HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Would there be an FBI inv...

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:50 AM

Would there be an FBI investigation and numerous FOIA lawsuits if SoS had followed normal protocols

and requirement of the US government?

32 replies, 3592 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Would there be an FBI investigation and numerous FOIA lawsuits if SoS had followed normal protocols (Original post)
mmonk May 2016 OP
NWCorona May 2016 #1
scscholar May 2016 #31
6chars May 2016 #32
Demsrule86 May 2016 #2
CoffeeCat May 2016 #11
Bob41213 May 2016 #19
CoffeeCat May 2016 #25
enid602 May 2016 #26
Bob41213 May 2016 #29
JaneyVee May 2016 #3
mmonk May 2016 #4
FlatBaroque May 2016 #6
mmonk May 2016 #13
Bob41213 May 2016 #20
MisterP May 2016 #22
FlatBaroque May 2016 #5
emulatorloo May 2016 #8
JoePhilly May 2016 #7
cheapdate May 2016 #30
bigtree May 2016 #9
mmonk May 2016 #10
silvershadow May 2016 #14
TimPlo May 2016 #12
bigtree May 2016 #15
morningfog May 2016 #27
ieoeja May 2016 #16
amborin May 2016 #17
pdsimdars May 2016 #18
Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #21
DCBob May 2016 #23
mmonk May 2016 #24
msanthrope May 2016 #28

Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:50 AM

1. Nope!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #1)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:58 PM

31. Yes!

 

CONservatives don't care about facts. They'd still try to manufacture some sort of fake issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #31)

Fri May 6, 2016, 05:06 PM

32. to be fair, it would have been a different lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:52 AM

2. Let's see...there was no investigation of Rice or powell

Who sent emails concerning state...some later classified....through commercial email system like Google...been hacked on google three times myself. So I would say they would have found some other reason to attack Hillary...they always do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #2)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:38 AM

11. Powell and Rice never set up a private server

You are comparing apples and hockey pucks.

Powell and Rice sent a few private email messages, using their gmail and Yahoo accounts. Powell and Rice never set up a homebrew, unsecured server in their house and conducted all State business on it--without the knowledge of the President.

After all, the FBI is investigating Clinton's server. That's the issue here. Powell and Rice never used a personal server.

Furthermore, Powell and Rice never sent 2,000 emails, over an unsecure server, that were later deemed "classified". Powell and Rice never sent 22 emails, over a private, unsecure server, that were assigned the highest level of classification, "Top Secret or above Top Secret." These emails were deemed, by the State Department, to be too sensitive to be released.

What Powell and Rice did is far from what Clinton did. What Clinton did is unprecedented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #11)

Fri May 6, 2016, 01:08 PM

19. That needs to be emphasized because they keep repeating it...

Powell and Rice sent *a few* private email messages, using their gmail and Yahoo accounts.

Clinton setup a private server and *conducted all* State Department business on it.


I know it's part of the Clinton talking points that other people did it but it's very very inaccurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob41213 (Reply #19)

Fri May 6, 2016, 03:32 PM

25. It is inaccurate

and every time someone sees that bunk, it needs to be outed as the lie that it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #25)

Fri May 6, 2016, 03:44 PM

26. sec'y of defense

The SOD just stopped uding private emails in Feb of THIS year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enid602 (Reply #26)

Fri May 6, 2016, 03:55 PM

29. As their only email in gov?

So you're saying the SOD did not get a .gov email, and they used their own private PERSONAL server and routed EVERYTHING through that? And never used the classified network because they didn't have an account set up?

Or are you saying they used a private email address some of the time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:53 AM

3. Law was changed in 2014.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:55 AM

4. My second question is why didn't SoS Clinton follow normal protocols of the US government?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #4)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:59 AM

6. Answer:

She wanted to be on an equal footing as Obama. Her vanity is what guides her decision making.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Reply #6)

Fri May 6, 2016, 10:08 AM

13. Part of it I suppose. But I'm thinking deeper.

I frankly don't see how it wasn't deliberate from a purely logical standpoint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #13)

Fri May 6, 2016, 01:10 PM

20. To do everything in secret was the goal.

To be in charge of what gets released and not have to worry about her electronic paper trail. That was it. No real question about it.

The classified was just an unintended consequence of not playing by any rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob41213 (Reply #20)

Fri May 6, 2016, 01:24 PM

22. we don't even get to see her SPEECHES

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:58 AM

5. That reminds me, has anyone estimated the cost so far of investigating

Hillary Clinton's incompetence and criminality?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Reply #5)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:04 AM

8. Dunno maybe Ken Starr is keeping track.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:03 AM

7. There would be some other outrage to replace it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #7)

Fri May 6, 2016, 03:58 PM

30. Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:05 AM

9. Sanders' campaign and supporters have used the right-wing 'watchdog' group's lawsuit

...and the resulting e-mail flap as a cudgel against the Clinton campaign, much like the Benghazi committee tried to do.

It's a transparently political hit-job which the Sanders folks are all too eager to put their hopes and dreams for the presidency behind. That's what republican investigation which uncovered this situation is all about, personal destruction. They're waging their cynical attacks on Hillary with the leaks and speculation and we're supposed to believe they care about emails and private servers on their own merits. We're supposed to believe Sanders supporters are oh so concerned about emails and servers.

The email inquiry may well have been caused by the choices Hillary made about her communications, but the resulting political embrace of the right-wing-initiated investigation is their own ruse.

Hillary and her supporters have been pointing to reports and analysis which makes mincemeat out of speculation that she's done something which she will be charged with. All we're really left with is baseless speculation used as a smear, and sly innuendo (like this seemingly innocuous post of yours) looking to hurt Hillary politically, by hook or crook.

Hillary's not responsible for that, her critics are. The election results are their resounding rebuke. Not surprised at all that critics haven't yet come to grips with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #9)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:30 AM

10. I don't care what others use it for. These questions are mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #10)

Fri May 6, 2016, 10:10 AM

14. And mine. How will this stop the TPP? How will this stop the Corporatacracy?

 

That's my aim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #9)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:46 AM

12. Actually the FBI thing was not a direct result of GOP

 

Stop saying this, not sure why you think Obama is some GOP drone that people keep trying to say he is working with RW it is just wrong. The FBI investigation was sparked because a hacker had made public sensitive emails that Sidney Blumenthal Sent Classified Memos To Hillary Clinton. This is why State Department launched the security review which AG said was genesis of the current investigation, which we don't know anything about ATM because FBI does not comment on ongoing investigations. So please stop trying to say Obama Admin are working with RW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TimPlo (Reply #12)

Fri May 6, 2016, 10:30 AM

15. I don't blame the investigation, I blame the speculation and innuendo used as a political cudgel

...against Hillary Clinton.

We're supposed to accept the frame that she's done something criminal when there's zero investigation of other administration secretaries and offices which also maintained and used private servers.

The investigation was 'sparked' by a NYT report which revealed the use of the private servers. What preceded the report (and obviously sparked it) was a hyped and cynical republican investigation into their Benghazi canard which demanded thousands of pages of communications from Sec. Clinton's office.

What's occurring now is an investigation which isn't likely to carry criminal charges, unless the government is prepared to prosecute previous administration's conduct, so it's silly to say opposing the politics surrounding the investigation is an attack on the Obama administration.

All you're doing is projecting the critic's summary verdict of guilt to deflect from the fact that no one has been charged, and there's virtually nothing out there for critics to bolster all of their chitter-chatter about indictments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #9)

Fri May 6, 2016, 03:46 PM

27. Neutral federal judges and the neutral FBI/DOJ belie your entire premise. Bonk.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 10:32 AM

16. No FBI. Yes FOIA. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 11:46 AM

17. no, but there is the issue of State and CF

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 01:01 PM

18. Obvious, just like the transcripts, she wants to be absolutely secretive like everything else

 

Did you know that ALL of her emails from when she was a Senator were "lost" too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 01:17 PM

21. She has a bad case of hubris. Not uncommon among the rich and powerful.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 01:27 PM

23. Probably still a FOIA since the Rethugs were desperate to find anything to attack her with.

The home brew email server is what triggered the FBI investigations. That was clearly a mistake on Hillary's part and she admits that. But that wasn't illegal or even forbidden at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 03:17 PM

24. It should be noted my questions are morally related.

Not about what you might get away with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 03:50 PM

28. Yes. Judicial Watch has been suing the Clintons since the 90s. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread