This message was self-deleted by its author

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

This message was self-deleted by its author (CompanyFirstSergeant) on Sat Apr 23, 2016, 09:49 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Raster]

1. Thank you!

[reformist2]

102. I ignored this story at first. Now I think Hillary was grossly negligent in her duties as SOS.

[Rockyj]

158. Thank you for your honesty & group hug is deserved

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Well said. K&R

[DanTex]

3. Hillary's email server got people killed now? This keeps getting more bizarre.

[DanTex]

9. LOL.

[Mother Of Four]

44. You're wasting your breath with that poster -

And I'm pretty darn sure your supposition is correct otherwise he would have seen just how bad that little "LOL" made him look.

There are more and more progressives in, out and retired from the military than he cares to either understand or acknowledge.

[Gothmog]

22. You mean e-mails about NYT stories on drones?

These charges are really funny. The so call beyond top secret information is material in news reports http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

“Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.”

The State Department is likely to persist in its contention that some information the intelligence community claimed was “top secret” because it related to North Korean nuclear tests was actually the product of “parallel reporting” that did not rely on classified intelligence products and so should not be treated as highly classified, the official said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985#ixzz3xvQpGCwW

E-mails discussing material in the Washington Post are not top secret or SAP.

Thank you for the laughs

[Press Virginia]

110. Hate to break the news to you but Hillary doesn't get to ignore

the rules related to classified information just because it was in the NY Times or elsewhere

[JoePhilly]

20. What do you think happened to Vince Foster?

Hillary's server, never hacked ... got people killed.

Official GOV servers ... hacked by foreign governments, and more data stolen and released released by Snowden, Manning ... awesome!!!!!

Up is down. Down is up.

[MoonRiver]

4. Do you think Joe Biden is fit to be president?

[MoonRiver]

25. Well, how about John Kerry then?

According to your logic, both men should also be responsible for the loss of American lives. Btw, I was solidly against the IWR, but I have moved on, and believe HRC is the most qualified person to become our next president.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6512299

[MoonRiver]

32. Do you trust the FBI?

If they exonerate Secretary Clinton, will you be satisfied that she is innocent of wrong doing?

[MoonRiver]

43. Must be nice to be a psychic.

[MoonRiver]

48. exonerate...

ex·on·er·ate
iɡˈzänəˌrāt/
verb
past tense: exonerated; past participle: exonerated
1.
(especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.
"the court-martial exonerated me"
synonyms: absolve, clear, acquit, find innocent, discharge; formalexculpate
"the inquiry exonerated them"
2.
release someone from (a duty or obligation).
synonyms: release, discharge, free, liberate;

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instan

t&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=exonerated%20meaning

What is the point of the FBI investigating Hillary's emails, if not to find her guilty, or not, of something?

[Bubzer]

60. *Gasp* Using facts to back up your position... you should be ashamed!

Don't you know it's Her turn?

[Bubzer]

70. Oh, no...thank you for posting this... and for being willing to endure GD:P

[mindwalker_i]

106. Dude, I'm quite impressed by you

The way you simply stated, "X is not the point at all," to the myriad of attempts to divert you into stupid, meaningless dead ends shows a significant strength of character and focus. Rock on!

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

108. Thank you

for your support

[MoonRiver]

64. That term is not limited to cases of court martial, of course. But I think you digress.

Hillary has won millions more popular votes than Bernie. I believe the voters ARE deciding.

[notadmblnd]

128. No and no.

nt

[merrily]

55. How swell that you moved on from the Iraq War because your candidate voted for it.

Lots of people just can't move on from the IWR, or from the needless devastation and costs of that war to America, to Iraq and to the Middle East.

[Voice for Peace]

65. Especially hard for the thousands who are dead to move on.

[merrily]

68. Maybe more so for the maimed in mind and body and the loved ones of the dead and maimed.

Or Iraqi kids sold into slavery.

At least the dead are, one hopes, out of misery.

[Voice for Peace]

73. ...

I hope there is a Ghost of Interventions Past
who will awaken Hilary in the night and
'splain a few things to her.

[merrily]

62. Did Kerry sneak into this primary while I was having lunch? Damn. You can't look away for a sec.

[geek tragedy]

26. Do you think Barack Obama is fit for the office of President?

Benghazi happened on his watch, and he was Commander in Chief.

[Blanks]

90. Will you vote for Hillary if she is the nominee?

[Hoyt]

5. Is your support for Sanders influenced by your love of guns?

[rhett o rick]

13. That's a funny one. I expected a Sanders supporter to say that because it is so absurdly typical

of the desperation the Clinton campaign. But good for a laugh. We all know how Sanders feels about guns.

Why do I picture your candidate being lead away in handcuffs and the supporters yelling, "but, but, Sanders didn't put enough change in the parking meter."

[merrily]

57. +1 That would never happen. Sanders would put in the right amount!

[floppyboo]

15. read something recently on liability of something

so chrystler was held responsible for faulty air bags, but not for a drunken driver of one of their products. If you purchase a malfunctioning gun that kills someone indisputably by accident, does Sanders think the manufacturer should be held responsible? Or is it more like the drunken driver? I don't know the details. But I think that would be an important distinction for me as to why he rejected the bill.

[jmg257]

39. If it was a faulty product, the manufacturer should be liable. Nothing about the law

says they can not be sued. It protects manufacturers and dealers from liability when their products/products they sell legally are mis-used.

[Hoyt]

92. Actually, there is justification for liability when manufacturers advertise that their rifle is the

best sniper rifle available, their gunz make you a man, their weapons will help you survive urban warfare, etc. Not to mention gun shows and gun stores who play up to white folks fears in selling their product. Not much different from cigarettes. But, Sanders helped enact legislation to avoid that. Gun corporations are big in New England.

There is a reason most Gungeoneers support Sanders.

[jmg257]

113. And what justification, based on advertising, would that be?

One rifle may actually be the best sniper rifle. One might be most favored by the military.

While "reissuing your man-card" is indeed a silly slogan, why does that constitute liability?

[Hoyt]

120. Why do you need a sniper rifle in America, which is not a war zone?

[jmg257]

121. I don't need one as a civlian. As a police officer, or dept, I may very well.

And basically having the "best" would typically constitute or confer the most accurate, the most reliable, etc... Highly desirable traits, in rifles, for hunting, target shooting, law enforcement.

Like so many things which are advertised, having the best matters to many.

What is the liability developed from such advertising?

[Hoyt]

122. Best, meant best to shoot someone at 200 yards. Why would you need to do that?

Why would you promote that? Why does someone need a tactical rifle in the USA?

[jmg257]

123. See previous post...most points there can apply to tactical rifles also.

BTW - hitting a target at 200 yards isn't very far...

National Matches at Camp Perry:

"You shoot a National Match Course; 10 rounds Off Hand, 10 rounds two hundred-yard rapid-fire, 10 rounds three hundred yard rapid fire and 20 rounds are fired at six hundred yards slow fire. No sighters are given in this match. Again it will take all day to shoot the 50 rounds.

if you are a long range only shooter or are shooting both the Championships and long-range, you shoot 1,000 yds Iron Sights, Individual in the morning and a four man team in the afternoon. On Saturday August 14th you shoot 1,000 yds. Scopes may be used on the rifle if you have one"


What liability is/was developed by advertising?

[jmg257]

125. Ha thanks! You know how I love a good argument...THIS one on the other hand is typical goofiness.

BTW - Sorry for side tracking your thread - very good OP!
Figuring the kicks were a good thing!

[jmg257]

130. LOL! George Washington would think so!..We will definitely go head to head in that!

Still digging the 'un/organized transition' point you made.

[janlea]

6. Thanks

Thank you and your daughter for your service. From my heart.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

11. Thank you.

[grossproffit]

12. Kicking and screaming.

[rhett o rick]

14. I like that comment. nm

[beaglelover]

18. Cool story 'bro!!!!

[merrily]

59. Could not be lamer or more played out, or less applicable to the OP. Please do better.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

77. Thank you...

for your support.

[beaglelover]

85. You mad 'bro???

[merrily]

89. Poster, please. I may as well get mad at an empty barrel.

But I do apologize for assuming you were capable of doing better. Guess not.

[geek tragedy]

23. You certainly agree that the Benghazi circus is completely ridiculous, correct?

That the accusations against her regarding Benghazi are purely politically motivated?

[geek tragedy]

29. so you blame Hillary Clinton for the deaths in Benghazi. That's correct? nt

[pnwmom]

33. Yes, something bad happened, and she took full responsibility. But please tell me which President

has never had any deaths on his watch.

And please tell us what she didn't do that she should have done, that would have prevented the deaths -- since that failed to be revealed in 11 hours of public testimony?

[Human101948]

37. What about those officers in charge when thousands of Americans died in Iraq? Afghanistan?

What was their responsibility?

[Human101948]

54. You're not foolling anyone...

Just spewing hot air.

[jillan]

80. Did you seriously just diss him & question his service to our country?

Wow.

How low are some of you willing to go in your blind loyalty to Hill?

[beaglelover]

86. Anybody can be ANYTHING they want on the internet. Why do you believe him no questions asked?

[beaglelover]

141. I apologize for doubting you. Thank you for your service to our country.

[Human101948]

116. I am a Bernie supporter...he was pontificating about his leadership responsibilities...

but can't answer a simple follow-up question.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

126. Yes I can...

...but I will not do so here.

As a NonCommissioned officer (retired) it is not my place to question officers unless they are about to either violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Convention, or are about to put soldiers under my command at unnecessary risk.

I will not answer questions about Obama, either, as I served while he was C-in-C.

Loyalty - it's one of the Army values.

[Human101948]

145. Your freedom of speech,however, is not restricted if you are retired

That's your choice.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

146. True.

I will not criticize the people I reported to, no matter my political opinion.

I was not deployed overseas, so I will not express personal feelings about overseas wars.

What I will do....

I'll will express my concern for those I care about deeply.

My future son-in-law is most likely about to be deployed to Iraq.

If anything happens to him, it will be another tragedy in a senseless adventure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. Actually Americas did die

as well as HUMINT assets That said Benghazi is a side show... where the United States Congress shares coequal responsibly, if not more. (Historians will conclude this) Why? Who controls the money for security at Embassies and Consulates? The House. Who requested that money which was not approved? The State Department under yes, SoS Clinton.

That said the IG reports do point to the possible loss of HUMINT assets of the United States, which will make recruiting others that much harder.

[pnwmom]

28. There is a huge difference between your position and hers, and that is why you're impressing no one.

As the head of the agency, the buck stops with her. She is the person under Federal law who gets to decide whether any particular State department document gets classified or declassified.

If she says it should get classified, it is. If she says, time to declassify it, that's her call. She is not by law capable of making an error in the State Department classification. She literally sets the standard.

Now that she is no longer head, and in response to a FOIA request, analysts in another department were reading everything over and second-guessing her agency's decisions, and this is resulting in some retroactive classification.

But that doesn't mean she did anything wrong. There has never been the slightest bit of reliable evidence that she was responsible for any then-classified document being sent or received on a non-classified system.

[pdsimdars]

76. And isn't it true that whether or not it is "marked", that has nothing to do with it.

It is about the CONTENT of the message. If it is about methods, assets or something else (I don't remember). If a message is about our methods of gathering information, it is classified, whether or not it is marked. And anyone trained will know by the CONTENT whether or not it is a classified document.
Some of the messages they found were of the very top level of classification. If you send a message about a mole we have in some country, whether or not it is marked as a classified document, you should know that it is because of the nature of the information.

I also heard, from people who know about this, that when she said she never sent anything marked "classified" it was a Clinton word game because no government has ever been marked "classified". They are marked as "secret" or "top secret", or other but NOT "classified".

[Samantha]

95. That is absolutely true -- the literal content determines whether or not the info is classified

The affixing of a label on top is often for the benefit of others to whom the information might be passed.

It is also true that she is responsible for the acts of those assigned to work for her under the principle of Respondeat Superior.

But simply moving away from everything we have read or heard so far, and putting aside the political for the moment, here is the salient question for me: knowing what we know now, is this the person we want in charge of our national security? I do not understand how anyone could answer that question affirmatively in light of everything we have learned.

Sam

[pnwmom]

101. No, you have misunderstood the law. As head of the agency, she is the person who makes

all determinations on agency documents. She has the authority to classify or declassify, based on Federal regulations.


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

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

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

Richard O. Lempert, University of Michigan Professor of Law and Sociology and former Department of Homeland Security classification expert

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

SNIP

What determines whether information is classified?

Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority
Standards for classifying information and procedures to be followed are found in EO 15326 and elaborated on in later regulations. The regulations provide that information “may be originally classified” only if classified by an “original classification authority” and if certain conditions relating to the source of the information and the need to protect it are met. The regulations also provide that “f there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority and those in the department who had original classification authority had it only by virtue of a delegation from her. As the font of their authority Clinton could legally override any classification determination a subordinate made.

These standards make it difficult to conclude that Clinton violated any law regarding the disclosure of classified information. As indicated by the word “may,” which I italicized, the regulations do not require that any information, no matter how sensitive, be classified. They also indicate that when in doubt information should not be classified or should be classified at the lowest level consistent with national security. Not only was Secretary Clinton the ultimate authority within the State Department to determine whether State Department information should be classified, but she was also the ultimate authority in determining whether classified information should be declassified. Moreover, declassification when done at the highest level appears to require no formal procedure. Indeed, we have a history of high-level officials engaging in “instant declassification,” most notably by leaking classified information to the press for political or strategic advantage. Since the leakers are typically speaking off the record or on deep background, some disclosures may have been made by people lacking the authority to declassify information, instantly or otherwise. No such leaker has been criminally prosecuted, and so long as the authorization to reveal classified information was approved at the cabinet level, it is unlikely that anyone could be.

[pdsimdars]

111. I don't think I agree with your premise.

If a message is about our methods or assets, etc. say it's about a mole we have in the middle east, I don't think that just because she is the head of the State Department, she can just say, "no, I deem this not classified" and send it on a non-secure network to people without clearance. That seems absurd to me on its face.
I think you are wrong.

[pnwmom]

112. The person you disagree with literally wrote the book on classification for Homeland Security.

And what he says makes sense, given the wording of the Federal statutes.

[pnwmom]

99. Wrong. There is no information the content of which absolutely requires classification.

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

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

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

Richard O. Lempert, University of Michigan Professor of Law and Sociology and former Department of Homeland Security classification expert

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

SNIP

What determines whether information is classified?

Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority
Standards for classifying information and procedures to be followed are found in EO 15326 and elaborated on in later regulations. The regulations provide that information “may be originally classified” only if classified by an “original classification authority” and if certain conditions relating to the source of the information and the need to protect it are met. The regulations also provide that “f there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority and those in the department who had original classification authority had it only by virtue of a delegation from her. As the font of their authority Clinton could legally override any classification determination a subordinate made.

These standards make it difficult to conclude that Clinton violated any law regarding the disclosure of classified information. As indicated by the word “may,” which I italicized, the regulations do not require that any information, no matter how sensitive, be classified. They also indicate that when in doubt information should not be classified or should be classified at the lowest level consistent with national security. Not only was Secretary Clinton the ultimate authority within the State Department to determine whether State Department information should be classified, but she was also the ultimate authority in determining whether classified information should be declassified. Moreover, declassification when done at the highest level appears to require no formal procedure. Indeed, we have a history of high-level officials engaging in “instant declassification,” most notably by leaking classified information to the press for political or strategic advantage. Since the leakers are typically speaking off the record or on deep background, some disclosures may have been made by people lacking the authority to declassify information, instantly or otherwise. No such leaker has been criminally prosecuted, and so long as the authorization to reveal classified information was approved at the cabinet level, it is unlikely that anyone could be.

[pnwmom]

98. What you remember from years ago is wrong, no matter how pricey. The agency head can declassify

any agency document. The only person who could then overrule her is the President -- and there is zero indication that he ever did.

http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/appendix/12958.html

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority.

(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

As agency head, she was the person with the ultimate authority to classify or declassify all State info. So her determination was the only thing that mattered -- unless President Obama chose to overrule her.

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

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

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

Richard O. Lempert, University of Michigan Professor of Law and Sociology and former Department of Homeland Security classification expert

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

SNIP

What determines whether information is classified?
Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority

Standards for classifying information and procedures to be followed are found in EO 15326 and elaborated on in later regulations. The regulations provide that information “may be originally classified” only if classified by an “original classification authority” and if certain conditions relating to the source of the information and the need to protect it are met. The regulations also provide that “f there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority and those in the department who had original classification authority had it only by virtue of a delegation from her. As the font of their authority Clinton could legally override any classification determination a subordinate made.

These standards make it difficult to conclude that Clinton violated any law regarding the disclosure of classified information. As indicated by the word “may,” which I italicized, the regulations do not require that any information, no matter how sensitive, be classified. They also indicate that when in doubt information should not be classified or should be classified at the lowest level consistent with national security. Not only was Secretary Clinton the ultimate authority within the State Department to determine whether State Department information should be classified, but she was also the ultimate authority in determining whether classified information should be declassified. Moreover, declassification when done at the highest level appears to require no formal procedure. Indeed, we have a history of high-level officials engaging in “instant declassification,” most notably by leaking classified information to the press for political or strategic advantage. Since the leakers are typically speaking off the record or on deep background, some disclosures may have been made by people lacking the authority to declassify information, instantly or otherwise. No such leaker has been criminally prosecuted, and so long as the authorization to reveal classified information was approved at the cabinet level, it is unlikely that anyone could be.

[madville]

132. That's just State Department information

That she had classifying authority over, it had to originate from State. One of the problems with this case is that a good bit of the classified information did not originate with the State Department, some of it was taken word-for-word from CIA and NSA briefs.

Whoever transferred that information that originated from other agencies over onto Hillary's system could be in some major trouble. Whether it was appropriately marked or not is immaterial to this point.

[pnwmom]

136. No, you are still wrong. There has never been any evidence that documents classified

by other agencies were on her server. Just a bunch of anonymous claims and rumors spread by Rethugs and other over-excited Hillary haters.

She used the classified system to handle classified documents, and other people handling these documents used the classified system to send them to her -- on her classified system. The classified system wasn't set up to allow the sender to send them outside the system.

[pnwmom]

138. Yes, and that will happen soon. n/t

[pnwmom]

135. And there is no evidence, just GOP smears repeated by endless DUers, that info classified by other

agencies was improperly stored on her server, or transmitted from or to her.

She used the classified system for classified info, and anyone else in government would have sent classified documents through that system.

[Aerows]

97. "You're impressing no one"

Speak for your damn self, not for me.

[BernieforPres2016]

31. Thanks for your service and also for your daughter's service

And thanks for your straight talk on this issue.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

79. Thank you

[840high]

35. K/R

[jcgoldie]

41. I'm tired of hearing about her damn emails

-Bernie Sanders

[k8conant]

56. So am I...

indict already!

[merrily]

61. Not what he said, and also completely out of context. Thanks anyway.

[jcgoldie]

105. Its a direct quote nt

[merrily]

109. Nope. But totally out of context, yes.

[NurseJackie]

49. Hoo boy!

[beaglelover]

88. Exactly! I love to laugh at these clowns!

[PaulaFarrell]

107. do you actually think that gif shows Hillary in a good light

I see it and I cringe for her

[Peace Patriot]

142. I was thinking, "We came, we saw, he died!" followed by her gleeful laugh.

No thought whatever for the tens of thousands of people killed, displaced, orphaned, raped, as a result of the chaos she was party to, in Libya. Same in Honduras. Women taking the worst hit from RW death squads and rapists. Gays also targeted. Both have been notable in the democracy movement leadership in Honduras. Clinton was behind that destabilization as well.

Some feminist.

[sadoldgirl]

51. I don't think that she will be indicted,

because the powerful and rich never do.
However, I wonder whether they will throw
Huma Abedin under the bus to satisfy
the over curious.

[Scuba]

52. There's so many good reasons to not want Hillary as our President it's hard to list them all.

[procon]

53. Your "Rationale" is flawed.

There's so many emotional assumptions, conjectures, theories and suspicions interlaced around your personal opinions, it's hard to find anything serious here. If you are really trying to make a "cogent argument", which is not apparent by the way, you may want to avoid alienating your intended audience by claiming a superior, patronizing moral authority and touting these fantastic crystalball visions.

I still hope Bernie can yet pull a rabbit out the hat, and if he does manage to beat the odds, then the Democrats must unite and coalesce around the nominee to defeat the Republicans. To win the presidency, Bernie Sanders will need to earn the votes of every Democratic voter, including all the ones you're so intent on alienating. It's like you're stacking the deck against him. Good job.

[merrily]

67. LOL! I so love unintentional irony. Thanks.

[JudyM]

71. Good post. The 'not knowing' is not a defense because she sent an email through

the State Dept instructing them about email security.

How is it *not* gross negligence to use an unsecured server for state dept business, to have that server handled by a repair company that didn't have clearance, etc??

[TM99]

72. Extremely well stated.

You are correct that no one is listening. They need to do so. They ought to do so.

I understand exactly what you are saying about leadership and responsibility. As a commissioned officer, I was not responsible for things involving combat. I was, however, responsible for patients - for the wounded men and women whom I helped to transition back to civilian life after they were wounded physically and mentally. Those who were my subordinates expected me to be responsible for them and our work day in and day out as well. That responsibility was ethical as well as professional.

She is not fit to be president, and it angers and saddens me that she could even be a possibility for that position.

Thank you!

[TM99]

93. I am a bit older it seems.

I enlisted as an E4 91 Bravo.

After I got my first graduate degree in psychology, I got my commission, still a few years before the transition to 68 Whiskey occurred.

Thank you, Sergeant.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

78. Not fit? But Cruz or Trump are? Cant take you seriously.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

83. But, if Hillary is the nominee, and I hope she isnt, those are the choices, are they not?

[smiley]

84. Well said.

Thank you for this reasonable post and your service.

[jillan]

87. Thank you CompanyFirstSergeant for an excellent and compelling OP.

I really appreciate you sharing your perspective.

And for you and your daughter's service to our country, doing what the large majority of us DUers have never done.

[Tarc]

91. Still carrying water for the Republicans, as the Sanders camps has nothing left to run on

The Sanders camp is basically parroting Howard Kurtz, barking up a mad, pointless tree for political gain.

There is just falsehood after falsehood being tossed about the DU, most notably in the Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People mess. Perhaps it was an ill-advised decision to use a private email server but it was not against the law, and nothing she did while using it was illegal.

The law being bandied about here has a bar of "gross misconduct", which is a very high bar to meet. Gen Petraeus gave secrets to his mistress so she could write a book, and received a misdemeanor and a fine. Sandy Berger stuffed documents down his shorts and received the same. This is much, much less than either of those.

You can't even get mad anymore at Camp Sanders for bringing this up over and over; their candidate being in such an impossible hole would make anyone desperate. Personally, I just feel pity at this point.

[synergie]

94. You really do enjoy your RW fanfic, huh? Also, you do realize that the senators

funding the wars you blame solely on one person, would also shoulder some of that moral responsibility, right? If you believe that Hillary got Americans killed, how much blood must your moral, righteous heart ascribe to Bernie, who was in office longer and voting for things that also cost many lives, including those you blame the one woman you hate so very much for?

[TM99]

104. Yes, because nothing screams

compassion more than not funding the troops after the neocons, including Clinton, sent them to an illegitimate war!

Not only did Clinton vote for it, she stood up and parroted the Bush Co justifications word for word from Saddam having nukes to Al Queda being in Iraq.

That is huge fucking difference, but I know you can't, no won't see it.

[noiretextatique]

144. It's out there for the world to see

And she did parrot Bush, almost verbatim. I really don't understand this need to claim she didn't, when there is a video of her doing it! It's not a smear or a rw talking point. I have never seen anything quite like this need to exempt her from her own words and actions.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

100. K n R

My oldest is active Nat Guard and i can't agree with you more

[greymouse]

103. She got plenty of other innocents killed as well.

Civilians in Iraq, civilians in Libya. Not even to count the people wounded who survived.

Bernie is not a warmonger. That alone is reason to vote for him. This eternal, perpetual war is crazy.

[noiretextatique]

143. Add Honduras eom

[felix_numinous]

114. K&R well written

You've written a lot of reports Yes it looks like these people's defense is in being legally technically correct--yet without being ethically correct they have no merit. Amazing to see how many people are invested in defending these deplorable practices--and can't help but wonder how they are invested.

Agreed most on DU sound like they've made up their minds, yet there must be countless lurkers too who may be undecided or misinformed. This election is a learning process for many people.

Cheers

[azmom]

115. Kick

[amborin]

118. knr at least one of the emails was so sensitive it could not be released;

[pantsonfire]

119. Ok....

[Peace Patriot]

139. Well, some Clinton supporters might not listen but they are not typical voters...

...nor typical Democrats. Indeed, we have some very a-typical Democrats here at DU who support Clinton and who put both fingers in their ears at any criticism of Clinton whatsoever. I'm a 50+ year Democratic voter and activist, and this behavior is NOT typical of Democrats in my experience, though it does seem to be typical of Clinton supporters here, at DU.

So I would say: Remember this--we have a lot of "lurkers" here at DU. I don't mean that negatively. I mean people who don't participate in this forum, and are just curious people looking for information, for instance, trying to do some research before they vote.

Post your OPs and comments for THEM. They will see quickly enough which OPs and comments have integrity and which don't, which ones are useful, informative, well-documented and detailed, and which are not useful to them in their search for info.

I agree with you that Clinton's cavalier attitude toward national security alone disqualifies her from the presidency. I happen to believe that she didn't take these enormous risks to her own reputation and potential criminal liability, for no reason. I think she had a reason. She set up her private server, outside of government security channels and (she thought) immune to FOIA laws, to assist her pay-to-play deals with the Clinton Foundation. (Foreign governments like the Saudis wanted a U.S. arms deal on favorable terms from Sec Clinton, they donated million$ to the Clinton Foundation.) She even installed one of her foreign policy advisers, Sydney Blumenthal--whom President Obama had banned from the State Dept.--AT the Clinton Foundation, with a fat salary, and communicated with him covertly on her private server, on foreign policy matters.

The unelected Republicans in our 8%-approval-rating Congress didn't pursue this because they APPROVE of "pay-to-play." It doesn't strike them as WRONG. They blamed her for the embassy deaths--a safe topic (not $$$-related).

The FBI/DOJ are another matter--or MAY BE another matter. They DO look at MOTIVE. Whether they are doing so for one of the "rich and powerful" is an open question. Look at the people they HAVEN'T prosecuted! (Dick Cheney/Halliburton, gawd!) Still, the corruption that Clinton was likely engaged in may have turned Comey's stomach. (He's a "law and order" guy, by reputation.) I don't think he would keep this "sword of Damocles" hanging over the Democratic "front-runner" for sloppy security. He just said it might go into the summer; that is, the FBI may not issue its report by mid-May, which I think they promised not long ago. It's going to go on. Why?

The security issues are pretty straightforward, as far as we peons can tell. Her private server was hackable; she used it for State Dept. work, including classified docs. Who is responsible for that? And is obstruction of justice involved? These are pretty clear legal issues. A lot of emails to review, yes, but they've had a year and more. Whatever the political pressures on them, why don't they do SOMETHING to remove the cloud from the Election? Indict, don't indict. Censure, don't censure. Exonerate, don't exonerate. Why is this so-o-o drawn out, if they are not looking at something ELSE (i.e., what the private server was used FOR)? Corruption is a much more difficult matter to investigate, I would think. And Clinton corruption is like an octopus with many tentacles.

Anyway, don't stop posting on this matter at DU. The Clinton supporters here are mostly airheads. They aren't interested in substance, and they strike me as, for the most part, not even Democrats. The Democrats I've known, over 50+ years of Democratic activism, are intelligent, interested in facts, enjoy knowing policy detail and arguing about it, support pro-people policies and don't at all like the corruption of our political system that has occurred over the last half century.

[BlueStateLib]

148. Vast majority of the now classified email's were sent to clintonmail.com

by 300 people that included her staff, career diplomats, senators.

[VulgarPoet]

149. Many thanks, Top

especially for succinctly summing up everything anyone with a clearance should know about. Thing is, I doubt anyone from the Clinton camp's ever had to send away one of their own to know what kind of shit's going on.

Many thanks.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

151. Truer words....

...ever had to send away one of their own...

Have never been spoken.

[VulgarPoet]

153. Much appreciation from this Airman, Top.

I've gotten to the point where on matters of military and national intelligence, I can tell when someone's talking out of their ass, and I don't pay attention to it anymore. These people don't listen. Because they're blessed to not have to have listened.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

156. Thank you.

I haven't heard that nickname in a few years.

[VulgarPoet]

157. Grew up in a primarily Army family.

They had to spend a year and a half beating that habit out of me.

[Betty Karlson]

150. Lots of respect for your excellent OP.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

152. Thank you.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

155. I get sick

listening to Hannity.

He's what is known as a Chicken Hawk.

Advocates aggression, never wore a uniform.