2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum6/9 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.
chillfactor
(7,566 posts)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)...it puts Trump in the white house. We can't just whistle past the graveyard.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Is it untrue?
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)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)sure save them a lot of time and effort.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)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)And if you think a request for indictment won't be relevant to the electorate, you're living in a fantasy world.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)annavictorious
(934 posts)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)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)Let's not act like we all turn into ostriches on the 16th.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)was never was DU should have been for.
But now the OP has JPR, tell 'er I said
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)It is something that REALLY happening and that we need to watch.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)6 days.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)candidate being indicted over bogus Emailgate junk. This is not what the site is for.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)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)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.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Planot
(11 posts)it's like typing "Huffington Post" in the title in order to disguise an article by H. A. Goodman.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Sounds like someone fucked up for sure, but not sure who.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)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)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)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.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0YV2P3
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)is the email orgasm-fest over yet?
the 16th can't get here fast enough.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)our candidate. Good or bad. This is important shit, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)jzodda
(2,124 posts)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)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)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)does not depend on intent, negligence is enough.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Response to grasswire (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed