Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:07 PM Jun 2016

6/9 Reuters Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt with Planned Drone Strikes

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Emails between U.S. diplomats in Islamabad and State Department officials in Washington about whether to challenge specific U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are at the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the "low side" -government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters - as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a CIA drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law enforcement officials briefed on the FBI probe, the Journal said.

Some of the emails were then forwarded by Clinton's aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said, according to the newspaper.

snip

The emails were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, the officials said, according to the Wall Street Journal.

38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
6/9 Reuters Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt with Planned Drone Strikes (Original Post) grasswire Jun 2016 OP
This isn't relevant any more.... chillfactor Jun 2016 #1
I disagree, not matter how much unity is around, if this blows up... Joe the Revelator Jun 2016 #12
Why wouldn't this post be allowed? panader0 Jun 2016 #17
The censorship is already ramping up. I can hardly believe it. pdsimdars Jun 2016 #22
So glad you clarified that for us all. Have you notified the FBI yet? That would pdsimdars Jun 2016 #21
This is DAMN relevant! Ignoring the importance is dangerous! pinebox Jun 2016 #29
It's relevant to the FBI. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #35
You need not wait for June 16 to support the Democratic cause. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #2
Your headlinne is incorrect. annavictorious Jun 2016 #3
I don't think we'll have to worry about more posts like this going forward Tarc Jun 2016 #4
DU was never a place where you couldn't discuss pertinent news. Joe the Revelator Jun 2016 #13
Inflammatory grandstanding over fringe issues to savage a Democratic candidate Tarc Jun 2016 #15
The FBI investigation, even if you won't admit it, is not a fringe issue or grandstanding Joe the Revelator Jun 2016 #16
*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP* Tarc Jun 2016 #20
Ignorant. Loudestlib Jun 2016 #27
You're on a Democratic website, promoting shite about the Democratic presidential Tarc Jun 2016 #28
Tarc, this is news, plain and simple pinebox Jun 2016 #30
We'll see how it flies on June 17th Tarc Jun 2016 #34
Agreed, context matters pinebox Jun 2016 #36
Which is why the OP didn't bother to provide a link. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #11
The OP has also been FFR'd. nt auntpurl Jun 2016 #24
OP also has 50,000 posts. pinebox Jun 2016 #31
"Reuters" sounds more legit Planot Jun 2016 #26
I don't know what to make of this. Barack_America Jun 2016 #5
The email fairy is retired. You didn't get the memo? YouDig Jun 2016 #6
Wait? The FBI quit their investigation? panader0 Jun 2016 #19
Clinton supporters don't want to know anything about her. senz Jun 2016 #7
Reporters asked a good question I didn't see reported elsewhere. Waiting For Everyman Jun 2016 #8
*yawn* philosslayer Jun 2016 #9
I don't think the 16th is going to have any bearing on discussing new items relating to Joe the Revelator Jun 2016 #14
A full fledged member of Princess Hillary's ostrich army. pdsimdars Jun 2016 #23
K & R AzDar Jun 2016 #10
The most damning email was not about the program details, but about a NY times article jzodda Jun 2016 #18
Oh god, no. In this area of law, intent is not a factor. Neglegence is. pdsimdars Jun 2016 #25
You are wrong! jzodda Jun 2016 #33
Sooner or later you'll understand that you are wrong. This is one area of law that pdsimdars Jun 2016 #38
K&R pinebox Jun 2016 #32
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #37

chillfactor

(7,566 posts)
1. This isn't relevant any more....
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:10 PM
Jun 2016

give it a rest already....I can't wait until the 16th so posts like this will not be allowed.

 

Joe the Revelator

(14,915 posts)
12. I disagree, not matter how much unity is around, if this blows up...
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:29 PM
Jun 2016

...it puts Trump in the white house. We can't just whistle past the graveyard.

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
22. The censorship is already ramping up. I can hardly believe it.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:53 AM
Jun 2016

There was a congressman who's on the intelligence committee and read those 22 emails and was describing as much as he could about their content. I posted the video, but, because it was on Fox, they hid it.

He wasn't talking any politics or spin, just what he saw in the emails. And the brain dead jury system was unable to discern past "FOX", which threw all their minds into a tizzy apparently. Hell with facts and content. . . they're the devil and must be censored.

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
21. So glad you clarified that for us all. Have you notified the FBI yet? That would
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:49 AM
Jun 2016

sure save them a lot of time and effort.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
29. This is DAMN relevant! Ignoring the importance is dangerous!
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:33 AM
Jun 2016

Hillary is under an FBI criminal investigation. It is a real thing and is 100% relevant. It is not a RW smear, either. Let's stop sticking our heads in the sand and stop ignoring facts and reality.

Posts like this will be allowed after the 16th. This is current events.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
35. It's relevant to the FBI.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 11:25 AM
Jun 2016

And if you think a request for indictment won't be relevant to the electorate, you're living in a fantasy world.

 

annavictorious

(934 posts)
3. Your headlinne is incorrect.
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:14 PM
Jun 2016

Reuters is not reporting this. Reuters is reporting that the Wall Street Journal is making the unsourced claim concerning the emails.

Funny how the Wall Street Journal is suddenly the progressive's go-to source.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0YV2P3

Tarc

(10,472 posts)
4. I don't think we'll have to worry about more posts like this going forward
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:48 PM
Jun 2016

Most DU'ers have come around behind Clinton. The ones that can't eventually get a bit of a karmic reminder why the DU exists.

 

Joe the Revelator

(14,915 posts)
13. DU was never a place where you couldn't discuss pertinent news.
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:30 PM
Jun 2016

Let's not act like we all turn into ostriches on the 16th.

Tarc

(10,472 posts)
15. Inflammatory grandstanding over fringe issues to savage a Democratic candidate
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:55 PM
Jun 2016

was never was DU should have been for.

But now the OP has JPR, tell 'er I said

 

Joe the Revelator

(14,915 posts)
16. The FBI investigation, even if you won't admit it, is not a fringe issue or grandstanding
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:01 PM
Jun 2016

It is something that REALLY happening and that we need to watch.

Tarc

(10,472 posts)
28. You're on a Democratic website, promoting shite about the Democratic presidential
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:31 AM
Jun 2016

candidate being indicted over bogus Emailgate junk. This is not what the site is for.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
30. Tarc, this is news, plain and simple
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:36 AM
Jun 2016

Just because it has to do with the front runner doesn't mean it won't be allowed after the 16th.
Now if someone posted something about Benghazi, ok, that is a whole other story.
The truth is that this is current events.

Tarc

(10,472 posts)
34. We'll see how it flies on June 17th
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 11:21 AM
Jun 2016

It will depend on the context; if you're posting it in a "look at the latest Emailgate junk" manner, it should be permissible. If you're posting it in a "this is why Hillary is terrible and will lose to Trump! manner, I think you'll be testing out the new jury system quickly.

 

Planot

(11 posts)
26. "Reuters" sounds more legit
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:19 AM
Jun 2016

it's like typing "Huffington Post" in the title in order to disguise an article by H. A. Goodman.

panader0

(25,816 posts)
19. Wait? The FBI quit their investigation?
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:10 PM
Jun 2016

Whether or not HRC supporters like it or not, the investigation is real, it is news, and as such,
it will be allowed to be discussed even after the 16th.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
7. Clinton supporters don't want to know anything about her.
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:05 PM
Jun 2016

But those of us who care who is running for POTUS want to know ALL about her.

So thanks for this, grasswire.

Waiting For Everyman

(9,385 posts)
8. Reporters asked a good question I didn't see reported elsewhere.
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:15 PM
Jun 2016

Gee, I wonder why the M$M would black this out? More thumbs on the scales. People don't do that when there's no guilt involved.

The White House rebuffed questions by reporters on Thursday on whether Obama's endorsement might be seen as unduly influencing a criminal investigation by the U.S. Justice Department involving Clinton.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0YV2P3
 

Joe the Revelator

(14,915 posts)
14. I don't think the 16th is going to have any bearing on discussing new items relating to
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:31 PM
Jun 2016

our candidate. Good or bad. This is important shit, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

jzodda

(2,124 posts)
18. The most damning email was not about the program details, but about a NY times article
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:10 PM
Jun 2016

A times article which talked about the done program! So the "classified" info had already been reported on publicly. Then these emails were made classified after the fact and State disagreed with this from the start

Then there is the notion of intent which is very important in criminal prosecutions of this nature. She never intended to release any classified information.


http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/yep-top-secret-emails-were-all-about-drones

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
25. Oh god, no. In this area of law, intent is not a factor. Neglegence is.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:10 AM
Jun 2016

And those weren't the only emails. There were at least 22 that were above top secret ( I once got hidden for saying that) But just as a grade of "A+" is higher than a grade of "A", so SAP information is higher than top secret.
And those were classified from inception. They were classified then and they are classified now.
She had emails with the actual names of agents who were undercover in the middle east.
People who have read those emails say there is no question that the information in them is always classified.
You have to get away from the religious belief in Hillary's talking points. She lied to you. The IG report discounted every one of her claims. And yet, she doubled down on them. And apparently you believe her over the IG.

As for the "intent". NO. If you knowingly put nation security secrets in a non safe, non government venue, that is espionage. Simple as that.
Now, the penalty for espoinage is a sliding scale depending on who accesses the secrets
when you put them in their non secure venue.

jzodda

(2,124 posts)
33. You are wrong!
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:45 AM
Jun 2016

Yes intent is key- Its why Petraeus was in trouble. The FBI even said as much as did the General.

Negligence is not key here because State dept did not agree with the classification to begin with.

You have to intentionally disseminate classified material to those who had no right to see it. That IS the standard.

"She had emails with the actual names of agents who were undercover in the middle east." YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN! They were talking about a NY TIMES ARTICLE which mentioned agents. The information was already out in the public domain.

Check the mother Jones article link posted in this thread by Gothmog.

Here for you to check out:

The so-called "Top Secret" emails were all about NYT stories concerning drones and were in the public domain

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/yep-top-secret-emails-were-all-about-drones


 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
38. Sooner or later you'll understand that you are wrong. This is one area of law that
Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:29 PM
Jun 2016

does not depend on intent, negligence is enough.

Response to grasswire (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»6/9 Reuters Emails in Cli...