2016 Postmortem

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)

41. Well said, Pri! Well fucking said.

Reply to Post removed (Reply #10)

Mon May 2, 2016, 03:06 PM

May 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

116 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I have two questions about the email controversy [View all] ContinentalOp May 2016 OP

I'll go NWCorona May 2016 #1

So she purposely and knowingly used a server that wasnt safe, right? Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #7

I can't answer that other than to say that one talking point was NWCorona May 2016 #13

No, the issue is destroy Hillary, at any and all costs. Even if that means world war three Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #14

I just don't see it like that. NWCorona May 2016 #16

Oh my god... Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #18

Throwing a tantrum I see. NWCorona May 2016 #22

Your response was funny. Destroying Hillary is what matters, I know. Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #26

For some obviously but that doesn't mean that the isses NWCorona May 2016 #28

Good step forward, NWCorona. Now, Hortensis May 2016 #74

Just curious? LP2K12 May 2016 #86

Oh boy.... Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #89

Yes, and Obama's FBI and DOJ are not going to destroy the Dem party and its . . . brush May 2016 #58

She may have allowed passage of sensitive material that wasn't marked. Marking is not the measure. CentralCoaster May 2016 #19

Remarkable, and it sounds real and sincere. The goal to make sure the Democrat does not occupy Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #27

She ran the business of this country on personally owned equipment in the basement of her home. CentralCoaster May 2016 #32

And she said that Kissinger and others had done the same thing. peace13 May 2016 #51

Do you think cabinet members should be allowed to use briefcases? anigbrowl May 2016 #66

It's the blind ignorance of privilege... dchill May 2016 #36

And used Blackberry she was warned was unsafe unc70 May 2016 #29

Trump is better, I know... Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #30

Quit changing the subject! I never mentioned Trump. unc70 May 2016 #46

If you want Trump, nominate Hillary. nt leveymg May 2016 #59

I know you must really want Drumpf if you continually, repeatedly post stuff about how Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #60

Don't make stupid insinuations. leveymg May 2016 #65

Calling me stupid wont change the fact there are people here who will work against Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #67

And the world ended horribly, all the suffering, the screaming, louis-t May 2016 #35

Security never examined the server to determine if it was secure. HooptieWagon May 2016 #39

"purposely and knowingly" probably not apnu May 2016 #48

I am sorry but I am calling bullshit TM99 May 2016 #85

Users do bypass security all the time in many ways apnu May 2016 #92

And when they do they are punished TM99 May 2016 #93

No, "the worst" that you describe is less bad than the actual facts on the ground. lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #73

link to a reputable source on your claim #1? BootinUp May 2016 #24

If you understand the codes you can see it for yourself. NWCorona May 2016 #25

I didn't think you could provide that. nt BootinUp May 2016 #37

Lol! Just because you are oblivious and fail to even do a rudimentary search doesn't make you right. NWCorona May 2016 #40

Two key peragraphhs from the Reuters' article: truedelphi May 2016 #101

Yup! Some people don't understand the minutia of this stuff. NWCorona May 2016 #102

Here's something on his #1 2cannan May 2016 #81

Answer: she violated her security agreement that says classified is "marked or unmarked" classified leveymg May 2016 #56

Interesting paulthompson May 2016 #91

I found that interesting for exactly the same reason. leveymg May 2016 #96

Seems she conspired to spy on the CIA using the Clinton Foundation as a front to cover Blumenthal HereSince1628 May 2016 #104

What she did was allowed her server to be a conduit for unauthorized swapping of classified info leveymg May 2016 #106

It seems she conspired to get him -paid- for doing that. That's beyond simply unauthorized swapping HereSince1628 May 2016 #111

I'm just describing the charges most likely to be cited in the upcoming FBI report leveymg May 2016 #112

Yes, and I'm trying to say what happened in a way avg people get it. HereSince1628 May 2016 #113

About Blumenthal's time at the Clinton Foundation 2cannan May 2016 #114

Yep. A nice warm office in which collect and communicate information from CIA leaks. HereSince1628 May 2016 #116

statute paulthompson May 2016 #115

declassify date codes indicate that several were born classified...you forgot the links Bill USA May 2016 #90

No authority CompanyFirstSergeant May 2016 #2

Seconded. VulgarPoet May 2016 #4

Didn't she tell a staffer to remove certain headers... TCJ70 May 2016 #3

More than once nt NWCorona May 2016 #6

Yep. VulgarPoet May 2016 #8

Let's take the license plates off the car and go do... CompanyFirstSergeant May 2016 #9

"Emailghazi truthers" is one lame attempt at a smear. Scuba May 2016 #5

These phones baloney attempts to smear us CoffeeCat May 2016 #17

If the shoe fits. ContinentalOp May 2016 #42

This investigation is not a "direct extension" of anything. Scuba May 2016 #45

Emailgate originated from the Benghazi hearings ContinentalOp May 2016 #52

wiki? C'mon, man. Scuba May 2016 #54

Really? ContinentalOp May 2016 #57

Wiki is not a reliable source. Do you have another? Scuba May 2016 #61

omg, this stuff is common knowledge to anybody who has been following the issue at all. ContinentalOp May 2016 #63

You made the leap... Scuba May 2016 #69

She. Buzz cook May 2016 #77

"He" Scuba May 2016 #80

Post removed Post removed May 2016 #10

Caveat Emptor. VulgarPoet May 2016 #15

Really, really (did I say really???) CompanyFirstSergeant May 2016 #21

"holding her to different standards than every other SOS" vintx May 2016 #23

Eh. They've graduated from blinders. VulgarPoet May 2016 #33

Wow, total ignorance on display CoffeeCat May 2016 #31

Well said, Pri! Well fucking said. bettyellen May 2016 #41

Think about that sentence "Well they were marked classified after the fact" Kind of redundant AGH Joob May 2016 #11

If you truly care about transparency, then I don't know why you want to defend secrecy so badly ContinentalOp May 2016 #44

Regarding your classified question 2cannan May 2016 #12

"Classified" isn't actually the relevant standard. Orsino May 2016 #20

Neither of your questions gets at the fact that Hillary blatantly and intentionally violated FOIA Attorney in Texas May 2016 #34

Plus the "was it classified at the time" argument is legally irrelevant, particularly since all her JudyM May 2016 #68

Yep -- to which the State Department responded we have no records Samantha May 2016 #95

There are over three dozen lawsuits where State is going to get hugely fined because of Hillary's Attorney in Texas May 2016 #97

I knew there were several but not 3 dozen -- it is not surprising though Samantha May 2016 #98

It is unclear what the evidence will show in the criminal cases, but the evidence is clear Hillary Attorney in Texas May 2016 #99

The "classified" side of the story is what will save Hillary. ieoeja May 2016 #38

You've probably already seen some of this. IdaBriggs May 2016 #43

Thanks ContinentalOp May 2016 #47

I keep coming back to Yes, but I've been reading about this for IdaBriggs May 2016 #50

Classification level is not, as is often mistakenly stated here, based on marking, but on content. JudyM May 2016 #72

response paulthompson May 2016 #75

Still waiting on the indictment fairy I see leftofcool May 2016 #49

Shame on anyone who spends 5 seconds replying to this garbage. FlatBaroque May 2016 #53

Your two questions paulthompson May 2016 #55

This message was self-deleted by its author ContinentalOp May 2016 #62

You are right. But she also had a legal duty to report this breach of security, and failed to do so leveymg May 2016 #64

response paulthompson May 2016 #70

Yeah, sorry ContinentalOp May 2016 #79

answer paulthompson May 2016 #87

I doubt she needed Blumenthal to access materials on the interagency classified system. leveymg May 2016 #83

In order: lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #71

And there is no evidence that she used her server to communicate with the Commander of USCC. pnwmom May 2016 #103

Evidence? The emails themselves don't count? lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #107

Did you read Prof. Lempert's article? n/t pnwmom May 2016 #108

In what way does the article disprove the fact that Petraeus and Clinton corresponded insecurely? lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #109

So you are not going to read it. Your mind is made up so further discussion is pointless. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #110

With tens of thousands of emails, it seems as though you should have more than 2 questions. merrily May 2016 #76

I feel bad about the "truther" thing, ContinentalOp May 2016 #82

That was a very nice reply. merrily May 2016 #84

"truther" paulthompson May 2016 #88

Have you kept up with any of the proceedings? Thinkingabout May 2016 #78

Yes there were paulthompson May 2016 #94

You sound like Hillary's spokesperson Bob41213 May 2016 #100

This -ISN'T- going to end as a matter of HRC's outgoing email HereSince1628 May 2016 #105