2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf Hillary Clinton wins the nominations, this is a MUST read for all democrats!
Before I begin, I will say it really saddens me that her handling of this issue has marred what was an overall outstanding and inspirational political career. Her decades of accomplishments, while breaking gender boundaries in Washington, have inspired millions in America and around the world. But a scandal regarding her record-keeping practices could end her legacy prematurely, perhaps as soon as May. Right before she was expected to shatter one of the biggest ceilings in American history.
This is the most comprehensive post I have found that lays everything on the table regarding the email scandal. If you care about the democratic party and the future of our most likely nominee, then you won't hesitate. This isn't about attacking HRC from a Bernie supporter, its about what the hell is going on with the email scandal, all in one post.
https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/
Edit: Anyone ignoring this because the blog poster is not a distinguished legal expert, at least scroll to this section:
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)They will drum up made up scandal after made up scandal.
I think it is a waste of your time but then I don't have to live in your skin.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
Updated: The Facts About Hillary Clinton’s Emails
We’ve put all of the information about Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails here. Just the facts, all in one place.
Why did Clinton use her own email account?
When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience. It enabled her to reach people quickly and keep in regular touch with her family and friends more easily given her travel schedule.
That is the only reason she used her own account.
Her usage was widely known to the over 100 State Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, consistent with the practice of prior Secretaries of State and permitted at the time.
As Clinton has said, in hindsight, it would have been better to just have two accounts. While she thought using one account would be easier, obviously, that has not been the case.
Was it allowed?
Yes. The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted her to use a non-government email for work.
The 2009 National Archives regulation in place during her tenure required that "[a]gencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system." The regulation recognizes the use of non-government email accounts.
As she has stated, Clinton's practice was to email government officials on their ".gov" accounts, so her work emails were immediately captured and preserved. In fact, more than 90% of those emails should have already been captured in the State Department’s email system before she provided them with paper copies.
A Politifact analysis also confirmed that Clinton's practices complied with laws and regulations, including support from the former director of a prominent government accountability organization: "In Clinton's defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account. Because these rules weren't in effect when Clinton was in office, 'she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time,' said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization."
Clinton said she did not use her email to send or receive classified information, but the State Department and two Inspectors General said some of these emails do contain classified information. Was her statement inaccurate?
Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.
When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified if the State Department or another agency believes its public release could cause potential harm to national security, law enforcement or diplomatic relations.
After reviewing a sampling of the 55,000 pages of emails, the Inspectors General have proffered that a small number of emails, which did not contain any classified markings and/or dissemination controls, should have been classified at the time they were sent. The State Department has said it disagrees with this assessment.
Clinton hopes the State Department and the agencies involved in the review process will sort out as quickly as possible which of the 55,000 pages of emails are appropriate to share with the public.
How did Clinton receive and consume classified information?
The Secretary's office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the State Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types.
A separate, closed email system was used by the State Department for the purpose of handling classified communications, which was designed to prevent such information from being transmitted anywhere other than within that system.
Is Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s email use?
No. As the Department of Justice and Inspectors General made clear, the IGs made a security referral. This was not criminal in nature as misreported by some in the press. The Department of Justice is now seeking assurances about the storage of materials related to Clinton’s email account.
Is it true that her email server and a thumb drive were recently turned over to the government? Why?
Again, when information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified if the State Department or another agency believes its public release could cause potential harm to national security, law enforcement or diplomatic relations.
Clinton hopes that State and the other agencies involved in the review process will sort out as quickly as possible which emails are appropriate to share with the public, and that the release will be as timely and as transparent as possible.
When the Department upgraded some of the previously unclassified email to classified, her team worked with the State Department to ensure copies of her emails were stored in a safe and secure manner. She also directed her team to give her server that hosted her email account while she was Secretary to the Department of Justice, as well as a thumb drive containing copies of her emails that already had been provided to the State Department. Clinton has pledged to cooperate with the government's security inquiry.
Would this issue not have arisen if she used a state.gov email address?
Even if Clinton's emails had been on a government email address and government device, these questions would be raised prior to public release.
While the State Department's review of her 55,000 emails brought the issue to the Inspectors Generals' attentions, the emails that recently were upgraded to classified prior to public release were on the unclassified .gov email system. They were not on the separate, closed system used by State Department for handling classified communications.
Have Clinton's State Department aides also been asked to provide the Department and Congress with emails from their personal accounts?
We understand that members of her State Department staff were recently asked to assist the Department in its record-keeping by providing any work-related emails they may have on personal accounts. They have received requests from Rep. Gowdy as well.
Clinton is proud of the work of all the dedicated public servants that were part of her team at the State Department. She was proud of her aides then and is proud of them now, as they have committed - as she has - to being as helpful as possible in responding to requests.
Press reports say she used multiple devices – a Blackberry and an iPad – is that true?
Clinton relied on her Blackberry for emailing. This was easiest for her. When the iPad came out in 2010, she was as curious as others and found it great for shopping, browsing, and reading articles when she traveled. She also had access to her email account on her iPad and sometimes used it for that too.
Was she ever provided guidance about her use of a non-".gov" email account?
The State Department has and did provide guidance regarding the need to preserve federal records. To address these requirements, it was her practice to email government employees on their ".gov" email address. That way, work emails would be immediately captured and preserved in government record-keeping systems.
What did Clinton provide to the State Department?
On December 5, 2014, 30,490 copies of work or potentially work-related emails sent and received by Clinton from March 18, 2009, to February 1, 2013, were provided to the State Department. This totaled roughly 55,000 pages. More than 90% of her work or potentially work-related emails provided to the Department were already in the State Department's record-keeping system because those e-mails were sent to or received by "state.gov" accounts.
Early in her term, Clinton continued using an att.blackberry.net account that she had used during her Senate service. Given her practice from the beginning of emailing State Department officials on their state.gov accounts, her work-related emails during these initial weeks would have been captured and preserved in the State Department's record-keeping system. She, however, no longer had access to these emails once she transitioned from this account.
Why did the Select Committee announce that she used multiple email addresses during her tenure?
In fairness to the Committee, this was an honest misunderstanding. Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of her initial weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had previously used). In March 2013, a month after she left the Department, Gawker published the email address she used while Secretary, and so she had to change the address on her account.
At the time the printed copies were provided to the Department in 2014, because it was the same account, the new email address established after she left office appeared on the printed copies as the sender, and not the address she used as Secretary. In fact, this address on the account did not exist until March 2013. This led to understandable confusion that was cleared up directly with the Committee after its press conference.
Why didn't Clinton provide her emails to the State Department until December 2014?
In 2014, after recognizing potential gaps in its overall recordkeeping system, the State Department asked for the help of the four previous former Secretaries in meeting the State Department's obligations under the Federal Records Act.
Clinton responded to this request by providing the State Department with over 55,000 pages of emails. As it was Clinton's practice to email U.S. government officials on their .gov accounts, the overwhelming majority of these emails should have already been preserved in the State Department’s email system.
In providing these emails to the Department, Clinton included all she had that were even potentially work-related—including emails about using a fax machine or asking for iced tea during a meeting—erring on the side of over-inclusion, as confirmed by the Department and National Archives' determination that over 1250 emails were "personal" records (which they have indicated will be returned to her).
After providing her work and potentially work-related emails, she chose not to keep her personal, non-work related emails, which by definition, are not federal records and were not requested by the Department or anyone else.
Why did the State Department ask for assistance in collecting records? Why did the State Department need assistance in further meeting its requirements under the Federal Records Act?
The State Department formally requested the assistance of the four previous former Secretaries in a letter to their representatives dated October 28, 2014, to help in further meeting the Department’s requirements under the Federal Records Act.
The letter stated that in September 2013, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issued new guidance clarifying records management responsibilities regarding the use of personal email accounts for government business.
While this guidance was issued after all four former Secretaries had departed office, the Department decided to ensure its records were as complete as possible and sought copies of work emails sent or received by the Secretaries on their own accounts.
Why did Clinton decide not to keep her personal emails?
As Clinton has said before, these were private, personal messages, including emails about her daughter's wedding plans, her mother's funeral services and condolence notes, as well as emails on family vacations, yoga routines, and other items one would typically find in their own email account, such as offers from retailers, spam, etc.
Did Clinton delete any emails while facing a subpoena?
No. As noted, the emails that Clinton chose not to keep were personal emails—they were not federal records or even work-related—and therefore were not subject to any preservation obligation under the Federal Records Act or any request. Nor would they have been subject to the subpoena—which did not exist at the time—that was issued by the Benghazi Select Committee some three months later.
Rep. Gowdy's subpoena issued in March 2015 did not seek, and had nothing to do with, her personal, non-work emails nor her server nor the request by State Department last year for her help in their own record-keeping. Indeed in his March 19th letter, Rep. Gowdy expressly stated he was not seeking any emails that were "purely personal in nature."
In March 2015, when Rep. Gowdy issued a subpoena to Clinton, the State Department had received all of Clinton's work-related emails in response to their 2014 request, and indeed, had already provided Clinton's relevant emails to Rep. Gowdy’s committee.
Rep. Gowdy, other Republicans, and some members of the media have seized on a CNN interview with Clinton to question her on this point. Rep. Gowdy has even gone so far as to say Clinton is lying. But he and the others are clearly mistaken.
As Vox reported, "[S]he didn't lie about the subpoena. … Clinton clearly wasn't responding to the question of whether she'd ever been subpoenaed by the Benghazi Committee but whether she'd been subpoenaed before she wiped the emails from her server." Additionally, Factcheck.org said in its analysis, "Clinton's denial came in response to a question about deleting emails 'while facing a subpoena,' and Clinton objected to Keilar's 'assumption.' Clinton’s campaign said that the emails were deleted before she received the subpoena and that was the point Clinton was making." Politifact added, "Suggesting that Clinton deleted emails while facing a subpoena contradicts what we know about the controversy so far."
Vox went on to further decry Rep. Gowdy's reaction, saying, "[T]his one's a particularly absurd gimmick, even for a committee that is selectively leaking from depositions and documents to justify its existence. If there was a more extreme category of dissembling than 'pants on fire,' now would be the time for Politifact to roll it out on the House Republicans."
Why was the State Department given printed copies?
That is the requirement. The instructions regarding electronic mail in the Foreign Affairs Manual (the Department's policy manual) require that "until technology allowing archival capabilities for long-term electronic storage and retrieval of email messages is available and installed, those messages warranting preservation as records (for periods longer than current E-mail systems routinely maintain them) must be printed out and filed with related records." [5 FAM 443.3].
Were any work items deleted in the course of producing the printed copies?
No.
How many emails were in her account? And how many of those were provided to the State Department?
Her email account contained a total of 62,320 sent and received emails from March 2009 to February 2013. Based on the review process described below, 30,490 of these emails were provided to the Department, and the remaining 31,830 were private, personal records.
How and who decided what should be provided to the State Department?
The Federal Records Act puts the obligation on the government official to determine what is and is not a federal record. The State Department Foreign Affairs Manual outlines guidance "designed to help employees determine which of their e-mail messages must be preserved as federal records and which may be deleted without further authorization because they are not Federal record materials." [5 FAM 443.1(c)].
Following conversations with State Department officials and in response to the State Department's 2014 letter to former Secretaries, Clinton directed her attorneys to assist by identifying and preserving all emails that could potentially be federal records. This entailed a multi-step process to review each email and provide printed copies of Clinton's emails to the State Department, erring on the side of including anything that might be even potentially work-related.
A search was conducted on Clinton's email account for all emails sent and received from 2009 to her last day in office, February 1, 2013.
After this universe was determined, a search was conducted for a ".gov" (not just state.gov) in any address field in an email. This produced over 27,500 emails, representing more than 90% of the 30,490 printed copies that were provided to the State Department.
To help identify any potential non-".gov" correspondence that should be included, a search of first and last names of more than 100 State Department and other U.S. government officials was performed. This included all Deputy Secretaries, Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Ambassadors-at-Large, Special Representatives and Envoys, members of the Secretary's Foreign Policy Advisory Board, and other senior officials to the Secretary, including close aides and staff.
Next, to account for non-obvious or non-recognizable email addresses or misspellings or other idiosyncrasies, the emails were sorted and reviewed both by sender and recipient.
Lastly, a number of terms were specifically searched for, including: "Benghazi" and "Libya."
These additional three steps yielded just over another 2,900 emails, including emails from former Administration officials and long-time friends that may not be deemed by the State Department to be federal records. And hundreds of these emails actually had already been forwarded onto the state.gov system and captured in real-time.
With respect to materials that the Select Committee has requested, the State Department has stated that just under 300 emails related to Libya were provided by the State Department to the Select Committee in response to a November 2014 letter, which contained a broader request for materials than prior requests from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Given Clinton's practice of emailing State Department officials on their state.gov addresses, the State Department already had, and had already provided, the Select Committee with emails from Clinton in August 2014 – prior to requesting and receiving printed copies of her emails.
The review process described above confirmed Clinton's practice of emailing State Department officials on their .gov address, with the vast majority of the printed copies of work-related emails Clinton provided to the State Department simply duplicating what was already captured in the State Department's record-keeping system in real time.
Did Clinton use this account to communicate with foreign officials?
During her time at State, she communicated with foreign officials in person, through correspondence, and by telephone. The review of all of her emails revealed only one email with a foreign (UK) official.
Did she withhold any work emails? What about the 15 emails that Sid Blumenthal provided to the Select Committee that she did not provide to the State Department?
She provided the State Department with all work and potentially work-related emails that she had, including all of her correspondence with Sid Blumenthal. We understand that Mr. Blumenthal had some emails that Clinton did not have, and Clinton had some emails that Mr. Blumenthal did not have, but it is important to note that none of those emails provide any new insights on the attack on our facilities in Benghazi.
Do you think a third party should have been allowed to review what was turned over to the State Department, as well as the remainder that was not?
The Federal Records Act puts the obligation on the government official, not the agency or a third party, to determine what is and is not a federal record. The State Department Foreign Affairs Manual outlines guidance "designed to help employees determine which of their e-mail messages must be preserved as federal records and which may be deleted without further authorization because they are not Federal record materials." [5 FAM 443.1(c)].
Clinton responded to the State Department's request by providing approximately 55,000 pages of her work and potentially work-related emails. She has also taken the unprecedented step of asking that those emails be made public. In doing so, she has sought to support the State Department's efforts, fulfill her responsibility of record-keeping, and provide the chance for the public to assess the work she and officials at the State Department did during her tenure.
After her work-related emails were identified and preserved, Clinton chose not to keep her private, personal emails that were not federal records, including emails about her daughter's wedding plans, her mother's funeral service, family vacations, etc.
Government officials are granted the privacy of their personal, non-work related emails, including personal emails on .gov accounts. Clinton exercised her privilege to ensure the continued privacy of her personal, non-work related emails.
Can't she release the emails she provided to the State Department herself?
Because the printed copies of work-related emails she provided to the State Department include federal records of the Department, the Department needs to review these emails before they can be made public. She called for them to be made available as soon as possible, and is glad to see the Department has begun releasing them.
Some of the emails released show Clinton emailed aides at times on their personal, rather than .gov accounts. Was she trying to hide these communications?
As Clinton has said before, it was her practice to email U.S. government officials on their .gov accounts if it was work-related. This is evidenced in the emails released so far. In reviewing her emails in 2014, there was a fraction of emails with work-related information sent to U.S. government officials’ personal accounts, and those were provided to the State Department. The overwhelming majority of her work-related emails were to .gov accounts.
Where was the server for her email located?
The server for her email was physically located on her property, which is protected by U.S. Secret Service.
What level of encryption was employed? Who was the service provider?
The security and integrity of her family's electronic communications was taken seriously from the onset when it was first set up for President Clinton's team. While the curiosity about the specifics of this set up is understandable, given what people with ill intentions can do with such information in this day and age, there are concerns about broadcasting specific technical details about past and current practices. Suffice it to say, robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.
Was the server ever hacked?
No, there is no evidence there was ever a breach.
Was there ever an unauthorized intrusion into her email or did anyone else have access to it?
No.
What was done after her email was exposed in February 2013 after the hacker known as "Guccifer" hacked Sid Blumenthal’s account?
While this was not a breach of Clinton's account, because her email address was exposed, steps were taken at that time to ensure the security and integrity of her electronic communications, including changing her email address.
Was the State Department able to respond to requests related to FOIA or Congressional requests before they received printed copies of her work-related emails?
Yes. As the Select Committee has said, the State Department provided the Committee with relevant emails it already had on the state.gov system before the State Department requested any printed copies from former Secretaries, and four months before the State Department received the printed copies.
For example, in the well-publicized hack of Sid Blumenthal's email account, a note he sent Clinton on September 12, 2012, was posted online. At first blush, one might not think this exchange would be captured on the state.gov system. But in fact, Clinton forwarded the email, that very same day, onto the state.gov system. And the email was produced by the State Department to the Select Committee, and acknowledged by the Select Committee, in August 2014.
This example illustrates: 1) when an email from a non-".gov" sender had some connection to work or might add to the understanding of State Department officials, it was Clinton’s practice to forward it to officials at their "state.gov" address; and 2) the State Department was able to search and produce Clinton’s emails when needed long before, and unrelated to, receiving the printed copies as they were already captured on state.gov accounts.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)The motive to wreck Hillary's career is rooted in Hillary hate IMHO
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)It took me quite awhile, read it before you post a comment please.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I posted the truth for everyone to see
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)....you are blind my friend.
840high
(17,196 posts)No thanks - will not read your post.
revbones
(3,660 posts)blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)....is available to the public thanks to the Freedom of Information Act. I believe the post adequately addressed the murkiness of the possible violations from more angles for and against indictment that I have yet to read.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Not tonight, but you can assured of it. Pretty flimsy defense.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)The first comment was completely unnecessary.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Par for the course from that sector.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)
I suggest you make this an OP but I'm pretty sure we both know it would sink like a stone.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)in an indictment won't pay attention
revbones
(3,660 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)about the email scandal.
But like most things certain people will not admit the truth when it hits them in the face.
revbones
(3,660 posts)I see now. You just haven't reviewed the actual content released.
Aside from the classified ones, the ones incriminating her where she said to take the classified headers off and make the content "nonpaper", the ones demonstrating the pay-for-play arms deals with middle eastern countries and Clinton Foundation donations and the deleted ones, you would be right...
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)The original poster, cites all of what you posted in his piece....
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,708 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Wed Mar 30, 2016, 03:17 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Some people will hate Hillary to their dying day
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1611681
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
I think this poster didn't real the link and is trying to bury any additional comments with their long post.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 30, 2016, 03:22 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The day that we hide DU posts for not reading a link will be the day DU dies. It's traditional to not read links. Long pastes may be boring, but unless copyrighted (and I'm guessing political apologia don't get copyrighted), aren't against the rules. Good luck avoiding a 0-7 jury vote.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is abuse of the jury system and I will alert on the jury results.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seriously. No.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WHO ALERTED ON THIS INNOCUOUS POST? LEAVE IT ALONE-DEMOCRATSINCEBIRTH
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post is abusive in many ways, but none of them violate the TOS, worst luck!
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post title is questionable, but post itself is just imfo
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot reply to automated messages
Alert abuse Delete this DU Mail
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)I'm still sinking my teeth into it, not sure what to think.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,708 posts)blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)Where do you go to get a copy of the official Clinton talking points for cut and paste?
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)That OP is only interested in Hillary's point of view sadly.
Beowulf
(761 posts)The issue isn't the account, it's the unsecured server! Interesting that the server isn't mentioned in that long-winded rationale.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)VERYYY SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENT.... Below, from this article...
After Clinton turned over all her work-related emails to the State Department in December 2014, it was revealed in May 2015 that she had extensively corresponded with someone by the name Sidney Blumenthal during the Benghazi attacks.
Sidney “Sid” Blumenthal was a former journalist at the New Yorker who became one of the Clinton’s closest aides and confidants in the 1990’s during Bill Clinton’s administration. He is an interesting character to say the least.
At the time of the Benghazi attacks, Blumenthal was not a State Department employee, despite trying. He worked at the family’s large non-profit organization – The Clinton Foundation. After it was revealed that he had communicated with Clinton around the time of the attack, Blumenthal was subpoenaed to testify before the Congressional Benghazi committee in June 2015. In a closed door meeting with the committee members, Blumenthal turned over 60 emails that he had exchanged with Hillary Clinton. The transcript of this closed-door meeting has not been released.
Once the Benghazi committee crosschecked the emails that Blumenthal turned over to them with the ones Clinton had handed over to the State Department, they found that she had not turned over nine emails and portions of six others – 15 emails in all were unaccounted for.
We could not know the answers to these questions until September 2015, when the State Department released a new 1,500 pages of Clinton’s emails previously undisclosed to the Benghazi Committee.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)One analysis has found that at least 23 messages between Clinton and Blumenthal contain potentially classified information. Blumenthal in fact prefaced many of his intelligence memos to Clinton by saying they came from “an extremely sensitive source” and the information “should be handled with care.” Seven emails between her and Blumenthal have had select paragraphs, and even entire pages redacted, like this completely redacted June 2012 memo about Germany, and this September 2012 memo where even the subject line has been hidden.
Blumenthal’s memos about Libya mostly dealt with intelligence surrounding the country’s 2011 civil war, but many revealed how he solicited Clinton’s support in pushing his business ventures. In an April 2011 memo Blumenthal suggests that the new Libyan government hire private security firms for training, protection and medical supplies. He suggested that his own firm, Osprey Global Solutions, broker these deals. Clinton forwarded these emails to her aides and said “the idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.” In August 2011, Osprey Global Solutions signed a contract with the new Libyan government to provide these services.
Blumenthal also suggested that America more intensively support the Libyan rebels by sending A-10 “Warthog” aircraft instead of Predator drones. The United States did in fact deploy six A-10s as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn to assist in toppling the Gaddafi regime.
There is no evidence from the emails provided that Blumenthal’s suggestion directly translated into State Department policy. If the FBI retrieves any emails from her “wiped” server that proves this to be true, it is a violation of foreign lobbying laws.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)....I don't know if you mentioned, but his public testimony at the Benghazi hearings have not been released. They are probably apart of the ongoing investigation, maybe he pleaded the fifth, or maybe he was just too damn boring.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)He lauds journalists but fails to understand that...
A TRULY TRANSFORMATIVE FIGURE IN BERNIE SANDERS!
This IS NOT DEMOCRACY!
THIS IS FASCISM!
Read and Study This...
http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm
Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
From Liberty Forum
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)but his LinkedIn profile touts his experience in microbiology.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/chetanhebbale
DanTex
(20,709 posts)blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)He suggests that Bernie Sanders shot himself in the foot when he said, "Enough about your damn emails" and that if she is indicted someone like Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren will be able to step in a fill her shoes.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)You guys are nothing but consistent. Tell us what's wrong with the article, if you want.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)people here are just buying into the pro-Trump talking points so easily.
revbones
(3,660 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)Don't bring Trump into this, the media has him covered far too much already...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but his a really smart under-grad ... he's a double major!
Well, I generally don't form my opinions on legal issues ... by consulting non-lawyers (and then, only lawyers that practice in the area in question) ... just as I don't form medical opinions by consulting plumbers ... even really smart plumbers.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)from a broad range of the political spectrum.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)Would you mind messaging me some of these pieces?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)ad hominem attack completely unsupported by any credible legal opinion is the lowest form of journalism. He has a right to his opinions, but that does not make this anything other than typical Internet ranting contained in a Wordpress, ($13 a year for the site) format. At least he could have paid more for the version with more features.
Will his next issue talk about the HRC/ Vince Foster love child?
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)But being able to formulate a coherent, readable argument does not make the argument credible, nor does it give the author any legal expertise. The author has read things that lead him to believe in his premise, but can his premise be defended in a court of law?
I might be convinced that Oswald did not act alone, but my mere conviction, no matter how sincerely held, and no matter how much circumstantial evidence I use to buttress it, does not constitute proof.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)No one can pursue it other than the Attorney General Loretta Lynch and no one other than the President of the United States Obama can determine the ultimate outcome of this "criminal" investigation.
What other extensive articles have you read? Message me if you don't mind.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)the LA Times has covered this, and The Nation. But the point is that saying something in the court of internet/media opinion is different from proving something in court.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)this "work" regularly makes its way onto DU (with 100s of views and recs); while, and the "work" of identified experts, using identified sources, citing to current law, is routinely, ignored.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)....do you know what laws the FBI could use against her or her aides in this "criminal" investigation? I bet not. The post has at least a sparkle of knowledge that you had yet known.
I suggest you scroll to this section of the post:
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but for you to say this:
Has me questioning whether you did ... or, perhaps we have strongly differing opinions on what constitutes probative sources and evidence.
Notice any difference in the work I cited to you earlier ... and the piece you cite to?
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)Should Clinton be indicted?
Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.
Seems like if this moves forward someone else will take the fall....also this line, "at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified"......reeks.
Edit: I need time to cross reverence the laws both cite.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)...don't let one thing deter you from being an independent thinker.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)about investigative journalism or criminal law.
Time for change
(13,737 posts)If she gets indicted, we'd better hope that she doesn't get the Democratic nomination prior to that.
That would be like handing the Presidency to the Republicans.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I'm pretty confident that the Justice Department would not assign 147 agents to a case if they could not guarantee an indictment of someone. They do not have the resources to pursue frivolous investigations.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)and found there's sufficient there to proceed with discovery. She's in major trouble.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I would not be surprised to see strings pulled to absolve Hillary of any responsibility.
840high
(17,196 posts)blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,708 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,708 posts)OH, ROFL
revbones
(3,660 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,708 posts)The Washington Post has retracted its anonymously sourced claim that 147 FBI agents are detailed to the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, and is now reporting that the real number is fewer than 50. Media outlets trumpeted the Post's report of the supposedly "staggering" number of FBI agents working the investigation as bad news for Clinton.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/29/washington-post-corrects-faulty-report-that-nea/209615
revbones
(3,660 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,708 posts)OH, "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY" IS A BEDROCK PRINCIPLE OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE.
revbones
(3,660 posts)But you go ahead and yell more if it makes you feel better.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)That could well indicate the FBI findings are on Comey's desk awaiting his review and decision. Save your LOLs. We will see soon.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)For instance if they call for indictment and the DOJ Loretta Lynch denies to look into it, he'll step down as head of the FBI.
840high
(17,196 posts)happen - there will be leaks.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)The October Surprise.
Jimmy Carter could explain it better than you or me!
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)
thereismore
(13,326 posts)email accounts." That's not why she used a private server.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)thereismore
(13,326 posts)were her ultimate downfall? The man she was forbidden to employ at State for being a giant asshole, by none other than the President.
Response to blueintelligentsia (Original post)
pdsimdars This message was self-deleted by its author.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,708 posts)I stopped when he said he wasn't a lawyer.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)"must read for DEMOCRATS".
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)under-graduate, Microbiology and Economics majors, with no legal training!
I hate to shoot the messenger; but, damn ... why would anyone take this piece seriously?
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,708 posts)Here is a great piece by theEric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology emeritus at the University of Michigan.
http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis.
This is quite comical, too:
Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck Mar 28
Having the temerity to suggest that it's not crystal clear that Hillary Clinton violated the Espionage Act sure brings out the trolls...
Stephen I. Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) is a Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law. His teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, and national security law. A nationally recognized expert on the role of the federal courts in the war on terrorism, Vladeck’s prolific and widely cited scholarship has appeared in an array of legal publications—including the Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal — and his popular writing has been published in forums ranging from the New York Times to BuzzFeed. Vladeck, who is a co-editor of Aspen Publishers’ leading national security law and counterterrorism law casebooks, frequently represents parties or amici in litigation challenging government counterterrorism policies, and has authored reports on related topics for a wide range of organizations—including the First Amendment Center, the Constitution Project, and the ABA’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security.
Professor Vladeck has won numerous awards for his teaching, his scholarship, and his service to the law school. He is an elected member of the American Law Institute, a senior editor of the peer-reviewed Journal of National Security Law and Policy, co-editor in-chief of the Just Security blog, a senior contributor to the Lawfare blog, the Supreme Court Fellow at the Constitution Project, and a fellow at the Center on National Security at Fordham University School of Law.
https://www.wcl.american.edu/faculty/vladeck/
Oh, he's also a member of the conservative Federalist society.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,708 posts)And I am well within my rights to ignore the musings about the law by someone without any training in it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'll stick with the opinion of the under-grad, double major guy. But thanks!
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)...something I fear a lot of folks on here lack. Just because he isn't a lawyer, doesn't mean his blog post should be automatically discredited, do you need a law degree to know if someone is guilty? Sure to argue in a court of law, but to discuss what is publicly available with your own intelligence and common sense, that's worth a read any day. Don't say I didn't warn you that in the next couple months (when HRC most likely secures the nomination) this "emailgate scandal" will surface to the detriment of all democrats.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,708 posts)If my lap top breaks I'm not taking it Midas Muffler.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,708 posts)I will defer to the wisdom of two distinguished law professors on the matter of law and you can defer to the wisdom of a microbiology major. However I would defer to him in a discussion of epidemics.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)....read the article if you want to be able to accurately comment on it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,708 posts)I did a cursory review and the one legal expert he cites, Dan Abrams, says she didn't break the law.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)The article is interesting, but the author's opinion is a non-professional opinion. If he was a recognize expert in this particular area of the law that would give his opinion some weight. But he admittedly has no investigative or legal training. So why should I, or anyone, accept that his opinion is valid?
I will concede that he, and possibly you, might truly believe that this article is correct in analysis and implication, but I also submit that all of this speculation has no probative value.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)Whether or not the FBI deems any of the sources cited as evidence in the post is still to be announced. We are all speculating based solely on the 30,000 emails released that were cited, legal experts that weigh in without knowing what the investigation is uncovering, and articles saying she won't be indicted or will. Everyone is speculating, but this post, was the most comprehensive I have seen, it goes deeper then any distinguished legal expert I've read and seeks the truth, IMO, from a very objective position. Regardless, the FBI has the ball in their court, we'll all have to wait and see what they do.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)As well as that of the nation.
Should she secure the Party's nomination, and this multi-faceted matter is standing over her head, the Republicans will do what they can to have this erupt in a most vicious manner in terms of an October surprise.
Which in the worst case (for her) situation, might mean that she would be indicted and would not be eligible to be President.
Failing an indictment before the election, let's say this legal matter is forestalled, and then it ends up growing as a scandal, a la Watergate as that legal matter did in 1973 and 1974.
I can remember quite clearly the Republican Party and all its minions telling us Democrats that here was nothing to see and no possible serious outcome for The President.
That all proved untrue in August of 1974 when Nixon resigned.
It is so very tragic that this Party of ours, once the very brand of FDR, JFK, Johnson's many policies and Jimmy Carter, is not willing to objectively view Mrs Clinton as someone who could bring the party down. The "smack down" could be what awaits us should HRC be the candidate and Trump takes the win.
Or even worse, this entire matter of the email situation might become, after her election to the Oval Office, of such great and magnificent fury that it ends her political career, and I have to hope that if that happens it is Mr Sanders who is the Vice President!
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)HRC could drop out leaving her delegates to Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren. I think only Warren would be able to fill her shoes because of the backlash from over 40% of democrats who voted for Bernie Sanders. If there is an indictment, I hope it happens before the convention, we don't want another watergate scandal.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)So if things go the way I am hoping, it won't matter in terms of the Oval Office as to this particular scandal of Hillary's.
If she did get in and this scandal became another Watergate, I would see it as a good thing.
So many good things came about due to Watergate. We got the Church hearings, and a limit to the CIA. Carter's Presidency came about due to Watergate.
And the whole matter of situations circa 2002-2008 - wherein a Diane Feinstein uses her knowledge from secret Congressional committees to benefit her spouse's construction company's dealings in Iraq, which made them super super filthy rich, that should be forbidden. But most Americans do not know about these things.
And so too the situation between Blumenthal and HRC should become public knowledge. We have to make it very hard for such deals to go down. Killing off humanity and inflating a military budget that kills off the socia lservice/infrastructure end of our budget needs to be limited if not outright banned. AND BOO Hoo Hoo if it means the Bushes and the Clintons and the Feinsteins are not that much richer!
Did you see the post here on DU the other day about how one faction in the Mideast is being funded by the CIA and they are fighting against a second group of people there, also funded by the CIA!
questionseverything
(11,680 posts)it's the cia funding one group and the defense department funding the other
we are officially at war with ourselves
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)January 20.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)
2cannan
(344 posts)Anyone who has experience working for a state or federal government knows that email communications become part of the public record and that those files are backed up and kept forever. She was also trained in how to communicate classified material. She was being paid to be our secretary of state! We had a right to know how she conducted business on our behalf. And that she was following the guidelines for securely transmitting classified information. When she had the personal email server set up she was saying in effect that her right to keep her personal and foundation business private was more important than the job we were paying her to do (that or she didn't want anyone to have access to the records). To me it shows she is either highly incompetent or devious--neither of which are qualities I want in a president.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)In June 2013, the company took Clinton’s server from her home in New York and transferred it to a secure facility in New Jersey. It was here the data from her original server was “migrated” to a new server for the purpose of making the transition to Platte River Networks.
Unsurprisingly, Platte River Networks did not have clearance to handle classified government information. A spokeswoman for an agency within the Defense Department that vets companies for security clearances said her office had not extended one to Platte River Networks.
MineralMan
(150,888 posts)Hell, I'm a blogger, too. Do you believe me? Just because you agree with something does not mean it is true.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)thereismore
(13,326 posts)pretty sure there is a grand jury. Now I know this is very seriously happening. Either Hillary or that snake Blumenthal are getting indicted.
Tarc
(10,597 posts) blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)Tarc
(10,597 posts)I'm sorry that Sanders' chances are fading, but, reaching (grasping, actually) for right-win talking points won't make up ground.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Tarc
(10,597 posts)This is also an interesting one;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511614730
Expand the voter list and look who voted "I hate you".
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)Lately, do you log off this website angry or happy?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511614730
Most voted for:
1. This site is a cesspool
2. Our primary season is a joke
I'd agree with the latter, didn't vote in the poll, but it is far too long.
Kali
(56,701 posts)aren't you friends?
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)in pushing for regime change in Syria, Libya, Honduras, which all turned out to be massive humanitarian needless disasters.