home

The Clinton Rules: About that "classified info" - what about the stuff not on Hillary's server?

Josh Gerstein writes:
Classified emails passed through commercial email services like Google and AOL on their path to or from a private server maintained by Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state, but so far, the government appears to have done little to retrieve or secure the messages.

Also too, the FBI appears to have done nothing to capture the "classified info" sitting in the State Department's unsecured system. It's as if no one really gives a sh*t about the "classified info" that isn't on Hilary Clinton's server. Gerstein writes:

The nonchalant response to messages stored on commercial servers contrasts sharply with recent FBI efforts to take possession of email copies on a thumb drive maintained by Clinton’s attorney David Kendall and on a server kept by a Denver tech company that managed Clinton’s account.

Gee. No one actually cares about this apparently. Other than for political effect of course. Steven Aftergood notes:

[The two reactions] are discordant, and they reflect inconsistent notions of information security[.] They are totally incompatible positions.

It only makes sense if eGhazi is just a political witch hunt. Hey now!

A government official notes:

The logic is classic government logic: If I know classified material is in place X, I’m going to go get it,” said one former senior State Department official. “They’re not going to, without reasonable cause, start searching everyone’s home email. In a sense, [Clinton] is suffering the mortification on behalf of the entire department.”

If they REALLY care, they'll discover it's not just the State Department. It' the entire government.

But that takes away from the political witchhunt.

There is no there there when it comes to eGhazi. Except of course, as a cudgel for ue by Hillary Haters. (NOTE - Clinton's political stupidity is manifest here. She forgot about the Clinton Rules. which she should never ever forget.)

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Seriously, Clinton campaign should hire BTD n/t (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Coral on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 08:13:08 AM EST


    And who wants Hillary's private email? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by masslib on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 08:30:52 AM EST
    Gowdy in the House.  Justice Watch, and yes, Citizens United, in court.  Gee, you think this could be a concerted effort to embarrass Clinton?

    Oh, absolutely. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    According to Jonathan Allen at Vox.com, Gowdy was apparently at the center a concerted effort to spin the email story to the New York Times, which resulted in a spectacularly botched story:

    "I don't know who the Times's sources are, but I do know this: My reporting suggests that House Benghazi Committee Chair Trey Gowdy was fully aware of the request to the Justice Department at least a day before the Times broke the story. If he or his staff were sources, it should have been incumbent upon the Times to check every detail with multiple unconnected sources. Gowdy's team has been accused of leaking something untrue to a reporter before. Clearly, [NYT public editor Margaret Sullivan] thinks her colleagues didn't do a good enough job of vetting their sources."

    Gowdy of the House! Aloha.

    Parent

    This might help (none / 0) (#3)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 08:46:35 AM EST
    separate fact from fiction:

    TIMELINE of the Clinton Email Controversy

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 08:49:40 AM EST
    heryl Atkinsson.

    Too funny./

    Parent

    I could be wrong (none / 0) (#7)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 09:53:07 AM EST
    I think her last name is spelled Attkisson.

    I just read over the timeline at the page for the first time.

    It seems that there were one or more FOI violations.

    It also seems that, if it is true that Clinton aides have destroyed their blackberries, then, that would probably be one of those violations of the Sarbanes Oaxley law or whatever it is about destroying evidence known to be or likely to be or believed to become part of federal investigation.

    Well, it is not like I am super happy with the Rep alternatives . . .  What am I going to do? Hope for Rubio and Fiorina to rise to the top?

    maybe I should find out if I can give to mexican political campaigns . . .  but I think some of the last very few times I "gave" to a political or semi-political group was
    1) the ACLU;
    and
    2) the Libertarian party 20 years ago . . .

    Maybe Carson can run and worry that America will start going to church on Sunday . . . like it has for the last 400 years  . . .

    By the way, about your defenses of hrc . . .  it seems as if at least some of your attempted defenses have been like this:

    To the suggestion that Clinton or her aides have broken the law in A, B and C, I answer that she has not broken the law in D, E and F.

    and

    To the suggestions that Clinton has broken the law or created problems in A B C and D, I reply that lots of people--in addition to HRC--have done C and D and she has not done E F G and H . . . and the Feds should be investigating everybody HRC and others for I J and K!

    After all,

    you would admit that, per the timeline:

    1. there were FOI violations;
    2. there appears to have been intentional destruction of blackberries by some aides;
    3. there was almost intentional destruction of evidence by another aide;
    4. Clinton's email server apparently contained at least a few emails that contained known classified information at the time--info that for some reason was not marked as classified, at least apparently and we don't know why.

    Do you admit 1-3 and confess or dispute #4?

    Parent
    What are you talking about??? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 10:07:48 AM EST
    "....Clinton aides destroyed their blackberries..."

    Link

    n its filing Wednesday, attorneys representing the State Department submitted a statement by executive secretary Joseph E. Macmanus, in which he states that his team "does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the department to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and has not located any such devise at the department."

    BlackBerry phones were issued to Abedin and Mills, he said, but those devises would have been cleared through a factory reset once they were returned to the department.

    "Because the devices issued to Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin would have been outdated models," he said, "in accordance with standard operating procedures those devices would have been destroyed or excessed."



    Parent
    Trying (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:16:43 AM EST
    to reason with conspiracy theorists is an exercise in futility.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 10:17:12 AM EST
    Yeah whatever.

    FYI, I don;t need anyone's timeline on this story.

    Frankly, I think I am probably one of the most informed persons on this story in the country.

    Parent

    Works for me (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 04:41:36 AM EST
    Keep on going, man.....

    Parent
    As for your argument (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 10:20:11 AM EST
    such as it is, well, it's not coherent, does not identify acts and relate them to supposed rule or legal violation, and basically, is just RW gibberish.

    Try to make a coherent argument.

    If you do, I'll address it.

    I'm not going to decipher your gibberish to then construct my response.

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#13)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 10:31:32 AM EST
    same so called journalist who mistook a stuck backspace key for a DOJ hack.

    Parent
    the press and Attkisson . . . (2.00 / 1) (#65)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 09:56:11 PM EST
    An OC Register article dated Aug. 4, 2008 entitled "Dr. Paul Offit Responds" contained several disparaging statements that Dr. Offit of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia made about CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson and her report. Upon further review, it appears that a number of Dr. Offit's statements, as quoted in the OC Register article, were unsubstantiated and/or false.

    *

    Hmm . . . newspaper prints false and disparaging comments about Attkisson made by a "Dr." .  . . Newspaper then checks the facts . . . newspaper decides to issue a retraction and correction in their paper for false and slanderous comments they had printed by a Dr. . .

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . .

    I can't imagine that if Sheryl Attkisson has a bunch of really bad things she has said or done, that a Dr would resort to falsehoods in his attempt to slander her in a newspaper . . .   falsehoods that could easily be checked  . . . and which were then checked.  Oh, well.

    Like you guys say, Attkisson just has no credibility about anything . . .

    Parent

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:09:09 PM EST
    I would suggest that you look at the dates in question in your so-called "evidence." The original CBS News story by Sharyl Attkisson, which first aired on July 25, 2008, was little more than anti-vaccination hit piece, which is hardly surprising since she's one of those nutballs who've continued to falsely equate childhood vaccinations with diagnoses of autism. Further, this wasn't the first time she (ab)used her position at CBS News to publicize unsubstantiated theories and propaganda about the subject.

    Specifically in her July 2008 report, Atkisson impugned the integrity of Dr. Paul Offit, who is co-inventor of the Rota-Teq oral vaccine, which is used to inoculate infants against rotavirus gastroenteritis. She accused him of profiting inordinately and personally from the sale of the vaccine as holder of the patent, by noting that he holds a research chair at the American Academy of Pediatrics that was endowed $1.5 million by Merck.

    In fact, and not surprisingly, Attkisson got it wrong. First, the chair's endowment was $2 million and not $1.5 million as she reported, and further, it's the Academy itself which holds the endowment, and not Dr. Offit.

    Such endowments allow medical researchers to continue their studies without having to constantly write grant proposals to obtain funding. The interest generated by the endowment's principle is used to fund the studies, and the researcher can't touch the principle. Further, if the researcher leaves the chair for whatever reason, the money stays with the chair, and the institution holding the endowmwnt appoints someone else to that chair to continue the research.

    But I digress, albeit with reason. The original Orange County Register article, in which Dr. Offit took issue with Attkisson's findings, was published on August 4, 2008. I would also note that he's not the only one who complained about Attkisson's hit piece. Dr. David Gorski wrote a rather detailed piece in his science blog Respectful Insolence, refuting Atkisson's so-called journalism.

    The so-called correction to the original Aug. 2008 OC Register article was not issued until April 18, 2011 -- 30 months ex post facto. Clearly, Dr. Offit didn't respond because he didn't feel any need to do so since, as I explained above, it is the American Academy of Pediatrics which holds the chair's $2 million endowment and not him personally.

    I would also noted that this correction was then further edited on August 21, 2013. And to top of the hilarity, at the bottom of the OC Register's page is the following statement:

    "We will promptly correct factual errors."

    Thanks for the late evening amusement, which accorded to me the opportunity to further show everyone why Sharyl Atkisson is not only a shoddy journalist but also a staunchly know-nothing anti-vaxxer and unbridled crackpot.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    And speaking of so-called journalists, ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:02:38 PM EST
    ... I noticed last night that Attkisson's former CBS colleague and fellow "investigative correspondent" Lara Logan is back on the job at "60 Minutes." Per an addendum to the Clinton Rules, conspiracy theory means never having to say you're sorry.

    Parent
    "stuck backspace" (none / 0) (#51)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 05:33:26 PM EST
    lol.  I remember that story.  You're being charitable.  That story reeked.  It absolutely reeked.  The phone just happened to be recording the screen showing the text of her story while the backspace key was "stuck? - ( or, according to her, aliens or the NSA/CIA/Bildenberg Group/evul hackers were censoring her work?")  The b/s meter was off the scale.  Her b/s generator was turned up to 11.

    What's crazy is that some people bought it.


    Parent

    Big Tent (none / 0) (#15)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44:20 AM EST
    What part of her Timeline is inaccurate?

    Parent
    What part of it is relevant? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:10:45 AM EST
    My favorite part was the (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:14:57 AM EST
    frequent use of scare quotes to make sure we were all as skeptical as Atkisson.

    But I'm sure the right loves her...they do love a good conspiracy, don't they?

    Parent

    That blog's masthead alone ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:24:40 PM EST
    ... should tell any rational and informed person all that he / she needs to know. I immediately stopped reading the moment I saw it. As a reliable and credible source of information, Sharyl Attkisson ranks right up there with our friends at Breitbart.com.

    Parent
    relevant (none / 0) (#27)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57:32 PM EST
    What part of it is relevant?

    You're kidding, right?

    Just the parts that Hillary and her lawyers are judiciously and painfully studying right now in preparation for her October 22 performance before Congress.

    IOW -- All of it.

    It wouldn't surprise me if she had it right in front of her when she testifies to avoid committing perjury -- again.

    Parent

    ROFLMAO (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    Ok, so none of it is relevant to eGhazi.

    Parent
    You know, these guys on the far right ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 02:41:59 PM EST
    ... increasingly remind me of Prof. Turgidson's (Sam Kinison) epic classroom rant in the 1986 comedy "Back to School."

    Parent
    Thanks Uncle (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 09:28:03 AM EST
    And, of course, the question is...

    Is the timeline information accurate??

    It's not even about the eGhazi story (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    It's more Benghazi nonsense from a deranged figure.

    Parent
    In this case, truth and accuracy ... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:12:47 PM EST
    ... doesn't survive the byline. Sharyl Attkisson is an agenda-driven, grade-A crackpot.

    Parent
    Donald (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    if she is so nutty then it should be easy to show where she is wrong.

    Parent
    Actually, Jim, you should instead ... (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 03:21:46 PM EST
    ... show us where, how and why she's right.

    Not surprisingly, Sharyl Attkisson now works for the Heritage Foundation. Back when she was at CBS News, she alleged that her company-issued laptop had been hacked by the CIA, even though the Office of the Inspector General found no evidence to that effect. (Here's the OIG report on that matter.) She further claimed in her 2014 book "Stonewalled" that her computers had been breached as part of a federal effort to monitor her, because she did reporting critical of the Obama administration.

    The woman is clearly orbiting Pluto, looking for a landing site. That's why CBS got rid of her.

    Next.

    Parent

    Nope, not so (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 04:17:23 PM EST
    And I have never claimed to be an expert. You, OTOH, claim to know all.

    So your turn, Donald. Dazzle us with your brilliance and a few thousand words.

    Parent

    Go take a laxative, Jim. (3.50 / 2) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 06:27:42 PM EST
    You don't get to dictate the terms of debate around here, old man. You're the one who's defending Sharyl Attkisson. Therefore, it's incumbent upon you in this particular instance to convince us that she's to be trusted, especially since BTD and most of us here aren't willing to grant to her -- or to you, for that matter -- such an unwarranted and silly presumption of credibility.

    As for myself, I've already provided more than ample evidence that the woman is a deranged wingbat at best -- not unlike a certain retired individual from Tennessee whom we all know from these threads -- and a pathological liar at worst.

    So, put up or shut up.

    Parent

    Donald, I defend no one (2.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 09:53:51 AM EST
    Merely asked:

    And, of course, the question is...
    Is the timeline information accurate??

    You're the one who wrote:

    And speaking of so-called journalists,

    Sharyl Atkisson is not only a shoddy journalist but also a staunchly know-nothing anti-vaxxer and unbridled crackpot.

    . As a reliable and credible source of information, Sharyl Attkisson ranks right up there with our friends at Breitbart.com.

    Sharyl Attkisson is an agenda-driven, grade-A crackpot.

    The woman is clearly orbiting Pluto, looking for a landing site. That's why CBS got rid of her.

    But I understand your venom:

    Sharyl Attkisson now works for the Heritage Foundation. Back when she was at CBS News, she alleged that her company-issued laptop had been hacked by the CIA,

    But TrevorBolder pointed out:

    Oh, and CBS also confirmed that her computers at CBS were hacked,

    So thanks for the insult, again proving that you can't debate. And thanks for the rants.

    Now, show us where the Timeline info is wrong.

    Parent

    And you got your answer. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 12:28:03 PM EST
    The burden is upon you to demonstrate to our satisfaction that this deranged conspiracy theorist has any credibility as a journalist. BTD has said she does not and that her timeline is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and I concur, as do most others here. Therefore, she is easily dismissable on that factor alone, never mind the mounds of evidence showing that she's a crackpot.

    I'm fully aware that such a gargantuan task makes you uncomfortable, but that's your problem and not mine. So, if you're not willing to put your money where your big, loud and obnoxious mouth is, then you can make all the demands you want, while also resting assured that they're not worth the bandwidth you're wasting in making them. As I told you earlier, you don't get to dictate the terms of debate here.

    You're all hat and no cattle, Jim. Sharyl Attkisson's work product is such that she's clearly too friggin' Looney Tunes for even Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. And since you insist upon defending her, so are you. If you want the insults to stop, then you ought to cease insulting our intelligence with your increasingly pathetic nonsense.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    No Donald (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2015 at 09:07:24 AM EST
    I have merely asked a question.

    Is the time line accurate?

    You have responded with a series of attacks but no information.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#59)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 08:20:07 PM EST
    Atkisson is a respected and driven journalist. She will pursue stories that any administration would prefer she left alone.
    Seems to me should would have been greatly appreciated by many posters here if there had been a Republican Administration for the last 8 years.
    Good , tough , unbiased reporters are hard to find.
    Oh, and CBS also confirmed that her computers at CBS were hacked, so , it was not her imagination, someone was hacking into her work to find her sources. Hmmm, wonder who that was....

    http://tinyurl.com/kd8xotc

    Parent

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! .... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 08:56:40 PM EST
    Oh.

    That wasn't snark?!?

    Parent

    And Carly Fiorina's a great businesswoman, too. Further, Larry Craig and Denny Hastert aren't gay and they both love their wives. Richard Nixon was framed by Democrats for Watergate. Ronald Reagan never sold arms to Iran. And all of Saddam's WMD were smuggled into Syria just prior to the U.S. invasion.

    Please join TrevorBolder tomorrow, boys and girls, when he'll try to convince us that the federal government is withholding from the public evidence of Bigfoot's existence.

    LOL!

    Parent

    Putting (2.00 / 1) (#71)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 05:45:46 AM EST
    Your hands on your ears and going lalalalalalala

    Does not change the facts.

    I am just bringing a reality based view to the Board.
    And some must be brought kicking and screaming.

    So,why would someone be hacking her CBS computer running search programs while she was investigating the Obama Administration?

    She goes after whomever is in power, so she is viewed negatively here because it just so happened to be the Obama Administration for the last 8 years.
    She would do the same to a Republican Administration, and then the right would be cursing the name of Atkisson.
    Silly me, I thought there were some reality based people on this Board.

    Parent

    There are. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 09:36:55 AM EST
    TrevorBolder: "Silly me, I thought there were some reality based people on this Board."

    You're just not one of them.

    While CBS said that Attkisson's laptop's security had been breached in 2012, that claim is otherwise meaningless in the larger context of threats posed to everyone's PCs by keystroke-tracking malware, 99.9% of which is of non-CIA / non-federal origin.

    Most likely, her security was breached by potential thieves looking for credit card information, bank passwords, etc. Unfortunately, such breaches happen all the time. We recently had our firm's PCs and laptops scanned and cleaned after such malware was found in our system, and we upgraded our security software accordingly. That's simply reflective of the day and age in which we live.

    Further, it should be noted that CBS specifically declined to cooperate with OIG investigators. I earlier linked to the OIG report on this matter; did you even bother to peruse it?

    Given that Attkisson's employment was subsequently terminated by CBS, suffice to say that they likely had their own suspicions about their correspondent's veracity and credibility, per the numerous complaints lodged with the network over the years regarding the quality and integrity of her work.

    Ms. Attkisson is a crackpot. Deal with it.

    Parent

    Uhhhmmmm ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 06:15:35 AM EST
    So,why would someone be hacking her CBS computer running search programs while she was investigating the Obama Administration?

    No one did.  Any other specious claims you call "facts" - apart from the others you already (falsely) claimed were "facts"?

    Parent

    In What (none / 0) (#74)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 07:01:26 AM EST
    Reality do you exist?

    CBS has already admitted their computers, the one she had assigned to her was illegally hacked.

    Please join the real world.

    http://tinyurl.com/kd8xotc

    Parent

    Not exactly the whole story. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 07:47:22 AM EST
    CBS News confirmed in June 2013 that Attkisson's CBS-issued laptop was breached, using what were "sophisticated" methods, but did not comment on her personal computers, nor did they identify the party or parties behind the breach. Attkisson then gave her personal Apple computer to the DOJ's inspector general for review, claiming evidence from the CBS analyst and other private security technicians who examined her computers confirmed for her that she was under surveillance by the federal government.

    The OIG report "did not find evidence of remote or unauthorized access." However, they did find evidence of someone with physical access to the computer performing an examination in February 2013 (around the same time Attkisson says a CBS technician visited her home) that "is not forensically sound nor is it in accordance with best practices." The OIG concluded that this technician's actions "could have obscured potential evidence of unauthorized access."

    Computer security experts contacted by Media Matters reviewed the OIG report, and agreed with the government's assessment that the technician's actions ignored the basics of standard forensic examination and contaminated the computer.

    Link

    Oh, and while CBS may have admitted that computers had been hacked,

    "In January 2014, CBS News advised OIG that it was declining the OIG's request that it voluntarily enable the OIG to examine and analyze the CBS News laptop computers used by Attkisson. CBS News also informed the OIG that is was declining the OIG's request that it voluntarily provide the OIG with a copy of [redacted] forensic examination report," the report reads.

    Link

    I have no idea what you linked to - I don't click on tinyurl links - but with the information readily available that calls Attkisson's claims into question, one can only wonder why you're choosing to not just defend her, but hold her up as some kind of bastion of journalistic integrity.

    [oh - and see how easily my hyperlinks reveal the source addresses?  That helps people decide whether they want to click on them - tinyurl hides the source, which is why I don't use it to format links, nor click on them when embedded in comments]

    Parent

    I have to say (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 07:52:08 AM EST
    the meltdown of Republicans in this thread has become something to behold. Now they're defending conspiracy theorists.

    Parent
    I guess it's a case of "when all else (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 08:05:37 AM EST
    fails," but what gets me is how they never seem to think anyone will figure out that the facts are just a few clicks away...I guess there are enough people who won't bother to ask the questions or dig deeper than the surface, so that these crackpot theories, and the people who come up with them, will always end up being believed by some portion of the population.

    They want to believe them, which is the problem.  Or one of them, anyway.

    Parent

    Actual reality (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 09:00:32 AM EST
    ... as opposed to Wingnut Wonderland.  From your link:

    To be clear, the federal government has not been accused in the intrusion of Attkisson's computer; CBS News is continuing to work to identify the responsible party.

    Attkisson originally claimed it was her personal computer that was hacked and that she knew the person who did it.  But when the OIG found no evidence of any hacking and when challenged on it, she backed away from both claims and now days it was her work computer, which explains why she gave them her personal computer to examine (/s).   The OIG found no evidence to support her hacking claim, but DID find evidence that her security "expert" screwed up when he examined her computer.  More importantly, computer security experts have noted it was much more likely that the deletion she claimed was a "hacking" was due to a stuck key than any hack.

    So, yeah ... It must certainly is not a "fact" that her personal computer was hacked, as she originally claimed.  Her story on that has changed multiple times.  It may be that her computer at CBS was hacked, but there's no way to know at this point, particularly given how they screed up the exam of her personal computer.  Most importantly, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that her computer was hacked by the government.

    Parent

    For (none / 0) (#77)
    by FlJoe on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 08:02:11 AM EST
    such an ace reporter, she sure changes her story a lot, here and here  

    Anybody who thinks a sophisticated hacker is going to break into a computer and expose themselves by erasing text in real time and fking with your cable tv, must be either stupid or nuts.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#96)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 06:50:40 PM EST
    The only way to get the truth out of this administration is through the Courts, as the FOIA requests have done.
    Atkisson has sued , and will let the court system work for her. We shall see.

    Parent
    ROFLMAO (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 09:53:46 PM EST
    The qualifier phrase is (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 09:31:15 AM EST
    but so far, the government appears to have done little to retrieve or secure the messages.

    That means the author doesn't know. What he is doing is throwing up smoke.

    As opposed to just "throwing up," (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 10:38:39 AM EST
    which is what most of us want to do when we read your silly comments...

    Perhaps you can point us to some evidence that there is such an effort underway?

    No?  

    Okay, then.

    Parent

    What is there about (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    appears to have done

    Do you not understand??

    I think you do understand so you just try to throw up more smoke.

    Parent

    , Even if she was, Jim, that ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 03:02:52 PM EST
    ... shouldn't bother you in the slightest, given that you're perpetually enveloped by your own dust clouds.

    Parent
    Donald, thanks for the personal attack (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    it just proves my point.

    Parent
    Glad to oblige you, ... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 06:32:24 PM EST
    ... my little white-wing piñata. Please be sure to call us if you ever finally learn to tell the difference between your a$$ and your elbow, even at this point in your golden years. In the meantime, as far as you and your opinions are concerned, there's no fool quite like an old fool.

    Parent
    Donald I would (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 10:06:23 AM EST
    use some of the really descriptive vulgar phrases I have learned over the years to describe you but you aren't worth the salt.

    You can't debate. You can't refute my point

    (from the article) but so far, the government appears to have done little to retrieve or secure the messages.

    (my reply) That means the author doesn't know. What he is doing is throwing up smoke.

    All you can do is make middle school comments about "passing gas" and "blaming the dog."

    Really juvenile, Donald. Really you.

    Parent

    Oh, go cry me a river, Jim. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 12:36:15 PM EST
    You're an intellectually dishonest right-wing troll who's a complete waste of everybody's time. Get lost. Oh, that's right, you already are. My bad.

    Parent
    that the author was regurgitating smoke (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 12:48:51 PM EST
    is an opinion proffered from an extremely partisan position that presumes to know the author's politics; not anything like an logically valid debate point..  

    Parent
    It's called (none / 0) (#43)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 03:52:43 PM EST
    good journalism, Jim, qualifiers should be used in many instances. Gerstein can not just assert that the government is doing nothing about these other servers, but he can suggest it and then follow up with some solid reporting backing it up.

    Then of course there is always the money quote at the end

    "If you examine any senior government official's email account, I guarantee you'll find material in there that somebody considers classified. It's a given," the former classification director said. "All of it speaks to the perils of using nongovernment controlled servers in the first place."

    Sometimes "everybody does it" is a valid defense.


    Parent

    Shorter GOP (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 04:08:11 PM EST
    Drudge is as good a source for information as anything else.

    Parent
    Thanks for making my point (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 04:26:33 PM EST
    and agreeing with me that he doesn't know what the FBI is doing. And since he doesn't all he is doing is blowing smoke.

    And the smoke even continues to the end, but it clears when he quotes:

    All of it speaks to the perils of using nongovernment controlled servers in the first place."

    Exactly. And if Hillary didn't know that then she isn't qualified...isn't smart enough...to be Prez.

    And no, everybody does it is not a valid excuse for any crime, or any dumb action.

    As many a mother has said when told that everybody is doing it....

    Would you jump off the barn if everybody is jumping??

    Of course that mother wasn't carrying water for Hillary.

    lol


    Parent

    And the secret woid today is "smoke".. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 12:56:14 PM EST
    Of (none / 0) (#53)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 06:08:05 PM EST
    course he doesn't know what the FBI is really doing,  thus the qualifier, which you attacked as poor journalism.

    He lays out a good case that they are not too concerned about Mills's e-mails

    The result is that any classified emails Mills has in her account now can't be erased without a court order but are housed outside the government's control and without the usual safeguards taken to protect classified information.

    This Leonard guy quoted is the real deal, although a bit of a Scold, he of then "born classified" Reuters story Leonard,

    The difference in Clinton's case, Leonard said, is that so-called "spillages" of classified information within the .gov network are easier to track and contain.
    So what is it "perilous" or just makes his (previous) job a bit "less easy".

    Besides if it's so perilous, why does no one seem to be concerned about these other non-gov servers?

    Parent

    Well I am glad you agree (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    that he doesn't know. And you are right, basing the entire article on an assumption is poor journalism.

    It leads to people who read and think that the author is blowing smoke to protect Hillary.

    Of course we all know that never happens. (Sarcasm alert!)

    One More Time. The Author Doesn't Know So He Qualifies The Statement To Give Himself An Out While Hoping The Reader Buys Into The Conspiracy Theory He Is Trying To Sell.

    And you do. You spout the nonsense that YOU know what the FBI hasn't done.

    Besides if it's so perilous, why does no one seem to be concerned about these other non-gov servers?


    Parent
    I (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by FlJoe on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    will agree that no journalist can possibly know what the FBI is really up to, and guess what, Gerstien never asserts that he does.

    He absolutely makes no assumptions in his reporting. He learns the fact that some of these so called classified emails are currently residing on unsecure servers, he then interviews or attempts to interview all the principles and other experts and finds no evidence that anyone is concerned with them. He lays out a good case that everyone seems to be fine with the Mills emails remaining unsecured.

    I see absolutely no conspiracy theory at all involved, I don't even see the article as being pro Hillary at all as he does give arguments from both sides, he just points out certain inconsistencies in the furor over these so called "spillages".

    You are the one who screams "selling conspiracy theories" about an article that only mildly supports Hillary's defenders, yet you buy whole hog the crap put out by the likes of Atkinson.

    You wouldn't know good journalism if it slapped you in the face.

    Parent

    The whole article is based on assumpations (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 16, 2015 at 10:40:17 PM EST
    but so far, the government appears to have done little to retrieve or secure the messages.

    And the conspiracy theory is that everyone is out to get Hillary.

    I almsot agree. Everyone but her minions.

    Parent

    And everyone who isn't out to get her (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 17, 2015 at 10:44:54 AM EST
    has to be one of her "minions"..

    Because it's a very black-and-white, Fox-Fox-Fox-Fox world..

    Parent

    Hillary was smart enough (none / 0) (#86)
    by ding7777 on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 11:00:35 AM EST
    to know the newly implemented SMART system lacked basic security

    Manning, Snowden and the Russians (or was it the Chinese) proves the perils of using a government controlled server
       

    Parent

    And her very own personal server was? (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 16, 2015 at 10:41:44 PM EST
    Really?

    ding, please. You gotta know better than that.

    Parent

    And her very own personal server was? (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 16, 2015 at 10:42:51 PM EST
    Really?

    ding, please. You gotta know better than that.

    Parent

    Suddenly an issue (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 09:05:39 PM EST
    Jim, complaining that the use of the qualifier "appears" means the writer is just "throwing up smoke".

    Up next, Rush Limbaugh complains about obese Americans.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 10:16:20 AM EST
    THere's (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:06:39 PM EST
    a poll on this very subject:

            54% of voters nationally think the primary motivation of Gowdy's investigation is politics and hurting Hillary Clinton, compared to only 40% who think it's actually about getting to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi.
            62% of voters think that Gowdy should release his e-mails related to the investigation, compared to just 27% who don't think he should have to. There's a bipartisan consensus on the need for Gowdy to release his e-mails with majorities of Democrats (70/17), Republicans (58/35), and independents (53/33) all in agreement on the matter.
            Voters see it as a basic fairness issue- only 39% think it's reasonable for Gowdy to demand Clinton release her e-mails while declining to release his own, compared to 56% who think he's employing a double standard by his refusal to make his e-mails available.

    So people pretty much see the whole thing as political BS coming from Grey Gowdy's mouth.

    And the poll was done by??? (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    The poll was conducted by ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    ... Public Policy Polling, which surveyed 586 registered voters on the subject last week. It has a margin of error of +/- 4.1%.

    It took me all of 20 seconds to find the poll on Google.

    Parent

    Thanks. Donald (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 04:33:43 PM EST
    Your expertise in all things political and digital is very much appreciated.

    And thanks for confirming what I knew. The source is obviously pro Demo and probably pro Hillary.

    BTW - Here's another you can research.. One I heard today says somewhere around 64% think Hillary has lied.

    Parent

    One you heard today? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 06:37:48 PM EST
    That was likely you, passing gas and then blaming it on the family dog.

    What do you think the results would be, were I to poll everyone here regarding your own trustworthiness?

    Adios, payaso.

    Parent

    One you "heard" - heh (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 09:09:22 PM EST
    No link, which should take about 10 seconds to find.

    Bu//$hit, Jim.  But typical.

    Parent

    Sorry Yman (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 10:19:56 AM EST
    I depended on Donald to provide the link.

    But since it isn't pro Hillary he has declined.

    Parent

    Sorry, Jim (none / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 07:09:23 PM EST
    It's your claim/lie.  But if you can't provide a link, everyone knows the real reason.

    Parent
    Foundational to Clinton Rules (none / 0) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:20:37 PM EST
    is to concoct a given "scandal" so complicated as to make, by comparison,  "Mulholland Drive" simple and easy to understand.   The Clinton response is to fight back by unravelling the mess with facts and explanations, but, in so doi

     The Clinton campaign not only needs to remember the Clinton Rules, but change the way they are challenged.  These are different political days--facts are passe; explanations are futile.  These are the days when political frolic sells--when Trump's repeal of Obamacare and replacement with "something terrific" passes as profound policy and is  just what so many Republicans want to hear.  Or Trump, as he told Jimmy Fallon (which one is the best comedian?) that he is going to create more jobs.  How:, by doing it.  Genius!  

    The Clinton campaign needs a new strategy in light of new and unusual circumstances.  Make the case, and move on--on to a strategy that deals with flights of fancy into demagoguery. Know the enemy, and that includes not only the other contenders, but also, the media.

    She needs (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:35:06 PM EST
    to call it partisan BS every time a question is asked about this junk and now evidently they are hankering for her personal emails just as all of us knew all along they would. The GOP just can't quit crotch sniffing and pilfering through underwear drawers it would seem.

    Parent
    Lost line: (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:25:41 PM EST
    ...but, in so doing, becomes enmeshed in the Clinton Rules.  ...

    Parent
    Yup - and I do agree with others (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    that is it frustrating that after 30 years of this they still do not have an effective media strategy. Really need a point person that isomeone active and dynamic...BTD.

    Parent
    For an effective strategy, (none / 0) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 02:37:44 PM EST
    the Clinton campaign should look to the Catholic Church for guidance.  Not for spiritual guidance, but for temporal ideas.  It's two-thouisand year survival has often relied on "change the subject."  And, to do so with flair.  

     Most recently, of course, was what to do with the Vatileaks and other embarrassments that seriously threatened survival (as  being instructive, not as being analogous in any way).  A pope resigns, and new one is selected..  Does much different, not in fundamental theology, but public relations and style.  Changes the subject;toward Important issues like poverty, global warming.  Next thing you know, what problem?  

    The Clinton campaign needs to grasp the political times more  than is apparent.  Keep the "theology," change the style. For example, enter the fray, start with safe ones--Huckabee (and Cruz until elbowed out by Huckabee's goons), stood by Clerk Davis, supporting but a weak reed.   Mrs. Clinton could attend the wedding of one of the couples whose license was issued, after Court order, from Clerk Davis' office.  and, embrace a deputy.  BANG. Not all agree, but the subject is changed.  What emails?  

    Parent

    My two cents (none / 0) (#32)
    by vicndabx on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:12:44 PM EST
    She needs to start explicitly saying what do you think I did and tie her foes to an exact accusation.

    It's too vague right now.  She needs to pin it down.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#72)
    by FlJoe on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 06:10:36 AM EST
    still think  she his holding her cards close until she goes in front of Gowdy's inquisition.

    Parent
    I thought the first two acts of Mulholland Drive (none / 0) (#33)
    by McBain on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 02:09:09 PM EST
    were the dream of a dying woman.... her fantasy of how she wanted things to be. The third act was reality.  I loved the diner, cowboy and Club Silencio scenes.  

    Parent
    ... here you are. If you want to discuss David Lynch's apparent fascination with surrealism and his effective use of the concept in "Mulholland Drive," please do so in an Open Thread and not in this one.

    Parent
    I Get the Feeling That BTD... (none / 0) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 03:18:44 PM EST
    ...created this post to specifically make fun of the deluded.  They can't not take the bait.

    But of course! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 03:27:33 PM EST
    Our resident right-wing piñatas show up, hang themselves from the rafters, and then proceed to hand each of us a large stick.

    Parent
    and (none / 0) (#47)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 04:21:43 PM EST
    then later rather then sooner, retire to their bridges, bloody and bruised, yet still believing they won the battle.

    Parent
    There is no battle and there is no war (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 04:38:01 PM EST
    Except in your mind.

    Just some interchanges of info and opinions. And that does worry you.

    So take off that helmet and flak jacket. You really don't need it while setting in front of your computer.

    Parent

    I notice that your (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by sj on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 05:49:29 PM EST
    blog clogging an a BTD thread is more cautious than the blog clogging that you do on a J created Open Thread. Tells me that you are likely consciously blog clogging. I was really hoping BTD would get sick of your nonsense and ban you from his threads. But alas...

    You're a skilled little troll and that's a fact.

    Feel free to pretend that I am victimizing you when you respond to this. I will actively ignore it.

    Parent

    I think the sun's likely over the yardarm ... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 06:46:24 PM EST
    in your part of the country, sj. That means it's margarita time, or time for your whatever your favorite libation of choice might be, spiked or otherwise. Speaking for myself only, piñata-bashing always works up my thirst.

    Enjoy the evening.

    Parent

    sj I don't have to pretend (2.00 / 2) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 10:21:23 AM EST
    Your comments speak.

    Parent
    Jim (none / 0) (#58)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 06:53:52 PM EST
    when it comes to "battling" you insect repellent is my preferred defense.

    Parent
    Keep comments ON topic please (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 10:21:04 PM EST
    There's an Open Thread for whatever you like.

    Given the question you (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:41:23 PM EST
    posed to Hillary Clinton on a conference call in her last run for the Dem. nomination, which she acknowledged was an excellent question, if you were asked to opine how she should, in your opinion, respond to the continuous accusations and questions from the media about eGhazi, what would you recommend she or her representives say?

    Parent
    Personally, were I Mrs. Clinton, ... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 04:18:05 AM EST
    It's the coverup. (none / 0) (#92)
    by thomas rogan on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 02:51:18 PM EST
    That's what got Nixon in trouble over the low-level Watergate burglary.  That's what got Chris Christie in trouble.  
    You all know that if any decent Democratic candidate had stepped up by now that people would say that Hillary was too Nixonian in temperament to be president and would support that other Democratic candidate instead.  
    You should be worrying about whether people will say the same if she is running against John Kasich, say, or will vote him in.  You can't be sure that the Republicans will nominate a clown.  

    You (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by FlJoe on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    do understand that there has to be an actual crime before a coverup can occur?

    Parent
    I Am Pretty Sure... (none / 0) (#94)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 03:48:36 PM EST
    ...in today's context, covering up a republican bugaboo fabrication is infinitely worse that what Nixon did.

    But I do love republicans pulling out one of their own, nope, make that two of their own, to show just how bad this email situation really is.

    Here I thought Christie was cleared so far...

    Parent

    To (none / 0) (#95)
    by FlJoe on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    the Haters anything less then a full confession to all of her "crimes", from Whitewater to Beghazi, is a coverup.

    Parent
    Coverup (none / 0) (#98)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 10:14:55 PM EST
    You do understand that there has to be an actual crime before a coverup can occur?
    You do understand that a coverup is not necessary unless an actual crime has been committed.

    When you see the cover you can be pretty well assured that there is a body under there somewhere.


    Parent

    And When There is No Body... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 16, 2015 at 12:04:18 PM EST
    ...then the 'cover-up' was simply a delusion of the accuser.

    Parent