we ARE more of THEM now! Post polls, post numbers, post media... Bernie is still standing!

Yes, we have been BETRAYED in so many, many ways and still WE ARE HERE. We are The Forgotten People who won't give up. Sometimes I think they already know what's around the bend but because they hold POWER they feel Omnipotent! I never want to be defined by THAT word!

I have so much respect for this man who has taken on this very heavy load and still standS VERY TALL.

My soul isn't for sale and I've been on my knees for way too long! WE AREN'T ALONE!

[agracie]

139. It really is unbelievable. His own party sabotages him, MSM all but ignores him, and "journalists"

undermine him. Meanwhile Hillary's campaign uses questionable tactics, criminal indictment hangs over her head, and the media may as well wear her campaign T-shirts.

The DNC is missing the chance to support an excellent candidate who is also a good, honest man who CARES WHAT HAPPENS TO ALL OF US.

If there were dirt to dig up about Bernie, the Hillary campaign would have done it by now. Bernie is the candidate most likely to win for us according to various polls. No indictment hangs over his head.

Trump/Cruz will be merciless if Hillary is our nominee. There is so much in her background to be questioned and scrutinized. And if she is indicted before the convention, we are all in for a wild ride.

What has happened to our national common sense ?

[ChiciB1]

161. agracie... Been A Member Here since 2004 & A Member Of

Democratic Party much, much longer. Should we call it The Walking Dead Syndrome or as I suggested Invasion of the Body Snatchers??

All I know is that I keep getting mocked and attacked for pointing out perfectly valid TRUTHFUL information and many here seem FROZEN IN TIME!

I'm a Boomer and even I've accepted changes over time. Ronnie RayGuns made Liberal a dirty word so everyone started using Progressive and since then it's gotten PROGRESSIVELY WORSE!

Bernie came on scene FOR A REASON, I feel it and know it. Time will tell us WHY!

[H2O Man]

145. Thank you!

People fought, were injured, jailed, and killed in the struggle for human rights in the 1960s and early '70s. A heck of a lot of social progress was won in that struggle. But today, despite some advances, we are experiencing a backward slide .....into a high-tech feudalism in which a tiny elite has total rule, plus obscene wealth.

Even the congressional investigations that followed Watergate were limited in what could be revealed to the public. While what information was released was offensive, in the context of both domestic and foreign policy, there was much that, as you note, people never learned. That same dynamic holds true today. You know it; I know it. But some of our friends refuse to even think about it.

[ChiciB1]

166. I Was Too Young To Fully Understand The '68 Convention And All

that happened. I have Netflix and I put off watching Mad Men over and over again, but about 10 days ago I started watched it. It's like a lightening bolt hitting all over again. But now the people here in this country have grown by millions. It's scary to think about THAT CONVENTION and not get very worried.

It would be nice to think this election is like Obama/Clinton and everyone falls in line afterward, but I'm pretty sure or completely sure it's not. The wound has grown too large and band aids aren't going to work. I'm a lot older now and won't be on the streets, but I am worried. And I really hope nothing that bad happens, but I don't like how I feel.

Between Trump on the one side and so many Democrats who REALLY DO NOT like Hillary on the Democratic side I feel we're heading toward a train wreck.

Just too much unrest left unchecked for way too long. Sorry, it's how I feel.

[Octafish]

114. NSA is a freaking vacuum cleaner. Ask Frank Church.

Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) was a patriot, a hero and a statesman, truly a great American.

The guy also led the last real investigation of CIA, NSA and FBI. When it came to NSA Tech circa 1975, he definitely knew what he was talking about:

[font color="green"]“That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”[/font color]

-- Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) FDR New Deal, Liberal, Progressive, World War II combat veteran. A brave man, the NSA was turned on him. Coincidentally, he narrowly lost re-election the next cycle.

And what happened to Church, for his trouble to preserve Democracy:

In 1980, Church will lose re-election to the Senate in part because of accusations of his committee’s responsibility for Welch’s death by his Republican opponent, Jim McClure.

SOURCE: http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=frank_church_1

From GWU's National Security Archives:

"Disreputable if Not Outright Illegal": The National Security Agency versus Martin Luther King, Muhammad Ali, Art Buchwald, Frank Church, et al.

Newly Declassified History Divulges Names of Prominent Americans Targeted by NSA during Vietnam Era

Declassification Decision by Interagency Panel Releases New Information on the Berlin Crisis, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Panama Canal Negotiations

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 441
Posted – September 25, 2013
Originally Posted - November 14, 2008
Edited by Matthew M. Aid and William Burr

Washington, D.C., September 25, 2013 – During the height of the Vietnam War protest movements in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the National Security Agency tapped the overseas communications of selected prominent Americans, most of whom were critics of the war, according to a recently declassified NSA history. For years those names on the NSA's watch list were secret, but thanks to the decision of an interagency panel, in response to an appeal by the National Security Archive, the NSA has released them for the first time. The names of the NSA's targets are eye-popping. Civil rights leaders Dr. Martin Luther King and Whitney Young were on the watch list, as were the boxer Muhammad Ali, New York Times journalist Tom Wicker, and veteran Washington Post humor columnist Art Buchwald. Also startling is that the NSA was tasked with monitoring the overseas telephone calls and cable traffic of two prominent members of Congress, Senators Frank Church (D-Idaho) and Howard Baker (R-Tennessee).

SNIP...

Another NSA target was Senator Frank Church, who started out as a moderate Vietnam War critic. A member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee even before the Tonkin Gulf incident, Church worried about U.S. intervention in a "political war" that was militarily unwinnable. While Church voted for the Tonkin Gulf resolution, he later saw his vote as a grave error. In 1965, as Lyndon Johnson made decisions to escalate the war, Church argued that the United States was doing "too much," criticisms that one White House official said were "irresponsible." Church had been one of Johnson's Senate allies but the President was angry with Church and other Senate critics and later suggested that they were under Moscow's influence because of their meetings with Soviet diplomats. In the fall of 1967, Johnson declared that "the major threat we have is from the doves" and ordered FBI security checks on "individuals who wrote letters and telegrams critical of a speech he had recently delivered." In that political climate, it is not surprising that some government officials eventually nominated Church for the watch list.[10]

SOURCE: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB441/

I wonder if Sen. Richard Schweiker (R-PA), a liberal Republican, also got the treatment from NSA?

“I think that the report, to those who have studied it closely, has collapsed like a house of cards, and I think the people who read it in the long run future will see that. I frankly believe that we have shown that the [investigation of the] John F. Kennedy assassination was snuffed out before it even began, and that the fatal mistake the Warren Commission made was not to use its own investigators, but instead to rely on the CIA and FBI personnel, which played directly into the hands of senior intelligence officials who directed the cover-up.” — Senator Richard Schweiker on “Face the Nation” in 1976.

Lost to History NOT, thanks to people who care.

Ms. Clinton? She thought she wouldn't be caught.

[H2O Man]

146. Thanks, Buddy!

Your post got me to pull out my copy of Senator Fulbright's "The Pentagon Propaganda Machine" (Liveright; 1970). What was true then, is true now.


"The thing that has been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there are no new things under the sun."
-- Ecclesiastes 1: 9 ("The Preacher&quot

[Samantha]

164. I truly enjoyed reading this post, Octafish

Thank you so much for your time and effort.

Sam

[cherokeeprogressive]

115. Unindicted Co-Conspirator. I predict these words will be printed next to Hillary Clinton's name.

On government stationary.

I also predict the only word out of the those three that Hillary's fans will notice is "Unindicted".

[H2O Man]

147. Thank you!

[malthaussen]

221. Pithy.

It speaks to a condition that is very clear in politics of late. Remember the old saw "It matters not if you won or lost, but how you played the game?" Well, screw that. The hip motto is "Whatever it takes."

That's what I find most disenheartening about this election. If Mrs Clinton wins, nothing will have been learned, and in fact her supporters will conclude they were right all along.

-- Mal

[riderinthestorm]

117. Comey says the FBI report will be out by mid-May latest

So we have @ 8 weeks +/- to wait.

I'm glad he's going to release well before the convention but it still may be too late. Bernie's momentum has always been a day or two too late for almost every primary. His insurmountable obstacles of zero name recognition and zero media coverage has meant a very long and expensive slog to be where he's at.

If Comey releases by mid-May that only leaves @ 8 weeks for the public to internalize a complicated "scandal" about Clinton before the Convention.

Some folks will just put it in the "RWNJ's are always out to get the Clintons" folder without any examination.

Some folks will try to understand but Hillary will be in full "they weren't classified when I emailed them" mode - bullshit but you can see how many Hillary people firmly hold this erroneous belief.

Some undecideds will take the time to try to understand but will that happen fast enough to derail Hillary?

I think it's a race against time at this point.

[corkhead]

132. May would be perfect timing to set up an open convention just like the Repubs possible scenario

Bernie would most likely not have the necessary delegates to win the first ballot so the establishment Democrats will pick their republicon-lite white knight on the second ballot.

If that happens, just like on the Republicon side, the Proles will be in the streets with torches and pitchforks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

133. That is also possible

and two brokered conventions will be all kinds of fun and good for political stability...

[H2O Man]

148. "a race against time"

I think that is an insightful way of saying it.

Thank you!

[malthaussen]

222. That has been the case since the beginning.

The wave is precessing, but can it crest when it matters? Too little, too late is not going to matter a damn.

-- Mal

[azurnoir]

119. Do I think Hillary will be frog marched-no way however

there is still Bryan Pagliano-the DoJ does not hand out immunity like candy or for frivolous reasons, there is obviously something there - Hillary could be censured, her judgement called into question, the whole mess will be a dark cloud hanging over her campaign, the real thing is will she be able to convince people with a line that'll go something like this-gosh I made a mistake and I'm so sorry, I have learned from it, please forgive me-IoW she'll take a nibble of crow pie to get the whole hot fudge sundae with whipped cream, a cherry and some nuts

[H2O Man]

149. Very good.

I agree that immunity isn't handed out readily. And I am surprised that anyone would believe that it was granted to save this person from Fox News etc. That simply does not happen.

[Samantha]

171. I believe Hillary will agree to drop her quest for the Presidency in exchange for no indictment

Biden will enter the race in her place. This is just my opinion, but I honestly do not see the Intelligence Community settling for less. In its eyes, she has proven she cannot be trusted with classified information, and there are no second chances.

Sam

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. I will be brutally honest with you

I mostly discuss this OFF SITE now.

This is not about the primaries, this is about National Security.

There is a third outcome you did not consider, and one I have heard from sources. Lynch will refuse to indict, for whatever reason. Most people think political. The FBI agents will be a tad on the pissed side, and you will see the beginning of watergate II. There are several ways for this, the mostly commonly mentioned is Comney resigning and going before the cameras. Given what he did when Ashcroft was AG, I don't doubt he would do that.

And when that dance is over, a lot of fans will never acknowledged they ever liked her. Watergate started as a third rate burglary. This started, ironically, to protect herself from the RW machine. As an American I find this distressing... because of the damage this potentially could do to the country. What it does to the Democratic party, I could care less at this point.

[mmonk]

125. I understand. At this point, all sorts of possibilities.

Worrisome but out of our hands.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. Agreed, at this point I am just stocking up on popcorm

because it will be one hell of a show

[H2O Man]

151. !!!!

[KoKo]

130. Good Points....

The "Set Up" and then the "Unraveling" which take much time.

Given that many of us have been through this before...one hopes that "the Legal Process" will move forward to cleaning out this crap more quickly. But then, that may be wishful thinking, since the system managed to (after years of corruption) do another Wall Street Crash in 2008. And, instead of having FDR...we had "Wall Street Bailed Out" and, instead of Glass-Steagall restored (conveniently gotten rid of in Clinton Admin) we are told that the Wall Street Bailout "Saved our Economy" on the backs of the rest of all Americans who still suffer ...unless they still work in the Banking System or with Wall Street Investment Companies (Hedge Funds, Venture Capitalists) at a very high level.

So...we muddle along with Bill and Hillary running for their 3rd Term and expecting them to to make CHANGE? And, as the Clinton Foundations escapades in Haiti and across the Globe are revealed, we Democrats will think we we have "Won the Election" (all that matters these days) and that this is just more RW Attacks against two people that have a track record that goes back Decades for what they gave up of their HONOR to Achieve Power and Influence that would make their mark on American Politics as far as we can see.

But, Nadin, I think you know all this. At some point...as Bernie Repeatedly Says: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. the instability in the system is real and we both know it

this is a classic change election... like 1932... we are going to get it one way or another.

The timeline the FBI is suggesting is May.

[riderinthestorm]

134. I misspoke. "Early May" is the direct quote.

I hope they release it earlier though. Earlier the better imo.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/as-presidential-campaign-unfolds-so-do-inquiries-into-hillary-clintons-emails.html?referer=&_r=0

A federal law enforcement official said that barring any unforeseen changes, the F.B.I. investigation could conclude by early May. 

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. Take into account originally they were intending late december

I have been following this carefully, and I suspect that there is something in there. They added agents, and lengthened the timeline.

[KoKo]

136. No one hopes More...that something will come of this "Investigation"

than those of us following the "trials and tribulations" of the Clintons, (and those before them..that helped bring them to power) who live in fear that eventually there might be an American Awakening.

As, those of us who've been around awhile...following this stuff for years,...and the honest reporters (not the Fox News Crew & Neocon supporters) who tried to expose what was going on to the American People...but were always discredited, and in many cases, driven out of their jobs, for doing investigative reporting have sadly learned..the "Media, Industrial, Corporate & Military Contingent" has the power.

And, that power has only grown in strength through two terms of Reagan I & II, Poppy Bush I, Clinton I & II, followed Bush I & II (stolen election) and then followed by Obama, I & II, (the clean up act), who had a mighty job ahead of him when he promised "Hope and Change." But, the system was sadly so corrupted by 2008 that it was obvious that two terms of Obama couldn't even hope to change much. Obama did manage to do some positive things....but, could never address the fundamental rot at the heart of the system because it is more powerful than the President, at this point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. Yup, we have parallel government in place

and this is in academic press now

[KoKo]

138. "Parallel Government."

Yes.

[kgnu_fan]

142. kick ... and crying....

[H2O Man]

153. Right.

And that simply does not happen when there's "nothing." It just doesn't.

[Samantha]

165. This is what I have heard as well

We will know by May. I personally believe a deal will be negotiated which will result in Hillary Clinton agreeing not to continue to pursue the Presidency. I do not believe the Intelligence Community will compromise on this. JMHO

Sam

[nadinbrzezinski]

167. That has been suggested

step down in exchange for a slap on the wrist. The other added caveat I have heard, is plea guilty preventing her from running ever again.

Those are quite frankly in the speculation category from a few people I talk to from time to time.

My view is... something is cooking due to how many agents are involved, and the immunity plea, and the fact they lengthened this. What specifically is going to come out... we really are not going to know, until it does.

I am watching for her lawyer resigning, or a few other tea leaves. I also expect most of the country to be blindsided by this. Very few people are paying attention to this.

[Oilwellian]

174. One issue I haven't seen much discussion about

are the 30,000 emails that were backed up on the Cloud. The 30,000 emails that Hillary thought her lawyers deleted but are now being poured over by those 100 or so FBI agents and perhaps the Republicans on the Governmental Affairs committee who asked for a copy of them.

Imagine if the eighteen minutes of White House tapes that were erased by Nixon, were brought back to life by modern technology? That's very similar to what has happened to Hillary. One can only imagine what is in those emails she thought were safely destroyed.

[mmonk]

180. Yes, backing up on the cloud seems quite careless.

[Oilwellian]

189. I don't think Hillary knew the emails were backed up

Both companies involved with her private server expressed surprise when the Cloud storage came to light. They were quoted saying it was a "misunderstanding" when the service was switched from one company to another.

[mmonk]

197. Interesting. Well someone wanted a record.

[Oilwellian]

217. I went back to a McClatchy piece I had read and it's titled:

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

And there you are. LOL

It's a very good article that discusses the two companies involved in Hillary's server. I found this part most interesting:

Clinton’s decision to have her lawyers prune and delete all of her personal emails when she turned the others over to the State Department could complicate FBI attempts to resurrect emails from the backup. But if the personal emails were stored on a part of the server’s disk or the cloud backup that has not been overwritten, the task still might be easy. Bloomberg News reported recently that the FBI has recovered some of Clinton’s emails, apparently from the server they seized from Platte River.

In laying out facts gathered by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which he chairs, Wisconsin Sen. Johnson offered the first public confirmation that Clinton or her representatives had arranged for a backup of her email server after she left office in early 2013.

His letter also cited internal emails recounting requests in late 2014 and early 2015 from Clinton representatives for Platte River Networks to direct Datto to reduce the amount of her emails it was backing up. These communications led a Platte River employee to air suspicions that “this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy (sic) shit,” according to an excerpt of an email cited by Johnson.

Boian said, however, that Platte River was asked to limit email retention to 30 days as soon as it was hired -- a directive that never changed.

(snip)

Despite Boian’s statement that Platte River set up a 30-day revolving retention policy for Clinton’s emails, Johnson’s letter noted that Platte River employees were directed to reduce the amount of email data being stored with each backup. Late this summer, Johnson wrote, a Platte River employee took note of this change and inquired whether the company could search its archives for an email from Clinton Executive Service Corp. directing such a reduction in October or November 2014 and then again around February, advising Platte River to save only emails sent during the most recent 30 days.

Those reductions would have occurred after the State Department requested that Clinton turn over her emails.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article37968711.html

McClatchy has written several in-depth pieces on this topic and links are included at the bottom of the article I posted.

[kgnu_fan]

141. I wonder why they risk this much? Do they know consequences?

[grasswire]

154. the Clintons?

They risk because the rewards are potentially so great. Wealth beyond our wildest dreams. The world's greatest military to do their bidding at reshaping the globe. Gold flowing to the pockets of their friends and cronies.

The jackpot awaits.

[kgnu_fan]

155. If they are not found guilty.... Do they feel totally safe with it....

[Samantha]

172. Their egos tell them they can do whatever they want BECAUSE THEY ARE THE CLINTONS

One of whom is a former President. Who is going to stop them - they think no one. Look at what they have gotten away with so far. JMHO

Sam

[H2O Man]

152. Exactly!

We need to say, "No more." We have to appeal directly to those good people in DC -- in a wide variety of agencies and departments -- who are offended by the outrageous levels of corruption in Washington, but who are not protected now, if they speak the truth. And that is one of the most important reasons to support Bernie Sanders. As president, he could protect whistle-blowers.

[H2O Man]

150. Very good.

I especially appreciate your point that this could result in an increase of tensions -- we both know these tensions are already there -- and that one potentially offended group, who are not republican madmen, could take steps to make their dissatisfaction known publicly. And that, as you accurately point out, falls into actual "national security," rather than bitter politics, areas.

[noretreatnosurrender]

159. Great discussion

It's been building for a long, long time now. Those of us who have been reading and connecting dots for years have been horrified. When I think about where we are now I'm reminded of this quote - "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

[nadinbrzezinski]

169. Yup and that will bleed into politics

and do damage to one of the two national parties. The other is already in crisis. The Ds are internally deeply divided (just not obvious). This could lead to the kind of political instability we have not seen.

Incidentally, this crisis could give the presidency to a madman on a silver platter.

[geek tragedy]

201. Watergate? So we're already talking about Obama and Lynch committing

impeachable offenses?

Dear lord.

[nadinbrzezinski]

203. If they try to stonewall the investigation

they are offenses, serious ones.

On the bright side, this will end up in the next administration. If it happens to be her winning the presidency. there will be an impeachment. I guarantee it, if this is the road we go down.

If there is something serious though I believe Obama will not try to stonewall, becuase he is far more concerned about his legacy, and a second Watergate will not look good. He is too savvy of a politician to throw away his legacy.

but for the most part, these days I discuss this matter mostly off site. There are good reasons for that, partisans are one of them.

[Major Hogwash]

157. Whose idea was it to use a private server?

Hillary said it was her idea.
So, why wouldn't she be indicted?

[H2O Man]

182. Fair question.

This is just my opinion, of course. But when individuals at a certain level in our government -- and I include elected/appointed offices and corporate positions -- have, or may have, committed a crime, it is highly unlikely they will ever be charged. It's often said that there are two types of justice in America -- one for the rich, and one for everyone else. And there was a time when it really was that simple .....

Today, there are actually far more levels of justice than that. There is a distinct one for non-elected government officials, with linkages to corporations and/or organizations with international ties. This has actually frustrated the good men and women within our intelligence community, particularly in the past 15 years. This is what the conversation on this thread, just above your post here, is addressing.

[joshcryer]

177. No one is going to get into trouble for following a directive...

...by someone 4th in line to the presidency.

It will turn out Clinton specifically requested it, that it was vetted by lawyers, and that the laws on the book at the time allowed for it.

[H2O Man]

179. Interesting.

Thank you.

[geek tragedy]

186. once the issue is in the rear view mirror and there's no more Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt talking

points raining down from too many on the left as well as from the usual suspects on the right about how this is going to destroy her career and she's going to be wearing orange, that will be of a benefit to her.

There will be no criminal charges. People will shrug and go "that's it?" and move on to the issues that really matter.

[H2O Man]

187. Thanks

[NWCorona]

200. So you can't even imagine it going the other way?

[geek tragedy]

202. No, and I hope every person guilty of pushing this bullshit will participate

in a collective mea culpa.

But, instead I imagine we'll see references to cover ups, Watergate, and impeaching Lynch and Obama.

Because the New York Post and Fox News turned out to be incorrect in their speculation.

[NWCorona]

204. So if in fact something does come of it

Will you say it was a conspiracy?

Yes I'm of the belief that something probably will come of it. Not sure what but I'm open to the possibility that it could be nothing as well.

[geek tragedy]

205. define 'something'

something has already obviously come of it.

Indictments? Nope. Not gonna happen. Wish upon a different star.

[NWCorona]

206. I don't know.

But a federal judge has granted discovery in the other case. He's on record as to saying it doesn't seem above board.

Yes I think indictments of Hillary or her staff is possible. I don't have a crystal ball obviously so we will just have to wait and see.

[Oilwellian]

190. The very least that will be done due to this scandal will be...

Last edited Mon Mar 21, 2016, 09:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Hillary losing her clearance to classified material. How can one be president without that clearance?

[H2O Man]

195. Thanks.

[FourScore]

194. Thank you so much, H2O Man, for continuing this discussion.

This is a fascinating thread, and it leaves me with much to think about.

[H2O Man]

196. Thank you!

I think we are starting to open up some decent conversations between the Hillary and Bernie supporters. And that's a good thing. Issues such as the one being discussed here are important.

[FourScore]

198. YOU are starting to open up some decent conversations.

You have a gift for that.

This issue is so important, and I think it's imperative that ALL DEMOCRATS understand what is happening. Denial doesn't help here.

When Hillary supporters scream "BENGHAZI!!!", I do not blame them, for that is exactly how this all began.

Benghazi led to the server, which led to the emails, which led to the FBI, which led to classified information and Blumenthal and the aides and the Clinton Foundation, which led to immunity, which may have already led to a grand jury (no one is really certain about that as far as I can ascertain). That's how these things work. How quickly one forgets that the impeachment of Bill Clinton began with Whitewater. All it takes is some girl-talk and a stained blue dress and, there ya go!

One can always say that the initial search for the damnable information is bogus, unfair, targeting - all valid arguments! But that doesn't take away from the fact that if "they" poke around long enough, "they" will eventually find something. Unfortunately, I think the Clinton's live in an alternate reality that makes them particularly vulnerable. One could say they ask for it to a certain degree because they seem to act as if rules do not apply to them.

In any case, the results could be disasterous for the Dems. I do not think that Hillary will get indicted, but others will. Another Dick Cheney - Scooter Libby scenario. I feel for those who were so faithful and worked so hard for her. On the other hand, having worked in the world of government classified information, the utter disregard for protocol is staggering. I know first hand how our enemies procure information, and Hillary and her staffers would have to have known that as well. They made themselves and others vulnerable on so many levels. Did people die from this? We do not know, but it is quite possible. People are sitting in jail for "mistakes" much milder than this. It's big.

The part that worries me the most is the deafening silence on this topic from the MSM. I worry so much that they will begin to talk about it when it is too late for the democrats. It sometimes seems to me that - for whatever reason - the MSM has chosen Trump.

[mmonk]

210. No doubt they won't mention it until late. In the meantime,

they promote Trump every day with their "coverage".

[grasswire]

212. I believe I read...

...that she texted with Stevens the night of the Benghazi attack. On her insecure Blackberry. I should have bookmarked that article.

[panader0]

218. Kick--the elephant in the room.

[malthaussen]

219. I consider it a dead issue.

From a purely political standpoint, it is a fruitless discussion, because it leads nowhere. If she were indicted, her candidacy would be dead, even if it is not impossible for an individual under indictment to run for President (I frankly don't know, but doubt there is any law about it, it not being a question that legislators would likely imagine coming up). If no indictment follows, then it is nothing more than another attempt to smear the Clintons. and should not affect the vote.

As an issue, I think it is a non-starter, but I have perhaps a rather quirky assessment of the importance of "classified" material to begin with, and I cannot begin to imagine what importance is/is not attached to it by more conventional thinkers.

As to consequences, I think whatever happens, Mrs Clinton will pay no discernible consequences even if it is determined that a crime was committed (which would astonish me). As a card-carrying member of the power structure who has done nothing to injure that power structure, the only consequence might be loss of election and imprisonment of a convenient scapegoat or two. Only some unexpected revolution in the way things are done could produce a different result.

-- Mal

[kgnu_fan]

220. This needs to be dealt with sooner than later. Slower awakening, worse it gets.