The Politics Of Crime - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 10:49:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

In a statement released yesterday, the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG) and the State Department IG claimed with regard to Hilary Clinton's emails while Secretary of State:

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information [. .. ] The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today.

Now what does this mean? It means the Intelligence Community, represented here by the Ic IG, disagrees with the State Department's determination on the classification of certain information contained in the Clinton e-mails. In their opinion, the information should have been designated classified and should be so designated now. But State does not agree. A review of the memos (PDF) exchanged between State and the IGs illustrates this turf war:

On June 29, 2015, OIG and ICIG sent you a follow-up memorandum providing additional information supporting our concerns about the FOIA process used for the Clinton emails (see Attachment D). Since then, ICIG has received confirmation from IC FOIA officials that several of these emails contained classified IC information, though they were not marked as classified. [. . .] [My emphasis]

So IC is not happy with State's decisions on classification, in the past and now. And the IC IG, representing the IC, is in a dispute with State on how to handle this disagreement. The IGs wrote:

Recommendation #3 Final determinations of classification decisions are made by senior personnel within the Department's FOIA office, assisted by subject matter experts in relevant bureaus and in the Office of the Legal Adviser, after referral of other agency equities have been made to the appropriate agencies and their comments received. These individuals have the experience and expertise necessary to carry out this responsibility correctly.

The thrust of this is IC saying leave classification decisions to us State, we're the pros. Well State wasn't having it. They responded on July 14, and expressly referenced the 4 e-mails with classified info claim:

Regarding the third recommendation, four of the documents were identified for review by the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which is the bureau with relevant subject matter expertise; two of the documents were substantively duplicates of each other. NEA consulted with the Office of the Legal Adviser regarding FOIA exemptions that were potentially available, including exemptions l (§ l.4(d) of E.O. 13526) & 5. NEA decided, consistent with the Attorney General's 2009 FOIA guidance, to redact certain limited information under exemption 5 which reflected deliberations among policy officials. Two other documents were proposed for possible upgrade which involved equities of other agencies. In one document, the Department of Defense decided not to seek a classification upgrade. The other document, which contained an FBI equity, could have been redacted under either exemption 1, pursuant to§ 1.4 (d) ofE.O. 13526, or exemption 7, as law enforcement information. [My emphasis]

Well IC did not take kindly to its "recommendations" being rejected.The IGs blasted back:

Recommendation 3: The State Department FOIA Office should seek classification expertise from the interagency to act as a final arbiter if there is a question regarding potentially classified materials. Management Response: The June 25 response states that final determinations of classification decisions are made by senior personnel within the Department’s FOIA office, assisted by subject matter experts in relevant bureaus and in the Office of the Legal Adviser, after referral of other agency equities have been made to the appropriate agencies and their comments received. The July 14 response refers specifically to four emails that were identified for additional consultations regarding a proposed “B1” (Classified Information) FOIA exemption being changed to a “B5” (Privileged Communications) FOIA exemption during the State Department Legal Office’s review. The July 14 response states the following:
Four of the emails were identified for review by the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which is the Bureau with relevant subject matter expertise; two of the documents were substantively duplicates of each other. NEA consulted with the Office of the Legal Adviser regarding FOIA exemptions that were potentially available, including B1 (§ 1.4 (d) of E.O. 13526) and B5. NEA decided, consistent with the Attorney General’s 2009 FOIA guidance, to redact certain limited information under exemption B5 which reflected deliberations among policy officials. Two other documents were proposed for possible upgrade which involved equities of other agencies. In one document, the Department of Defense decided not to seek a classification upgrade. The other document, which contained an FBI equity, could have been redacted under exemption 1, pursuant to § 1.4 (d) of E.O. 13526, or exemption 7, as law enforcement information.
OIG and ICIG Reply: OIG and ICIG consider this recommendation to be unresolved. OIG and ICIG are assessing the information provided in the July 14 response and will further advise the Department after the assessment is completed. Consulting with State Department experts may be sufficient to protect classified State Department equities. However, the information may also be classified due to intelligence equities. OIG and ICIG reiterate the need to seek classification expertise from the interagency to act as a final arbiter if there is a question regarding potentially classified materials.[My emphasis].

Well, the IC finished its "assessment" of State's refusal to abide by their "recommendations." A "counterintelligence" referral was made, knowing of course Trey Gowdy would leak it. But the leak got out of hand, and the New York Times bungled the story. As a result the IGs had to come out and say there was no criminal referral by the IC IG.

But they weren't dropping their hammer against State. Thus the allegation of "classified info" was restated - to keep the pressure on State.

And Hillary Clinton is caught in the cross fire. That's the real story here.

< About that NYT OIG-Clinton email story | Hillary to Issue Climate Change Plan >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Kurt Eichenwald, gives his (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by KeysDan on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 11:28:39 AM EST

take in "Newsweek" on how the NYTimes bungled the story. An investigative reporter with extensive experience in FOIA requests of documents provides general as well as specific insights. A memo of interest and discussion in this case tells the purpose (and the turf battles). "Potential issues identified by the office of the I.G. of the Intelligence community concerning the department of state's process for review of former Secretary Clinton's emails under the FOIA."

It seems that the NYT reporters, Michael Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo were overly-eager-beavers, at best, who mixed up differences of opinion on FOIA oversight with a news flash. Indeed, Eichenwald notes that experienced seekers of FOIA often request the same document from different agencies for the possibility of getting different results. .

This artivcle is devastating (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by MKS on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 12:36:45 PM EST

to the New York Times.....


: This would never happen if. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 10:29:06 PM EST

Judith Miller was still alive.

: But yet, even though ... (none / 0) (#13)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 02:20:53 PM EST

... the New York Times had walked back its original and very flawed story, David Brooks was still citing it on last night's PBS Newshour as yet another example of why "people just don't trust Hillary Clinton," while Mark Shields furrowed his brow in concern and bobbed his head in concurrence.
Perhaps we should regularly cite that article ourselves, along with Shields and Brooks, as an example of why people shouldn't trust the east coast media elite and its the human echo chambers.
Aloha.

The classification has become insane (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 12:43:24 PM EST

In military training, instructors are doing everything they can to educate the next generation of soldiers how to stay alive, how to survive. A photo made it into a course that was later discovered to be classified. Every instructor who had their work computer come in contact with that course of instruction in any way was confiscated and wiped. You got a new computer, but any work you had on the old one was most likely lost. Hundreds of hours of blood, sweat, and tears...gone. And an almost identical not classified photo was then used in the course curriculum.

Classifying everything has reached an insane pitch. All it accomplishes in the end is creating a very distrusting citizen population. They can classify every God D@mn thing too and apparently that just throws it all in a nice big juicy pile to be hacked into too. Thank you State Department for challenging the insanity.

I realize some things must be classified, but over classification just makes citizens paranoid and accomplishes nothing else.

so if the Republicans can claim (none / 0) (#68)
by ding7777 on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 04:40:47 PM EST

something on her server (or Kendall's thumb dive)now contains classified info they can demand the physical server/thumb drive and try to embarrass her


They can't just view classified information (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 09:20:01 PM EST

At will. They have to be cleared to view it. Classified information is supposed to be partitioned and ingested on a need to know basis. If the information is indeed going to be classified, they really have no right to know what the information was. The only legal way they will view that information is if the State Department wins the argument.


I think (none / 0) (#69)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 04:44:55 PM EST

that's what their goal is to claim that there's something classified but they would have to issue a subpoena to get it and since this would never reach the level where a judge would issue a subpoena it's all just BS spinning from the GOP and basically a fishing expedition. They really don't care about whether something was classified. They just want to fish and hope there's something personally embarrassing.


We've been toldhat the server should (none / 0) (#70)
by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 04:47:49 PM EST

be examined because of "who it belonged to", not because there is any suspicioun of said server ever being attacked or hacked in the past.


: Clinton Rules (none / 0) (#71)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 04:53:16 PM EST

It's okay for every other secretary of state to do this but not Hillary.
It's a bunch of nit picking nonsense.

Reconstructionist is permnently banned (5.00 / 3) (#133)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:41:07 PM EST

from my threads.

You'll have to go to Jerayln's posts to fight with him.

: I think (none / 0) (#135)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 05:20:08 PM EST

most of us are over his hypothesizing and his fact free concern trolling.

Norm Ornstein, (5.00 / 1) (#162)
by KeysDan on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:58:16 PM EST

resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, writes about the NYTimes botched reporting in the "Atlantic." While pleased that the NYTimes has a public editor, there too, he sees problems. The editor says we got it wrong because our very good sources got it wrong.

Ornstein wonders about those "very good" sources, who are either careless readers of documents, deliberately mislead, or are very accessible with information--any information. Ornstein's position is that if the reporters are willing to accept, without reading the documents themselves, the information, put in on the front page, and then have it blow up on you, the NYTimes owes it to the readers to disclose the irresponsible sources, so that theyh will not do it again.

: You know (none / 0) (#163)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:09:41 PM EST

this is not the first time this has happened. It happened when the faked emails were leaked to the press regarding Benghazi. Many journalists who are respectable were calling for the source of the information to be burned and I would think this would be another case where the sources should be burned or name released. However as far as I know the source in the faked emails was never burned so I doubt this one will be either. I would hope the NYT would never use this person again as a source after being burned this badly or would request a copy of the documents as backup but I'm not too hopeful on that account.

: From our "Gray Lady Down" file: (none / 0) (#169)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 06:08:49 PM EST

Joe Conason notes much the same thing:

The National Memo | July 27, 2015
How The New York Times Bungled Its 'Big' Clinton Email Story - "New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan seems surprised that the paper's latest story on Hillary Clinton's emails -- sensational, wrong, leak based, and badly bungled -- is now a significant journalistic debacle. Maybe she really is surprised, but there is in fact nothing startling about this embarrassing episode. [...] Yet while hyping her exhaustive examination of this giant flub, Sullivan lets the Times editors and reporters off a bit too easily, allowing them to blame their anonymous sources and even to claim that the errors 'may have been unavoidable.' What she fails to do, as usual, is to examine the deeper bias infecting Times coverage of Hillary and Bill Clinton -- a problem that in various manifestations dates back well over two decades."
Since Conason has been covering, examining, and writing about the mainstream media's Clinton coverage for over twenty years, his own take on this latest debacle is worth a read.
Aloha.

at the time (2.00 / 2) (#58)
by Uncle Chip on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 01:54:32 PM EST

Attorney General Loretta Lynch Faces Potential Minefield With Hillary Clinton Email Investigation

Clinton on Saturday brushed off the new investigation, saying she was confident she hadn't received or sent anything that was classified at the time.

Interesting choice of words: "at the time"

There (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 02:05:01 PM EST

is no "investigation". The only one doing any "investigating" is Gowdy who keeps running from Hillary.

You don't have an investigation over a FOIA request silly.


She has (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by FlJoe on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 02:30:41 PM EST

to use that term because too many stupid people can not wrap their mind around the fact that information can be classified, or reclassified long after it is first received or disseminated. Matter of fact most of the material is only now being vetted because of the FOIA mandate.

I have seen plenty of released emails totally redacted or denied, never have I heard such a hue and cry about the the originators or recipient of those, even though some group thinks it must be classified now.


The biggest irony (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 02:55:11 PM EST

is the people who have been screeching for transparency are the ones now siding with the IG who doesn't want transparency.


: Another irony: (5.00 / 2) (#64)
by Mr Natural on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 04:06:48 PM EST

The spectacle of watching small-er government conservatives rallying behind the banner of making rules to rigidify everything.
In this Cowardly New World, nobody, even an official entrusted with the highest possible level of public responsibility, is to be permitted any more decision making latitude than the lowest level contract pentagon janitor.
This is the real face of today's right wing.

Nice (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by FlJoe on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 04:00:28 PM EST

bit of hackery from Chips link. From the second paragraph

the inspectors general had sent a non-criminal "referral" to the Justice Department over the matter.

Then, apparently forgetting what they just wrote, they go on to delare:

Lynch and her department must now determine what to do next -- including whether to open a criminal investigation

Five paragraphs later they finally fess up:

The purpose of notifying the Justice Department was to inform the FBI of "a potential compromise of classified information," not to seek a criminal probe, spokeswoman Andrea Williams said.

WTF are they teaching in journalism school these days.


Probably (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 04:25:02 PM EST

they are teaching how to get people to link to their stuff.

It worked.


: "content" (none / 0) (#67)
by Mr Natural on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 04:32:57 PM EST

The Bottom line for bottom feeders.

It's only "interesting" to those who (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by Anne on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 04:29:57 PM EST

are too stupid to understand that she's referring to the possibility that communications that the State Department did not deem to be classified at the time she sent or received them may have been or will be retroactively classified by a completely different entity: the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.


Oh, you poor thing! (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:06:55 AM EST

How long have you been inflicted with this fever?


Clinton's use of a private email and server (none / 0) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 10:59:44 AM EST

is irrelevant to this BTW.

Dissemination of classified info is not permitted on any "unsecure" means.

.gov accounts are not secure.

Bottom line (none / 0) (#2)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 11:09:13 AM EST

it's just a bunch of political bs over four emails and they are at war with each other over semantics.

And no one should take the word of Gowdy on anything again after he so botched this story.

Ga6th: You called it yesterday (none / 0) (#34)
by christinep on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 04:53:40 PM EST

...when you noted the "turf war" between State and this IC IG about classification procedures. Very perceptive.

Even though I witnessed a bit of those kind of strong, emotional differences between agencies as a longtime federal employee, somehow all the hoopla that was yesterday morning--all the manufactured BS about Hillary-must-have-done-something-wrong-finally--obscured my vision and I did not see what you saw & wrote early on yesterday. You go, girl! Thanks.

Now, that the pieces are falling into place and anticipating Hillary Clinton's PUBLIC presentation before the Gowdy fishing-expedition bunch, I do have a question lingering from yesterday: After reading/scanning through a number of articles since then about what-is-up-with-the-NYTimes & the Clintons, I chanced upon Josh Marshall's comments today at TPM wherein he also wonders what's up. As I have been thinking for some time, the NYTimes treatment has been peculiarly personal; and, Marshall also queries whether it is some "unexamined bias" in NYT's system. So...do you have any thoughts about why a once-solid newspaper fell for the c%#p that some unnamed source gave them???


I really (none / 0) (#35)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 04:57:37 PM EST

don't know why other than there are two theories out there. One is some of these reporters are deluded into thinking if they take Hillary down they're going to be some kind of hero but they've been trying this for a quarter of a century and it hasn't worked. You would think after that long they would have give up on it.

And perhaps it goes back to Bill not resigning when they told him too. He showed how unimportant they can be in the scheme of things and perhaps that has them all riled up.

Just guesses is all.


: Very good guesses at that. (none / 0) (#36)
by christinep on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 05:04:03 PM EST

Speaking of (none / 0) (#3)
by FlJoe on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 11:17:25 AM EST

Gowdy, Hillary now set to testify before the Benghazi committee on Oct. 22. Talk about walking into the belly of the beast.

It's a great opportunity for her (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 11:20:05 AM EST

: Yes, it is. (none / 0) (#7)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 12:23:52 PM EST

And it will likely come at the expense of Gowdy and the Republican members of the select committee, just as Secs. Kerry and Moniz looked masterful at the expense of GOP senators in this week's hearing on the nuclear arms deal with Iran.
I haven't yet decided which prospect is more sad, pathetic and frightening -- the sheer and demonstrable ignorance of the Republican legislators themselves, or the fact that both they and their equally clueless supporters consider such embarrassing public displays of ineptitude to be examples of responsible and effective governance.
Because when you consider that in the light of the subpar quality of journalism that's now the norm and not the exception in the Beltway-based media, we have the basic formula in place for yet another train wreck of considerable proportions, e.g., the Iraq War, should a doofus like Jeb! ever become president.
Aloha.

Yes (none / 0) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 11:21:30 AM EST

this is a great opportunity for her. Remember Gowdy is a second or third rate prosecutor who is going to be pandering to the nuts in the GOP during the hearing.


: Side-note (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by magster on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 03:51:12 PM EST

I was binge watching Forensic Files and saw Trey as the prosecutor of a murder.
I quit binge-watching.

I think Martians kidnapped BTD (none / 0) (#8)
by MKS on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 12:35:54 PM EST

But he escaped.

Good stuff.......

: He returns... (none / 0) (#11)
by Mr Natural on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 01:05:03 PM EST

... when the concern trolls begin showing up in the daylight.

One irony: (none / 0) (#10)
by Mr Natural on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 01:01:57 PM EST

With all the eyeballs that have looked at HRC's emails, the odds that whatever secrets they once held will remain secret are nil.

This mise-en-scène will result in an even larger collection of committees and eyeballs overseeing every message. Not only will that even further reduce the probability of future secrets staying secret - it will also slow the communication process.

Clinton's instincts were correct. The irony is that her secrets were safer confined to the narrow channel of her personal email than they would have been if they'd been "secured" by D.C.'s pack of self-important, security state bumblers and apparatchiks.

State has never really denied (none / 0) (#12)
by Reconstructionist on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 01:31:06 PM EST

The server was expected to contain classified information. You guys also probably would be well advised not to venture out too far on a limb because the current position of the IGIc is based ona review of a very limited number of the total documents she turned over (and none of the documents she has refused to give).

John Kerry/ Bob Schieffer: Face the Nation, April 12, 2015.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you also, Hillary Clinton is going to announce later today that she is going to run for president. The big controversy over the e-mails, are you confident that she has turned over all of the e-mails that were relevant to her role as secretary of state?

KERRY: Well, the State Department is currently in the process of review of those e-mails. It will take a matter of months. I think about a month has gone by, so there are a couple more.

But we will release all the e-mails that are appropriate based on classification. We are obviously looking through them to determine that no classified information is inadvertently released. But those e-mails will be released at the appropriate moment

But as BTD correctly noted above: (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 02:53:34 PM EST

"Clinton's use of a private email and server is irrelevant to this BTW. Dissemination of classified info is not permitted on any 'unsecure' means. .gov accounts are not secure." (Emphasis is mine.)

He's simply providing further relevant background on a now-discredited New York Times story, and its reporters' perhaps deliberate misrepresentations of the facts, while you're offering yet another baseless insinuation as part of your own continued effort to impugn Mrs. Clinton's own veracity on this particular issue.

So, why would we dare to venture out on that speculative limb, when it's already been occupied by you?

Aloha.


nothing (1.17 / 6) (#24)
by Reconstructionist on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 03:36:29 PM EST

Is irrelevant in the court of public opinion and only people who would squeal, " more mistress more," while she relieved herself on their face could fail to see this is damaging.


Today...the Court of Public Opinion? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by christinep on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 04:35:31 PM EST

Yesterday, you spoke in a stern way about how your focus would only be the law, etc. etc. At least, that is what I recall.

No matter. The real court of public opinion should begin to weigh in later--perhaps, a PUBLIC HEARING that HRC has sought will help clarify the situation for all of us. One thing: Although HRC offered to speak publicly with the Trey Gowdy group in May after the original hoopla from that committee, they seemed to disappear after her openly stated offer of public testimony. I understand now that the committee's spokesperson is hedging on the date announced in the news media earlier today (set for October 22nd) for a one-time PUBLIC hearing.

Who knows...maybe Gowdy's committee wants to expand the fishing, er, scope of the hearing and/or maybe he has concerns with it being PUBLIC. Ultimately, if there is a concern in the committee about being public, we will hear from Clinton in a very public forum wondering aloud why the committee cannot seem to agree on a set date for a PUBlIC hearing. Indeed, it is a good opportunity for her--all the way around--to speak openly to the committee ... and to the American public.


Gowdy (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 04:43:31 PM EST

does not want a public hearing about this. He has made that clear. The only way he wants a public one is to meet in private with Hillary first and she wants it all to be public and he has refused that numerous times.

And like you say he has constantly run away from setting any date and keeps shuffling his feet on doing anything. Of course, if I was him I would be trying to do the same thing. Innuendo works so much better for the GOP because they are able to shop conspiracy theories that way. When a hearing is held out in the open it undercuts the way they like to do business.


That would be because (2.00 / 1) (#37)
by Reconstructionist on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 05:28:43 PM EST

BTD goaded the sheep from asserting the existence of at least negligence is not plain to the utterly ludicrous claim this is helpful to her campaign.

If people want to argue it is survivable, I wouldn't fisagree but it takes a special kind of delusion to even momentarily consider the idea this could help her.


Reconstructionist: When a person (none / 0) (#38)
by christinep on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 05:36:45 PM EST

starts to increase emotion-laden insults, as you are doing now, it means one thing: You are losing the argument. (Best to own up or back off, rather than slowly go down, sir. Or you can pound the table.)


Exactly what argument am I losing? (1.50 / 2) (#41)
by Reconstructionist on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 06:12:56 PM EST

That Clinton was at least negligent?

That this is harmful to her?

Or that some people here are extraordiarily syncophantic?


The third one. When you stray (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 06:24:35 PM EST

into innuendo, you end up out the door along with your argument.

Don't know if they teach this in law school, but there's an old saying about holes and digging, can you dig it?


The First and Third (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Yman on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 06:24:55 PM EST

Anything else?


You are objective? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by MKS on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 09:33:41 PM EST

That is what you wrote the other day.

Objective, eh?

Too much emotion for objective, my friend. You seem upset your sure fire destruction of Hillary isn't happening.....


You either tone it down (5.00 / 3) (#60)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 02:22:46 PM EST

or not post in my threads.


: Thank you, BTD. (5.00 / 3) (#72)
by Zorba on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 05:00:41 PM EST

N/T

No--you are exposing yourself (none / 0) (#46)
by christinep on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 08:38:43 PM EST

Reconstructionist, as one whose agenda is as strong in opposition to anything Hillary as my sentiment is for her. The posture that your are above being driven primarily by anti-Hillary emotion is only pretense. You know that; and, many here know that. We can go back & forth; get up on various high horses and all that ... but, variations in posture won't change what you know to be true about your starting and ending position.

I don't know the source of your admitted antipathy toward Hillary Clinton nor do I need to know. What I do know is that your unrelenting attempt to paint HRC as negligent in her role as Secretary of State is spun from whole cloth and without factual or legal basis. That you continue to claim it does not make it the case. My engagement with you has been premised solely on the one-time possibility that you would be open to a give & take. I fear that is not the case.


whole cloth? (none / 0) (#75)
by Reconstructionist on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:42:38 AM EST

Do we not KNOW she used her private server to engage in communications that at the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community believes should have been identified as handled as classified?

Do we not afford the IGIC at least such a degree of expertise and credibility that his beliefs rise above total fabrication or "whole cloth?"

Do we not know that she simultaneously used her server for communication with others on unsecure syatems (Gmail and other mass consumer domains) and to communicate concerning official business of the State Department?

Are we not aware that "broadcasting" her use of the server through such means both would increase vulnerability?

I could go (and being me, on and on and on) but you (maybe not all0 should be able to get the point.

This matter will be investigated and it is important. Sadly, on both sides, very few seem to want a thorough, objective and meaningful investigation and explanation. the Republicanbs obviously do want a "show trial." It seems just as clear from her admitted actiopns (deciding herself what to disclose, not only refusing to surrender the server but clainming to have "wiped" it, that she and her supporters just want to conceal the truth.

It is sad that her staunchest enemies might give her political cover for doing ro by overplaying ther hand.

That would be a no win outcome for the public and reflect badly on both.


Your penultimate paragraph (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by christinep on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 10:47:31 AM EST

says it all...for you. Now, you'll just have to go back to other ways of opining about how to snare or get your prey.

Whole cloth, yep--because it sure is hard to make anything other than an initial flurry out of an obvious bureaucratic dispute among different federal entities about classification procedures. OTOH, I'll bet you'll keep trying.


From the beginning (none / 0) (#76)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:47:45 AM EST

the Clinton's have been fortunate in their enemies.


but, we haven't (none / 0) (#77)
by Reconstructionist on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 10:43:09 AM EST

both because they have made it easier for the Clinton's to evade accountability and those enemies do many other bad things that have nothing to do with the Clintons.


: To be perfectly blunt, ... (none / 0) (#103)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 01:35:55 PM EST

Reconstructionist: "but we haven't both because they have made it easier for the Clinton's to evade accountability and those enemies do many other bad things that have nothing to do with the Clintons."
... the only people in these matters who've thus far been evading accountability include people such as yourself, who feel free to speculate speciously, remorselessly and relentlessly about the Clintons, without any real due regard for the actual facts and truth.
For the past few days, you've literally done nothing here but pee on everyone's legs, and then insist that it's raining.
Enough already. If you wish to charge Mrs. Clinton with breaking the law, then you need to lay out your case coherently and rationally, and refer specifically to those laws which you believe to have been violated.
Because for all your fulminating, you've yet to do that. Rather, you've been content to offer us only your vague suspicions of wrongdoing, which are both supported and motivated only by your certitude that Bill and Hillary Clinton are somehow guilty of something. And because you believe them to be getting away with everything, they are therefore unworthy of ever being given the benefit of the doubt on anything.
I certainly hope that this constant blowing of smoke up everybody's posteriors in the absence of evidence is not the way you conduct the rest of your legal practice. I'd then have to feel very sorry for both you, and pray that you don't one day find yourself on the receiving end of your own rather deplorable tactics.
Aloha.

Yep (none / 0) (#39)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 05:39:15 PM EST

it's pretty obvious.


My, aren't you disgusting today. (5.00 / 4) (#44)
by nycstray on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 06:26:54 PM EST

: Just another example of CDS. (none / 0) (#50)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 12:11:42 AM EST

Gosh you have such a (none / 0) (#26)
by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 03:56:43 PM EST

sophisticated argument.


: It's called (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 04:11:40 PM EST

a troll meltdown and he just exposed himself.

tmi (none / 0) (#47)
by MKS on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 09:27:30 PM EST

No (none / 0) (#17)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 03:01:39 PM EST

the IG goes through all the emails too.

Honestly how many times have we been "warned" by concern trolls that this or that was going to happen. We were warned there was a "second intern" during the Monica Lewinsky event. We were told by concern trolls such as yourself that Bill was going to be arrested any day for Whitewater. We were told by concern trolls that he was going to resign. We were told by concern trolls that the travel office was a "big deal" and on and on the list goes. What is your agenda? Those concern trolls obviously wanted to get a Republican in office. Is that your goal too?

All the concern trolling has done is drive the GOP's numbers down lower so honestly I hope they keep doing it.


One has to assume that (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by MKS on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 03:09:01 PM EST

Hillary is not very bright for there to be any real problems with the emails.

Very sensitive information is not sent via email...regardless of whether it is a .gov address or not.

This will be all about Republicans and the media saying that although nothing has been proven, there are "unanswered questions."

This is the same GOP play....it has yet to work in spite of trying it for 25 years.


Yes (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 03:18:41 PM EST

it's the same thing. Create smoke. You know this whole issue lasted about two seconds on social media partly because the idiots in the GOP ran with the "Hillary is going to be prosecuted" line stupidly not waiting for the facts to come in and you see this is their downfall. They always go way over the top with inventive fantasies about how Obama told Marines to stand down in Benghazi and all other crazy stuff.

The truth is the GOP wants some magical thing to happen to take Hillary down because they know none of their candidates can do it. They scandal because it's all they know how to do. They can't run on their issues because nobody likes them.


Actually (5.00 / 1) (#157)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:28:45 AM EST

As an e-Discovery professional who actually does this stuff for a living, I can tell you that most of you here are kinda talking out of your butts.

You would be surprised amd amazed at the stuff that is sent through email by people at the highest levels of corporations, and yes, even government. You would be surprised how documents are reviewed (no, the IG is not reading every word of every email - maybe some staffers are, but even that has its own problems).

Is there something in Hillary's emails that's so damning? I don't know - probably not. But this whole story wouldn't have been a story if everything was turned over from n the beginning and in a manner that (at least appeared to be) more transparent.


Oh, I'm not surprised at the (5.00 / 1) (#158)
by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:39:47 AM EST

stupidity of users of e-mail systems, one has only to recall the Sony debacle as to what people say to each other when they think nobody else will ever read their exchanges.

I think that you can agree that the Times muddied the waters here, with their initial report and their non-retraction, "we were lied to", with no mention of who exactly lied to them about the criminal charges.

Captain Renault: What in heaven's name brought you to Casablanca?
Rick: My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.
Captain Renault: The waters? What waters? We're in the desert.
Rick: I was misinformed.

Of course (none / 0) (#159)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:36:42 PM EST

like others have said the Sony emails are an example of how people don't think email can be hacked.

I have to laugh at lot of the people who are screaming for transparency yet siding with the IG on this who doesn't want transparency. For most people this is one of those nitpicking things and for conservatives to scream about it (the ones who say there are too many rules and regulations) makes it even more crazy.

And I'm sure there are ton of people "classifying" stuff who have their hands on a ton of correspondence. IMO too much stupid stuff is stamped "classified".


I think the State Dept (none / 0) (#168)
by MKS on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:34:39 PM EST

sends cables, not emails, for the most sensitive information....


: yes (none / 0) (#170)
by FlJoe on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 06:28:47 PM EST

The email hack was a nothing burger compared to the wiki-leaks debacle.

I think that we can classify (none / 0) (#22)
by Zorba on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 03:23:08 PM EST

The GOP as "slow learners." ;-)
The problem is all the GOP Koolaid drinkers who avidly imbibe this tripe, believe it, and, unfortunately, vote.


: Yep (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 03:31:41 PM EST

so we have to just make sure we outnumber them at the polls.

In other words (none / 0) (#14)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 02:48:15 PM EST

The state department is willing to cover for Hillary, and the intel pros will not.

In other words, ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 02:56:58 PM EST

... who should you bother to consider the actual facts, when you've already got Fox News and AM right-wing squawk radio telling you what you so desperately want to hear?


I think the emails (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by MKS on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 03:05:29 PM EST

will be devastating because they will prove Hillary killed Vince Foster, right?


: The way I heard it... (none / 0) (#45)
by unitron on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 07:54:35 PM EST

...she did it because he was about to reveal that she was putting in place plans to deliberately cause the Benghazi debacle and that she'd faxed Bin Laden recommendations for obliging flight training schools.

The Intel pros? (1.00 / 1) (#57)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 12:47:18 PM EST

You mean the guys that lied to us about collecting every phone call we make and now have so much data to sift through they have no clue who REALLY IS a danger? You mean the guys who insist on having everything on all of us so China can easily hack in and have it all too? You talking about those competent individuals?


Keep it (none / 0) (#18)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 03:03:00 PM EST

up. Pew just came out with a poll that shows that only 1/3 of the country approves of the GOP. They're sick of your scandal mongering but you just cannot quit can you? In 6 months you've managed to shave 7 points off. Great job GOP!


Hillary's 10% problem (none / 0) (#28)
by Uncle Chip on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 04:20:24 PM EST

Usual Clinton tactics won't fix Hillary's new mess

The four classified emails identified so far come from a sample of only 40 emails scrutinized by the intelligence agencies' inspector general from the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department from her private server.
The one in 10 ratio of emails improperly containing classified material would suggest the Democratic Party's frontrunner to become commander in chief sent as many as 3,000 emails containing classified information and then told falsehoods about it.

: And the (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 04:29:08 PM EST

other agencies that these refer to are now backing the state department in this war between departments.
Do you really think that Hillary didn't know that this was coming? And a hack job from the Examiner? Color me surprised. LOL.
Trey Gowdy has blown it. More information coming out makes him look like the bojo everybody already knew he was.

: You're right (none / 0) (#40)
by Yman on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 05:42:42 PM EST

It doesn't take any "tactics" at all to laugh at what the Washington Examiner thinks it "would suggest".

What continues, though, is (none / 0) (#32)
by Anne on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 04:49:15 PM EST

execrable "reporting" by the media, which can't be bothered to drill down into the details, and as a result, all that's going to stick with people is "e-mails/Hillary Clinton/criminal."

How is the IGIC's later determination that some material should have been classified Clinton's fault because it wasn't?

That's a question the media won't answer.

: Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 04:53:34 PM EST

is going to have to start pushing back against this kind of thing. That's the only way to get the message out that the GOP has been lying to people. and then when it's finally destroyed the media will move to its well, it looks bad thing.
She frankly just has to go around the media.

David Brock's letter to thr NYT (none / 0) (#53)
by ding7777 on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 08:12:38 AM EST

I am writing to you today to express my continued concern about a string of reports from your publication that have been used to cast a shadow over Hillary Clinton under false pretenses.

That (none / 0) (#54)
by FlJoe on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 08:54:09 AM EST

stings, but it will not help. They might issue a weak mea culpa, but they will not change, they are repeat offenders when it comes to journalistic mal practice.

Unfortunately, no matter what the damage is done
Trump was blowing his horn today on CNN calling for criminal prosecution of Hillary, Tapper tried to call his bs but could hardly get a word in edgewise. The pundits of course all called it "troubling" for Hillary, despite the fact it is a nothing burger, a zombie one at that, reanimated by hacks.

This is your fourth estate America, cherish it. (Charlies head must be ready to explode)


: I guess (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 11:00:27 AM EST

the silver lining is she can now point to a completely bogus story by the NYT.
They did this garbage back in 2008 and guess what? She put one foot in front of the other and kept going and her numbers started to get better.

For the "poor readers" (none / 0) (#81)
by Yman on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 11:35:59 AM EST

How kind of you!

Now if only we could work on your comprehension as easily.

Your forgot (none / 0) (#83)
by FlJoe on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 11:41:16 AM EST

to emphasize this part

The four emails, which
have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings
and/or dissemination controls.

that's kind of important don't you think?

Yes, I do (none / 0) (#84)
by Reconstructionist on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 11:43:37 AM EST

Very important , in fact.

Because it strongly show that the emails were negligently handled at the time of generation by Ms. Clinton or people acting directly under her control.

Thanks for pointing that out. Some of the others might not have made that connection, obvious though it may be.


How would any (none / 0) (#89)
by mm on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 12:32:05 PM EST

of this be different if Hillary had used the .gov email address?


It wouldn't (none / 0) (#90)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 12:33:38 PM EST

be. It would be the same story because it's an argument about classification and the argument would have been the same with a state department server.


The problem is, (none / 0) (#124)
by mm on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:50:25 PM EST

The way it's being described on all the news and cable shows is that this all is Clinton's fault for using the email account and server she shared with President Clinton in the first place.

Andrea Mitchell this morning is now calling that, the "original sin".


Oh geez (none / 0) (#126)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:56:16 PM EST

of course. And of course it is ignored that previous secretary of states did the same thing and no one even burped.

More Clinton Rules stuff by the press. But she already knew she was going to have to go around the press.

And more clutching of the pearls by the beltway gang.


Not sure (none / 0) (#127)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:06:27 PM EST

What "previous secretaries of state" you are referring to, as only Colin Powell did not keep his 10 year old personal emails.


and neither (none / 0) (#128)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:13:19 PM EST

did Condi Rice. They only instituted this policy recently and all previous secretaries of state were asked to send in their correspondence.

No, Colin Powell has zero emails to turn in. The only emails of his that remained were the ones that were mailed to other people and this is according to him.


Well (none / 0) (#129)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:16:39 PM EST

Since she didn't use email (as neither did Madeline Albright), then you can't say "secretaries of state".

Of the two SoS who used email, one turned it over. And Powell admitted that he didn't have them.


: Correction (none / 0) (#130)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:21:30 PM EST

Condi Rice didn't use personal email.

Powell, (none / 0) (#131)
by mm on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:24:16 PM EST

didn't preserve any of his emails, personal or SD official work product.


Actually (none / 0) (#132)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:39:32 PM EST

Powell was the one who modernized the technology at State and have everyone an internet-capable computer. To change the culture, he started using it, including email, but did not retain any of them (and back then, the institutional retention policies and technology for things like email were pretty much nonexistent).

Powell ALSO used personal email.


: There was absolutely a retention policy (none / 0) (#134)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:42:45 PM EST

: That's baloney (none / 0) (#136)
by mm on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 05:35:12 PM EST

(and back then, the institutional retention policies and technology for things like email were pretty much nonexistent).
His official State Department work related emails should have been preserved just as all of his work product should be. It belongs to us.

It would have been different because (none / 0) (#91)
by Reconstructionist on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 12:36:51 PM EST

she used a system for which controls directed by and managed by the government in accordance with what the government considered best practices were in place.

Would there still be concerns if her office is incapable of properly recognizing and maring materials as classified even it used the official server.

Yes, there would be still concerns but not as many or as deep. One that would be pretty obvious is that it would be far easier to learn after the fact whether security was compromises and unauthorized persons gained access if it involved a forensic examination of a system in the possession and control of the government than on a server the government cannot examine.


: It wouldn't (none / 0) (#119)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:26:37 PM EST

is the shorter version of your answer.

: This is nonsense (none / 0) (#123)
by mm on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:51:17 PM EST

The reports I have heard and read are that the archiving and preservation of State Department emails using the .gov accounts was not instituted until earlier this year.
"A State Department spokeswoman said Friday that the department did not start automatically archiving emails from senior officials until February of this year -- raising questions about Hillary Clinton's claim that her emails were "immediately" saved whenever she corresponded with colleagues.
The former secretary of state made that assertion during her press conference earlier this week -- and in a lengthy statement put out by her office -- as she defended her exclusive use of personal email. Clinton downplayed concerns that official emails could have been lost by suggesting anytime she emailed anyone with a ".gov" address, that email would be stored for posterity.
But department spokeswoman Jen Psaki made clear on Friday that this was not the way the system worked.
She said the department only started automatically archiving emails for other senior officials in February."
So, in reality, the emails that Clinton gave to the State Department and which are being reviewed in response to FOIA requests might not even exist if Hillary Clinton hadn't preserved them.
Secondly, the NY Times still has their reporting wrong.
Jennifer Werner, a Democratic spokesperson for the Select Committee on Benghazi, told the On Media blog that the State Inspector General "did not ask for any kind of investigation, criminal or otherwise." Werner said the referral "went from the Intelligence Community IG to the FBI."
For that reason, Werner said the Times was wrong to report that two inspectors general had asked the Justice Department to open an investigation. [Politico, 7/24/15]
This still goes back to what BTD said earlier, this is a power struggle between ICIG and State.

No it actually (none / 0) (#93)
by FlJoe on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 12:41:53 PM EST

lets Clinton off the hook, at least for the four emails referenced.

four emails containing classified IC-derived information in

, so unless the IC broke their own rules Hillary could not have been the originator.

You could perhaps call it negligence on one of the thousands of employees of the SD, only a few of whom are actually under her "direct control" or perhaps more likely a difference of opinion between agencies, a turf war as BTD suggests. Considering that it is all "classified" we will probably never know.

In any case Hillary could not possibly have known the status of the info beforehand or afterwards for that matter.


I swear! (none / 0) (#95)
by Reconstructionist on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 12:51:00 PM EST

Joe is not a plant I employ to justify my questioning of reading skills.

Joe:

No. what that means is the the emails contain information that state obtained from the intelligence community and that information received from the IC that WAS CLASSIFIED was then communicated through Hillary's private server. How does that let her off the hook?

At best, one could hypothesize that an underling who communicates directly with Clinton passed along information from the IC that was classified but did not make sure Clinton knew the source and the protected nature of the information and thus Clinton accidentally employed improper procedures.

That's pretty much a definitional example of negligence-- and she was in charge and ultimately responsible for the negligence of those working for her.

If that is the explanation it should have been made a long time ago.

Banned (5.00 / 2) (#117)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:25:48 PM EST

all further comments fro you in my threads will be deleted

Come back on Wednesday.


I (none / 0) (#105)
by FlJoe on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 01:46:23 PM EST

swear Rec is a plant, or a least he reasons like one.

At worst, one of her underlings, probably a career staffer several levels under her made a "mistake" that she had no way of noticing.

If you want to accuse someone of negligence for a mistake made by one of the thousands employees under you, then you could make that case about virtually any CEO, Agency head or the like.


That would possibly (none / 0) (#106)
by Reconstructionist on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 01:52:36 PM EST

be a viable defense if not for one small detail. I am pretty sure thousands of employees did not have access to her email server and the ability to use it communicate anything let alone classified information.

In the event I am wrong about that, that in and of itself would seem, uh, what are the words I'm searchng for? Uhh, hmm, oh yeah----- stupid as hell..


: You are (none / 0) (#108)
by FlJoe on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:07:19 PM EST

probably correct that only a relative handful of employees were in direct communication with her, but you obviously miss the fact that each one of them has many more that they communicate with. It is quite possible, I would even say even probable that any info passed to Hillary originated somewhere down the chain.

Banned (none / 0) (#118)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:25:48 PM EST

Ah, (1.00 / 2) (#138)
by Reconstructionist on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 05:52:18 PM EST

Again you resort to censorship when incapable of sustaining your silly argument against challenge.

It's deja vu all over again. I still will call you out when you fail to man up once your disingenuous claims are shown to be silly spin.

Censorship? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 05:56:39 PM EST

What is it about the concept of private property that you don't understand? You're not exactly John Peter Zenger, and BTD isn't Governer Cosby.


I didn't say (1.00 / 2) (#140)
by Reconstructionist on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 06:04:34 PM EST

It's unconstituional. It is censorship, and it is motivated by the realization that he is pindunable to respond in way anyone but asmall handful wouldn' recognize as disingeuos ninsense.

At the point hestarts deleting we see one reason he supports Clinton so vehemently . They both love that delete button and the destruction of the recird, do they not?


Mmmmmmm (5.00 / 2) (#142)
by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 06:21:19 PM EST

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


I'm pretty sure I do (1.00 / 1) (#144)
by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 08:57:32 AM EST

and I'm pretty sure you don't understand the definition you yourself provided.

This would be a media outlet or other group.


: By making comments about those (5.00 / 2) (#145)
by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:14:34 AM EST

Who don't agree with your findings not based on facts or logic, you exempted yourself from civilized discussion of the issue at hand.
Cry me a river.

Why don't you take BTD's hint ... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:31:19 PM EST

... and cool your jets for a while?


That's BS (5.00 / 4) (#141)
by sj on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 06:12:44 PM EST

You are completely free to peddle additional BS on other threads.

BTD monitors his threads and therefore usually prevents congenital stupidity from infecting the conversation. Personally, I appreciate that.

And unlike a lot sites with monitored commenting, he doesn't just "disappear" the trolls but instead publicly states who and when they have crossed the line.


Actually, I would encourage you (none / 0) (#147)
by Yman on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:25:47 AM EST

... to "man up" and keep up your ridiculous posts.

See if you get banned for more than a day.


so that's (none / 0) (#148)
by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:45:36 AM EST

your answer?

You've sided with the "I take as an article of faith that no classified information was communicated via her server" crowd and done so based entirely because not doing so would require acknowledging Clinton has not been entirely truthful. not only that, but her denial is literally the only reason existing to believe it.

I was, of course being sarcastic, because I obviously forsee that unquestioning allegiance to the her will remain de rigueur among the Clinton Youth Brigade which dominates these threads.

I'm fully confident more denial, deflection, obsfucation and disingenuousness will be forthcoming and that anyone who dares point it will continue to be attacked with the pea shooters.


You seem to be having an argument that (5.00 / 2) (#156)
by Anne on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:26:07 AM EST

is not the one everyone else is discussing, which may be why you keep running into a wall.

I don't see this as a matter of articles of faith or blind allegiance or terminal sycophancy; for me it has to do with making sense of or identifying what actually happened and when.

First, we had truly bad reporting from the NYT, that said the matter of Clinton's e-mails had been referred to the DOJ as a criminal matter. This poured gasoline on the smoldering embers of the entire situation, and it predictably caused an explosion in all the usual places for all the usual people. Unfortunately, it turned out not to be true: there was no criminal referral. In fact, it appears the contact was with security officials within the Executive Branch, and was a pro-forma notification statutorily required to be made whenever it comes to the attention or is determined by the IC IG's office that a potential compromise of national security information may have been made.

Now comes the joint statement of the Inspector Generals for both the Intelligence Community and the State Department that says that at least 4 e-mails contained classified information from the jump.

Now, these two IGs may agree that the communications were classified (although I note that this so-called joint statement appears to have been voiced by the IG IG, with the State Department IG having nothing to say), but I don't know that that means the State Department itself, as a working entity in its daily operations, either failed to designate them as classified or were aware they were classified and failed to maintain that status at the time these materials were received. I think it means that just as the IC has an inspector general who reviews material that is turned over and/or the subject of a FOIA request, the State Department has its own IG who performs a review, as well, and just as with the IC IG, the State Department IG is conducting these reviews after the fact, not contemporaneously.

You - and others - want to blame Clinton for these e-mails on the basis of a determination of "classified" by two inspectors general of two different agencies/departments, years/months after they were sent/received under what appears to be the State Department's imprimatur of "not classified." You further want to accuse Clinton of knowingly breaching security, and imputing nefarious motives to Clinton for doing so. And then there's the ever-present and inevitable conclusion that she's lied about it.

And who is it that has a problem with blindness?

Let's make something clear: I'm not defending anything Clinton may have done that she shouldn't have. What I am doing is defending her from getting the blame for something it's not at all clear she knew, or State knew and agreed, was wrong.

And while you can certainly take issue with the decision not to use the state.gov e-mail, and can additionally take issue with there being no government oversight or review of the contents of her server in determining which materials would be turned over and question the decision to destroy/wipe the server so no one will ever know what was on it, I don't believe those issues are the subject of this particular development.

For me, a lot of this that's going on now seems to have all the hallmarks of an internecine battle for supremacy, and it seems to be just fine with a lot of people if Clinton is the collateral damage of that fight.


"Pea shooters" - heh (none / 0) (#149)
by Yman on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:54:37 AM EST

Projection AND an imagination! You should write children's books.

Love the Hitler analogy, though.


You have no evidence that (none / 0) (#150)
by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:56:01 AM EST

Hillary was being untruthful, so the rest of your plot doesn't make sense whatsoever.


I have the expert opinion (none / 0) (#151)
by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 10:15:09 AM EST

of the Inspector General. That may not be conclusive but it is certainly evidence, and persuasive evidence. She's going to need more to refute that than a detail free blanket denial.


Assuming (none / 0) (#152)
by mm on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 10:29:42 AM EST

that the ICIG is correct and the SD is wrong, if there is some objective way to decide that issue, the fact that it was done on her own email account on her own server is irrelevant. This all comes down to somebody in the IC (CIA (JEB!))is trying to use this to embarrass Clinton and reignite the firestorm that first erupted when he private email account was first revealed.


An opinion (none / 0) (#153)
by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 10:30:09 AM EST

is hardly evidence, my friend.

I hope you aren't this disingenuous IRL.


all you are doing is exposing your ignorance (none / 0) (#154)
by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 10:53:57 AM EST

do you not think the IG could be qualified as an expert in these matters? Or, do you not know experts are permitted to give evidence in the form of an opinion?


: In case you haven't noticed (none / 0) (#164)
by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:45:54 PM EST

genius, an opinion isn't definitive evidence before a given case is resolved, as with this one.

It's only negligent if State had (none / 0) (#96)
by Anne on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 12:53:42 PM EST

determined that the information in the e-mails was classified and failed to mark them as such; if they did not make the classified determination, then I don't see what the problem is as to Clinton. As between State and the IGIC's office, sure.

But no one has answered to my satisfaction whether the materials were ever actually classified by State, or if this is the IG's office saying State should have classified them.

The State Department's servers were not secure, so the argument that if Clinton had used a .gov account, we wouldn't be going through this just doesn't hold up for me. And have we forgotten that most of the Clinton e-mails either came from or were sent to .gov accounts at State, meaning they were housed on State's servers?

No matter where the e-mails were, they were still going to be reviewed in light of FOIA requests, and based on what I've been reading, I have no reason to believe that the ICIG's office wouldn't still have been taking State to the woodshed over State's handling of classified communications.

If I were Clinton, I think my stock answer would be, "this is between the State Department and the IG's office; let them work it out."


They were not (5.00 / 1) (#113)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:22:21 PM EST

and States argues TODAY they should not have been classified then or NOW.


One could (none / 0) (#99)
by Reconstructionist on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 01:12:44 PM EST

negligently disseminate information one knows to be classified. (many possible examples, such as ones that occur in every day life such as sending something to someone other than you intended; or failing to remove an attachment...)

One could also be negligent by failing to recognize that information is classified where the act of transmission is intentional.

Here, one obvious possibility is that state received information that was classified and marked as such from the IC. Internally to her office the information was communicated to Ms. Clinton without proper notice it was classified. That failure does not absolve state. It would seem everyone should be able to grasp that information cannot be unilaterally declassified by deliberate or inadvertent omission of the proper markings.


Do you have any idea how large the (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by Anne on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 01:29:11 PM EST

Intelligence Community is, or across how many agencies and offices it spans?

So, when I read "IC-derived" information, that doesn't tell me much. It still doesn't tell me whether it arrived or was sent with any knowledge on State's end that it was supposed to be classified. If it went to or was sent from State without the intelligence markings, I guess I'd want to know if it arrived from the intelligence community with markings.

Further, just because something was derived from the intelligence community doesn't mean it was classified. If the expectation was that classified communications would be marked as such, and what was received from the IC was not, would you have us believe that additional checks needed to have been made to verify the information was or wasn't classified?

This seems to me to be an exercise of chasing one's own tail.


How come (none / 0) (#104)
by Reconstructionist on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 01:40:50 PM EST

people want FACTS when I offer likely hypotheses but slurp up hypotheses offered to absolve Clinton.

I remind you the person stating that the material were IC- derived and classified, is the Inspector General not me, I am simply the messenger on that. Since no one else seems to want to talk about tht it being way more fum to dis the NYT (which employs no Presidential candidates insofar as I know0

Do you not think it likely that if IC personnel had failed to properly identify and label documents prior to transmission to State that the Inspector General of the IC would now be aware of that and making that part of the referral?

Stop commenting (5.00 / 2) (#116)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:24:57 PM EST

I told you to tone it down.

You are now banned from my threads for a day.


: Apparently, (none / 0) (#161)
by Zorba on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:46:35 PM EST

Not long enough, Armando. ;-)

You're not offering "likely hypotheses" (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by Yman on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:24:17 AM EST

You're offering specious attacks phrased as questions.

A silly, but transparent tactic.


One does wonder, (none / 0) (#160)
by Zorba on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:45:15 PM EST

If the commenter you are responding to is, in fact, a lawyer as he says (and I have no reason to disbelieve this), then how succesful is he, if he uses said repetitive, transparent tactics and such specious attacks in a court of law?
And yes, this is in the form of a question, not an accusation; but then, I'm not a lawyer. ;-)


whether I am a lawyer (none / 0) (#165)
by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:22:25 PM EST

or how successfully I might be has nothing to do with the issues involving Ms. Clinton.

Were I an unemployed fast food worker, the issue would still be whether Ms. Cinton was negligent. So far, I have seen nothing beyond, she says she wasn't and if you challenge that you are an ignorant fascist, in response to the points I have made showing strong reason to believe she was, a number of which have, of course, been deleted.

: Well, bless your heart. (5.00 / 2) (#166)
by Zorba on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:26:55 PM EST

Aren't you special?

: Fast food? Nahhhh ... (none / 0) (#167)
by Yman on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:37:49 PM EST

"Strong reason" -heh
I'm thinking comedian.

There were (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by ding7777 on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:05:32 PM EST

no markings!

Here, one obvious possibility is that state received information that was classified and marked as such from the IC.

They (none / 0) (#109)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:12:06 PM EST

are only classified AFTER they are received which should be obvious to anybody by now.

And if the IC sent the information over unclassified communications channels and they're not claiming it was classified then that's on them.


There were no markings (none / 0) (#110)
by Reconstructionist on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:17:08 PM EST

on her communications.

Everyone seems to agree on that. What we don't know is whether:

She wrote emails paraphrasing documents that were marked.

She wrote emails paraphrasing documents her staff prepared for her which were not marked but should have been because they contained info from peoperly classified and marked documents delivered to her office by the IC.

She wrote emails that were never probably marked including by the IC prior to delivery by State but that should have been marked.

I'd venture to guess the middle option is the most likely. I doubt she would not understand that information in classified documents remains classified and simply paraphrasing it in a communication does not change that. As I said, it would seem likely that if Intelligence had negligently failed to alert State as to classified nature of documents being delivered thus contributing to the cause of the improper handling that the Inspector General of the Intelligence community would have noted that because it would be kind of important and in need as much review as State's handling once it received.


: Oh, dear Lord...talk about whole cloth... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by Anne on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:31:34 PM EST

there's just no basis for your dreaming up these scenarios. None. You're getting a little Uncle Chippy now, and that's not a good sign.

: We do know (none / 0) (#115)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:24:03 PM EST

STATE said so.
IC argues they SHOULD HAVE BEEN because some nfo was IC-derived.
State sez IC was and is wrong.

STATE sez TODAY (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:23:10 PM EST

they were not classified then, and should not have been.

They also say they should not be classified NOW.


Margaret Sullivan, Public (none / 0) (#85)
by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 11:53:26 AM EST

Editor, NYT:

????

The public editor, Margaret Sullivan, (none / 0) (#87)
by KeysDan on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 12:29:30 PM EST

on the Clinton email story: "It was a mess." The editor says he would do it differently, but he defends the reporters--it was those unnamed sources. Sullivan is still trying to find out how it happened, but does lament that it will be hard to put it back in the bottle. Yes, it was and is a mess.


Who new the reporters in the byline (none / 0) (#92)
by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 12:38:56 PM EST

send other unnamed reporters to check unnamed sources?


Some editorializing: (none / 0) (#94)
by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 12:42:35 PM EST

None of this should be used to deny the importance of The Times's reporting on the subject of Mrs. Clinton's email practices at the State Department, a story Mr. Schmidt broke in March. Although her partisans want the focus shifted to these errors, the fact remains that her secret email system hamstrung possible inquiries into her conduct while secretary of state both by the news media and the public under the Freedom of Information Act and by Congress. And her awarding to herself the first cull of those emails will make suspicion about what they contained a permanent part of the current campaign.

TPM's Josh Marshall (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by christinep on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 05:39:33 PM EST

talks about the NYT's latest attempt to question the source, question the this, question the that ... ultimately, he concludes today that the reporters in a hurry or for whatever reason tried to blame the source when their slipshod reporting was revealed...and, in turn, the editor attempts to cover for them in the same manner by referring to obtaining the info from "the government."

It is important for a reporter to understand the who, what, & where to make inquiry in "the government." It is important for any reporter--let alone the once-prestigious Times reporters--to understand terms of art/usage/departmental-speak when obtaining info from a vague does-he/she-know-anything source. When a reporter gets burned or stung by a source, the big boys & girls who are journalists are supposed to suck it up ... rather than the spectacle we see here of running to daddy editor for protection.


Once again, (none / 0) (#97)
by KeysDan on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 12:57:33 PM EST

proving: "it is a mess."


So the (none / 0) (#98)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 01:07:35 PM EST

fact that the NYT totally botched a story doesn't matter is the essence of that nonsense?


I think the takeaway is that (5.00 / 2) (#100)
by Anne on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 01:18:41 PM EST

even though the "there" they first reported wasn't really there, even though some anonymous source said it was, eventually, they managed to stumble into some kind of there that wasn't as big a there as the there they started with, but they figured out how to kind of/sort of report on it in a way that still allowed them to drag Clinton through the mud.

They could save a lot of paper, ink and bandwidth by just running the same headline every day: "Because...Clinton."

Story optional.


: Same (none / 0) (#101)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 01:29:09 PM EST

nonsense they did with Whitewater. There must be something "there" even though there was never anything there but let's keep hoping there's something there and keep writing about it in hopes of there being something there even though our sources have been lying to us and we know they are lying to us.
You would have thought when they fell for the faked emails regarding Benghazi that they would have been enough for them to be cautious but apparently not.
Honestly if I were a conspiracy theorist I would posit that Hillary planted the whole story to make a complete fool of the NYT and they fell completely and totally for the "scam".

Here's my problem: when the ICIG (none / 0) (#86)
by Anne on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 12:16:37 PM EST

says:

These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

are they saying that:

(1) The State Department considered them to contain classified information, but failed to properly mark them as such?

(2) That State did not consider the information classified, but the ICIG did?

If the State Department did not consider them to be classified, but the ICIG did, how is this Clinton's fault/problem/responsibility?

If the State Department did consider the information to be classified, whose responsibility was it to mark the communications accordingly?

Additionally, while the ICIG takes issue with use of the personal system on which these materials resided, it does not address the vulnerabilities of the State Department's own servers, which had already been hacked.

It sounds to me like there is significant disagreement between State and the ICIG's office about how State handled both the Clinton private server arrangement and the classification of communications.

I guess what I see is how personal this has become for you, with your opinions being colored by your certainty that any reasons Clinton had, any judgments she made, could only have been craven, irresponsible and cavalier, putting the nation at great risk.

I am not a big Clinton fan. I'm also not a big fan of the security monolith that is highly politicized, feels entitled to every speck of information about everything, and thinks it owns that information.

In retrospect, it probably was a mistake for Clinton to set herself apart by having a personal server for her e-mails; whether it was for good or evil, that she wasn't able to see how it would and could be used against her does make me question her political acumen. And while I think the reporting on this has been especially bad, and I also believe if they couldn't loop her into this debacle, they'd have found something else to try to get her on, this seems like one of those things that was completely avoidable.

In the meantime, however, perhaps the only way to resolve this will be for State and the IG's office to get out the rulers and decide once and for all which of them has the bigger d!ck.

State sez they were not (none / 0) (#112)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:20:42 PM EST

and should not have been classified at the time.

In addition, they don't think they should be classified NOW.


: So...turf war that the media is (none / 0) (#122)
by Anne on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:45:14 PM EST

making into something else, either because they can, because they don't think reporting that lacks a controversy element isn't news, or because they really don't understand the issues. Or they're choosing sides.
Maybe all of the above.
Like I said, Clinton, if she has to say anything at all, just needs to keep saying, "this is between the State Department and the IG's office, so you need to be asking them."
Pretty sure if she said that, the media would find some way to jigger it around so it sounded like something else.
[I have no idea how we're going to survive until the election...16 more months of this? Yeesh.]

I deleted comments (none / 0) (#111)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:19:51 PM EST

that linked to the Ig statement as the links were provided snd referenced in my post

I have been wondering (none / 0) (#155)
by FlJoe on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:12:47 AM EST

about this

In a second memo to Mr. Kennedy, sent on July 17, the inspectors general said that at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information. The inspectors general did not identify the email or reveal its substance.

I am a bit surprised some amateur or professional document examiner, afflicted with OCD or insomnia(or both), has not stumbled upon this info, or at least speculated on a couple of likely possibilities.

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment