Look. All the top Democrats KNEW this IG info was coming.

[grasswire]

Even those who support her KNOW EXACTLY what she did and how she broke the law and what all the ramifications are.

And so we must ask why they continue to actively support her.

Doing so risks being seen as an accessory to a coverup.

What will be Boxer's excuse when the worst of Hillary's crimes are confirmed? What about the Civil Rights legends? What will they say? What about Planned Parenthood and all of the feminists?

And what will Obama say? That he was bamboozled?

They know already what she did.

[msongs]

1. oh you forgot to post what laws were broken. olh well nt

[procon]

30. Yeah, I noticed that little detail seemed to be missing. nt

[highprincipleswork]

56. How about using a little research and a little common sense. Too close for comfort for sure.

[scscholar]

58. This. The report said nothing about...

laws broken. Nothing. Of course the media refuses to point that out.

[auntpurl]

2. Do you think it might be because they all know this is a total nonissue?

[Garrett78]

4. Exactly. This screams Occam's Razor.

The OP answered his/her own question.

[morningfog]

17. We are so far beyond a "total nonissue" that your comment is laughable.

[Garrett78]

24. From the OP:

"And so we must ask why they continue to actively support her. Doing so risks being seen as an accessory to a coverup."

Occam's Razor.

[auntpurl]

36. So according to you, they're all willing to risk their political reputations and legacy

up to and including Obama, because the "establishment" is just SO in the can for Hillary Clinton?

[morningfog]

39. I didn't say that, either.

This is a real issue. Any thinking person, including and especially the in the know Dems, knows it is a serious issue. Those that support Hillary do so despite that understanding and hope that none of Hillary's peeps face any criminal action.

It could have been considered a non-issue up until and including the congressional hearings.

It became a real issue when the State IG and the FBI initiated investigations. The fact that at least 2 federal judges have found some evidence of bad faith makes it a real issue too.

Saying it is a non issue is a practice of denial, double think, lying or ignorance.

[auntpurl]

40. It is a non issue in that Hillary is not going to be indicted

Did she fuck up? Probably. Was it with the malicious intent to sell out American secrets? Of course not. is she the only SoS who's done this? No. Is she the only government official? No.

She will not be indicted. Bookmark this post. Please feel free to come back and mock me later.

[morningfog]

41. You should read the report.

She was the only sec state to what she did, that's clear. The laws also changed. She wasn't in compliance and made intentional misrepresentations about it.

I've never said that I expect her to be indicted, nor did this OP. It is becoming clearer that laws were broken though.

[Fawke Em]

57. So tired of this mistake.

You do not need intent to be convicted of mishandling national security data.

Just ask John Kiriakou, who inadvertently released confidential info to a journalist.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/27/a-conversation-with-cia-whistleblower-john-kiriakou/

[Peace Patriot]

81. "Is she the only SoS who's done this?" Yes. She is the only SoS to set up her own, private,

insecure email server for State Department business. That is unprecedented. But she went further than this. She failed to appoint an IG for the State Department for the entirety of her time in that office. That means there was no one in the Dept. with the authority to put a stop to this, as a danger to national security. And when some lower level security people questioned her use of this server, they were told to "never mention it again." When her server was discovered, because one of her correspondent's emails had been hacked and its contents exposed (a man whom Obama had forbidden Clinton to hire at the State Dept.), she then started lying and trying to cover up her actions.

"It is a non issue...". Sorry, that 'talking point' is well past its sell-by date.

"It is a non issue in that Hillary is not going to be indicted." Not sure what you mean by this. A crime isn't a crime if no one gets indicted? Your kid gets murdered and it's not a crime unless that the murderer is discovered and prosecuted? The OIG report was not a criminal investigation. Its purpose was to investigate State Dept. security procedures, including what Hillary did, with the goal of remedies. The FBI, however, is conducting an investigation that could result in their recommendation of an indictment for crimes, against Hillary and against some of her top aides.

"She will not be indicted." Sorry, you simply don't know this. It is, in truth, quite possible that she and/or her aides will be recommended for indictment. Then it's up to a Hillary supporter, Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Lynch may have to weigh her own career against Hillary's, because, if the FBI recommends indictment and she won't do it, and has no good reason for not doing it, she may well be looking at the resignations of the FBI Director and agents in protest, and an enormous fracas within the Obama administration and within the country. Clinton garbage will be thrown on Obama and his legacy will be tainted with scandal.

Was it with the malicious intent to sell out American secrets? That is treason. That is an absurd exaggeration. You don't have to have "malicious intent" to be guilty of breaking the laws that are involved in this case--laws that govern the handling of sensitive information, the protection of government records, endangering national security, obstruction of justice and subverting FOIA laws.

I don't think you realize the seriousness of the trouble that Clinton is in. She may not be indicted. But the OIG report is not a good omen in that respect. They weren't looking for crimes. What they report is malfeasance so serious that Clinton wouldn't qualify for a low level security clearance, let alone the offices of SoS and President. She defied all security rules; ignored warnings; rejected any oversight; routinely placed sensitive documents and information through her insecure server, and then lied about all this and tried to cover it up.

We don't know what may be going on behind the scenes on a matter of such importance to U.S. intelligence agencies, and to a number of peoples' careers, and to Obama's and Kerry's legacies. It is fraught with political implications on all sides. Nobody knows what the FBI will do, or what AG Lynch will do. But it is already a scandal, and threatens worse. Denial is not going to make it go away.

[auntpurl]

82. Really sorry, I didn't read this

I'm not at all interested in Hillary's email non-scandal. I've trashed all the other threads about it; I just replied to this one yesterday because the answer was so obvious.

Anyway, I felt bad that you wrote what looks like a very detailed post that I will never read, so I thought I'd apologise.

[Peace Patriot]

84. Aw, that's okay! Your "head in the sand" attitude is typical of Clinton supporters--

--at least Clinton supporters at DU--and it is no surprise.

I just had a little psychic twinge, thinking about those lower level IG employees who raised concerns about Hillary's private, insecure email server, and were told to "never speak of it again."

I feel like they may have felt. You try to warn. You say that "this is a concern" and try to be heard. You put effort into it. And the very people you are trying to help with your warnings say "never speak of this again."

It's such a....strange attitude to see in a progressive Democratic forum. But we see it all the time here, now.

IF Clinton had listened to those IG warning voices, she might not be in this perilous mess that she created for herself and her top aides.

So, you're saying that she was right to plug up her ears like you are doing now? Is that good leadership, to tell someone with serious concerns to "never speak of this again"?

Your attitude is bewildering. How can Clinton run a country if she does this? How can you make political decisions, like who to vote for, if you do this?

[karynnj]

85. Wonderfully good explanation why we should care

It is beyond sad that we are now at the point where we will nominate this woman as our candidate for President. That that was very likely since 2008, I do not get why she simply did not follow every rule to the T.

That this could hurt the reputations of Kerry, Obama, and Lynch disgusts me. All three of them have solid, clean reputations and have worked hard for the country. I am glad that Kerry asked the IG to do this independent review.

I wish the Democrats in 1992 would have ignored the media infatuation with Clinton and given the nomination to Tsongus or Brown or anyone else running for that matter. I wish that Obama had had the courage to not include the Clintons in his administration.

[JoePhilly]

79. They start with the conclusion, and then zing-zag backwards as necessary.

Then scream "Ah Ha!!!!"

[LexVegas]

3. They know about Whitewater too!!! OMG!!!!!! nt

[Press Virginia]

5. I think Boxer is so invested in a woman becoming President

that she will support HRC no matter what happens.

There should be a lot of embarrassment among her supporters on Capitol Hill. HRC broke the rules and has continually lied about it. She stonewalled on the IG probe, she was more worried about her Yoga E-mails and Wedding plans for Chelsea to follow the rules.

She's running for POTUS and should be held to the highest standard. Higher than anyone is going to hold Rump. And I don't say this because it's HRC. I say this because we're Democrats and not Republicans. Our standards should be higher as a matter of principle.

[grasswire]

9. I just can't imagine Hillary doing yoga.

Really.

[Press Virginia]

10. Oh come onnnn...she's probably got a mat and headband

some scented candles.

She might do some of the relaxation exercises but not a full routine

[bahrbearian]

18. She can e-mail about Yoga, she thinks cool.

[2cannan]

23. I don't think she was too worried about the yoga, wedding or funeral emails. I think she was worried

about the links between the State Dept. and the Clinton Foundation.

[HooptieWagon]

27. Bingo!

Interesting that she didn't give a shit about foreign govts hacking into her server in search of classified documents, but instead was greatly worried about what would be discovered in a FOIA filing.

[Aerows]

77. I question anyone's judgment

that *can't* connect those dots, but frankly, I think most of the shunning of that particular can of worms is the absolute terror of it popping wide open - which we've all known is right around the corner.

President Obama has not gotten in the middle of this because he's smart enough to know what is coming. After the foreign donations and arms deals, you would pretty much have to have lived under a rock to not know it is on the way!

[oasis]

6. They believed the American people should not be deprived of

possibly one of the best ever presidents because of some minor infraction.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. "Good boy, Bronco"

[winter is coming]

7. I'm not at all sure they knew everything. In fact, I'd be surprised if they did.

Yes, they knew about the server, but they may have believed Hillary's claim that she'd found someone to sign off on it. The higher-ups in the party aren't very tech-savvy, as a rule. And I'd be surprised if many of them knew, prior to the report, that there had been hacking attempts--and that those attempts had gone unreported. I suspect there's been some industrial-grade lack-of-curiosity going on, where many people wondered if things went down just as Hillary claimed, but no one really wanted to look at the problem too closely.

It will be interesting to see how they respond to it now.

[riderinthestorm]

11. I agree with this. I'd bet they simply didn't understand the ramifications here

They believe Hillary when she says she didn't do anything wrong.

Kissinger is revered in Washington insider circles because of his power. There's a bubble that these folks live in and they simply do not have the perspective that outsiders have where Kissinger is reviled as a war criminal.

Comey is a Republican. He's not going to parties with Democratic leadership (if he schmoozes at all). Besides being notoriously tight lipped, he just isn't privy to those circles.

Democratic leadership probably is waking up to this as slowly as Hillary’s supporters are here on DU.

[winter is coming]

12. Comey's a Republican, but I haven't seen any hint that he's partisan.

There are govie types who really do want to do what's best for the US as a whole, and not just their patch of turf or their political party. IMO, Comey is one of them.

[floppyboo]

47. don't forget, according to the report there was a blackout on discussion of her emails (p,43 or 44)

Guess the media could no longer ignore it, as Fox is going to run hard with this. And perhaps, just perhaps, they believe that leaving this whole mess till the last moment will justify flying in a more suitable/establishment candidate.

They are getting very frustrated with the 'Bernie hasn't been vetted' line, as there is nothing to vet.

[MisterP]

8. they thought they could knock Sanders out before this, that the trendline

would collapse, that Sanders support would balk

we'd all go along with the compromised candidate and eke out a squeaker against Trump because she'd have 6 months to show how dangerous he is; she'd win over the Sanders supporters and peel off enough of Trump's

[bahrbearian]

15. I think they wanted Sanders out, so just in case they could slip Biden in.

[Tarc]

13. All the top Democrats know that Emailgate is wishful fairy-clapping

Keep trying though.

[morningfog]

21. You should read the report:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842460/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

[hootinholler]

26. He should see a doctor

And get that persistent fairy clap treated.

[grasswire]

34. LOLOL

excellent

[bahrbearian]

14. It'll be the whole chorus "I made a Mistake"

[Demsrule86]

16. Total right wing crap

And you know it...where is the link to the IG...with a date...yeah a date...because you people are posting old stuff.

[JudyM]

19. Yeah! And sexist!

[morningfog]

20. HERE:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842460/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

[Melissa G]

22. From 3 hours ago... Is that fresh enough for you?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/25/hillary-clintons-email-problems-just-got-much-worse/

[floriduck]

80. The funniest part of that story is that 516 morons liked Brian Fallon's explanation tweet.

I wonder how many of those likers are DUers?

[JackRiddler]

25. Oh please, the drama.

With a bit of luck, this will bring down HRC BEFORE the nom (or it will be a weapon for Trump). But let's be real here, okay?

No doubt felonies were committed with the set up of an insecure private e-mail server. But this was just a small part of the process for committing the crimes against humanity that make up routine United States foreign policy, under any administration, Republican or Democrat.

She risked some "secrets" in the process of managing the imperialist machine, oh heavens! (If she goes down for it, it has a certain ironic value, given the way she was acting about Wikileaks.)

Almost every goddamn U.S. politician is minimum knee-deep in the process of worldwide mass murder. Bernie's only in it up to the knees and that's supposed to be a reason to prefer him. Clinton's swimming in an ocean of it. There's no need to get this morally huffed-up about an insecure server.

[passiveporcupine]

28. Probably because they know nothing would be done about it.

No fines, no charges, no indictment.

She is the chosen nominee by the establishment. They are not going to let a little thing like breaking a law or being careless destroy their goals.

Remember that Obama can pardon anyone. Even if she were indicted, he'd just pardon her.

[amborin]

29. ready to nominate Biden at Convention---sources

[winter is coming]

48. Establishment candidate whose '08 run never got off the ground?

The VP in an Administration about to be hit by a lot of questions about who knew about Hillary's server and when? Oh, yeah, that's a surefire win for the GE.

[CrowCityDem]

31. There's a difference between a policy and a law. She broke no laws.

[Betty Karlson]

46. Nope, the laws on keeping state secrets and confindetial materials are clear:

it is a crime to alter in part documents labeled state secrets, and remove the confidential designation thereof.

it is a crime to transfer such files to a private server (such as Clinton had at home)

it is a crime not to report an attempted hack on servers containing classified material

[CrowCityDem]

49. Nothing was labeled classified at the time.

[Betty Karlson]

50. So it was designated classified after it had already been in the public domain?

Do you know how inane that sounds?

[CrowCityDem]

66. That's exactly right. It happens all the time.

[Betty Karlson]

70. again: inane.

If you believe that, you might as well believe that Clinton will be a good president ... oh wait. I've got a friend who'd like to sell you some ocean front property - "a really good investment".

[CrowCityDem]

73. It's a well known fact that material gets classified after the fact. Stop denying reality.

[Betty Karlson]

74. - said someone who supports the weakest remaining candidate (in GE match-ups). eom

[frylock]

54. The SoS is trained to ID classified info, whether it's marked or not.

Conveniently enough, Hillary only attended the mandatory annual compliance training ONCE during her tenure. It would appear that she wasn't really paying attention during the training session either.

[Betty Karlson]

71. that is damning information, indeed.

[boomer55]

33. the bastards that sold us out in 2004 and refused to fight for a fair election are the same bastards

pushing HRC

[grasswire]

35. good point

establishment, third way....

[fun n serious]

52. Pushing?

The voters spoke! Get over it

[bjo59]

37. I don't think they can afford to care right now. Number 1 goal is to keep Bernie out.

They figure the rest will sort itself out as it always seems to have done in the past. I'm sure Obama's advisors have figured out how they'll respond in the worst case scenario. However, Obama wants that TPP passed more than anything else right now and it is absolutely certain that if Bernie Sanders were to get into the White House, he would never sign off on it while Hillary Clinton (or any other last minute Democratic replacement) would sign off in a heartbeat. They all have to actively support Clinton - the current alternative is unthinkable. (Of course it's not only the TPP - Sanders would also threaten the ongoing regime-change agenda which is a problem that is more pressing than the possibility of looking like somebody who was bamboozled by the person he appointed as Secretary of State.)

[grasswire]

44. yes, we have been talking about the entities Bernie is fighting.

It's Bernie v. the whole damned PTB. Epic.

[randome]

38. Obama will say what most of us have been saying for some time now: let the voters decide.

Surely you know that you are moving the goalposts now. First it was national security, then it was Sidney Blumenthal. Now it's that she didn't have an Inspector General.

Not a single one of those things points to anything illegal.

Let the voters decide.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

43. Outrageous. Outrageous.

Voters get to decide crimes of national security import?

An OUTRAGEOUS statement, even for you.

[randome]

62. Voters get to decide if there is any merit to the accusations.

They have decided there isn't. Let's start working as part of a team. We can push Clinton further to the left and we can deal another big blow to the GOP. It's all we have to work with now so let's get at it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

72. Your thesis only works if voters are fully informed.

They are not. They cannot decide merit without evidence.

[frylock]

59. Maybe we can start doing that for high-profile murder cases as well.

Kind of an American Idol style format, where we let the voters decide guilt or innocence.

[randome]

64. The voters don't see any merit to the accusations. That's what it comes down to.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[MrMickeysMom]

83. Clueless...

Even dumbed down United States voters know when someone cannot be trusted with State's secrets and national security.

The voters, if you've counted who will take notice and not support this type of decision making are in major number.

Nothing to look at at here, people... keep moving.

How clueless this statement is.

[Betty Karlson]

45. Same with the Human Rights Campaign: how did they feel when she started praising Nancy Reagan?

Last edited Wed May 25, 2016, 06:40 PM - Edit history (1)

The establishment wants more status quo, and Clinton embodies the status quo, and they will continue to enable her because everybody feels that the guardians of the status quo must be above the law. Also: it is her turn and did we mention that she is a woman.

[fun n serious]

51. Low Level Dems need to learn the rules of the party

Climb up the latter the hard way.

[Betty Karlson]

53. The above post was brought to you by Tin Ears:

keeping young whippersnappers in their place since the dawn of Third Way.

[fun n serious]

55. Especially since they want to over turn the will of the voters just to get their way.

Lmfao. If that doesn't say " entitled" I don't know what does.

[Betty Karlson]

63. Try "who else are ya gonna vote for" - it was the entitlement's greatest hit in 2014.

Sorry, I meant the establishment's greatest hit. Establishment, entitlement: it's all one.

Just like Debbie, Hillary, and Blumenthal are so close they might as well be called the new Trinity.

[Demsrule86]

60. It amounts to a big nothing

so sorry for you...Bernie out in 12 days.

[frylock]

61. I can't wait for the FBI's recommendation.

Is it really happening in 12 days?

[BillZBubb]

65. Obama is the one I don't get.

Why in the world would he stick his neck out for her? She dealt with Blumenthal behind his back when she knew he objected to that. Her actions have stained his administration already. Things could get much, much worse.

He should have taken a different path that would have kept his administration out of this mess. He wouldn't be responsible if she went rogue and he refused to cover for her.

[Hydra]

69. It's a complicated incestuous pileup

I'm sure it went against everything Obama's instincts to agree to...but there was a heavy price to pay for him to enter the WH to secure his precious legacy. He needed the support of Bushco, and by extension the Clintons to walk in the door...and we can see how much it has cost him and what more it may soon cost him.

[stillwaiting]

67. They wouldn't if Bernie weren't her only opponent.

Or at least there is a very good chance they wouldn't if there were another Establishment approved candidate in the race.

[mhatrw]

68. She is ABOVE the law because she knows where the bodies are buried. nt

[Cobalt Violet]

75. It will destroy the party if she win the nomination and loses to Trump.

It doesn't make any sense. She is the personification of bad judgement. Not someone who should be Commander and Chief.

[seabeyond]

76. Betcha they would need drag net to gather all the many people doing this getting past antiquated

equipment.

This is a losing game and you all look like a fool.

[spin]

78. Perhaps because if someone opposes Hillary the Clinton Machine will roll right over them.

You don't want to end up on the Clinton's enemies list.