Hillary's emails

[Blake]

So apparently her private emails are being drug out into the public domain.

Any guesses as to what we find?

[DarrinS]

Interesting way you've chosen to describe this issue.

[cantthinkofanything]

So apparently her private emails are being drug out into the public domain.

Any guesses as to what we find?

what's the difference.

[angrydude]

So apparently her private emails are being drug out into the public domain.

Any guesses as to what we find?

The smoking gun that Hilary let Benghazi happen because she hates our troops.

But seriously, isn't there potentially classified into in there?

[Blake]

Interesting way you've chosen to describe this issue.


...... Ware wrote. “The American people have a right to a full accounting of all the former Secretary’s emails, and the Committee is committed to working to uncover all the facts.”....

http://news.yahoo.com/benghazi-committee-to-subpoena-clinton-s-emails-192823541.html

I'm not implying that dragging her emails out is wrong. Just saying it's being done.

[Blake]

The smoking gun that Hilary let Benghazi happen because she hates our troops.

But seriously, isn't there potentially classified into in there?

I dunno. But if there is classified info, why would she use something like a Yahoo account or similar.

[Blake]

what's the difference.

I'm not sure just yet. What's the shtick?

[cantthinkofanything]

I'm not sure just yet. What's the shtick?

not sure. Eeyore maybe.

[ChumpDumper]

I dunno. But if there is classified info, why would she use something like a Yahoo account or similar.It was a private account that was apparently set up a little sloppily, but not illegally. The takeaway I got from it is that any emails to actual officials will be on the gubmit servers; the emails Republicans seem to be salivating over would be to and from members of her own staff. Frankly it's a little surprising that it took almost three years for the "investigators" to discover a completely different email address

[boutons_deux]

Congressional committee to subpoena Hillary Clinton’s personal emails on Benghazi


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/congressional-committee-to-subpoena-hillary-clintons-personal-emails-on-benghazi/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[Blake]

It was a private account that was apparently set up a little sloppily, but not illegally. The takeaway I got from it is that any emails to actual officials will be on the gubmit servers; the emails Republicans seem to be salivating over would be to and from members of her own staff. Frankly it's a little surprising that it took almost three years for the "investigators" to discover a completely different email address

yeah, I can't imagine criminal charges here just for using this account. I'm just more interested in what Hillary was doing by using personal email for government business.

Surely it was mostly convenience because she wouldn't be that careless if she were trying to cover up something....right?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It was a private account that was apparently set up a little sloppily, but not illegally. The takeaway I got from it is that any emails to actual officials will be on the gubmit servers; the emails Republicans seem to be salivating over would be to and from members of her own staff. Frankly it's a little surprising that it took almost three years for the "investigators" to discover a completely different email address

It's political theater. They held onto it is what I am guessing and they probably have more shit to role out for Darrins and WCs of the world to get outraged about in the coming years leading up to the election.

[ChumpDumper]

yeah, I can't imagine criminal charges here. I'm just more interested in what Hillary was doing by using personal email for government business.

Surely it was mostly convenience because she wouldn't be that careless if she were trying to cover up something....right?There's a possibility there could be something damaging in the emails to the staff, but probably not the kind of thing Republicans have been pimping all this time.

Apparently Kerry is the first Secretary of State to use gubmit servers exclusively, so the use of private email doesn't seem like that much of a revelation.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think the security aspect is the most problematic.

[The Reckoning]

reminds me of when palin's emails were hacked and libs were jumping up and down only to find they were about carpooling kids to soccer practice :lol

[Blake]

I think the security aspect is the most problematic.

Yeah if Sony can get hacked so easy......

[ChumpDumper]

I think the security aspect is the most problematic.


Yeah if Sony can get hacked so easy......Apparently whoever set up the account used the default security certificate, which was total amateur hour.

If it turns out classified info was passed through this account, Clinton could see some rel fallout.

[hater]

she was never going to win anyway. This is good news for Democrats IMO. good going folks

[boutons_deux]

default security certificate, which was total amateur hour.

a self-signed cert?

[DarrinS]

It's political theater. They held onto it is what I am guessing and they probably have more shit to role out for Darrins and WCs of the world to get outraged about in the coming years leading up to the election.

Obsessed much?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Obsessed much?

Not apparently as much as you are hung up on me. I clearly indicated that it was speculation and choosing when to release things is one thing the GOP is phenomenal at.

i don't see how that has anything to do with an obsession. Following me around threads to take shots at me otoh. Irritated you have no legs in the climate discussion so lashing out? Coward.

[DarrinS]

Not apparently as much as you are hung up on me. I clearly indicated that it was speculation and choosing when to release things is one thing the GOP is phenomenal at.

i don't see how that has anything to do with an obsession. Following me around threads to take shots at me otoh. Irritated you have no legs in the climate discussion so lashing out? Coward.

I'll just point out that you brought up me and WC. Not the other way around.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'll just point out that you brought up me and WC. Not the other way around.

Good, monkey.

[DarrinS]

As for the OP, I keep my work and personal emails separate. One would think that the sec of state would hold themselves to this very minimal standard, if not a much higher standard.

[CosmicCowboy]

I see as usual this topic has degenerated into the usual suspects regurgitating their party lines talking points.

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi!

[Winehole23]

the NYT heavily hinted about the long rumored relationship with Abedin. if nothing related to Benghazi turns up, I expect that to be the angle.

dumb as hell for HRC to do have done this. if it sinks her, good riddance to smelly garbage.

[Winehole23]

unfortunately for Jeb Bush, he's shady as hell too.

[boutons_deux]

unfortunately for Jeb Bush, he's shady as hell too.

Wall St LOVES them both as establishment tools

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton Responds To Email Controversy: 'I Want The Public To See My Email'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/hillary-clinton-email-state_n_6805478.html?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

BENGHAZI-GASM

Go for it, Trey! :lol

[boutons_deux]

unfortunately for Jeb Bush, he's shady as hell too.

As guv, he ran his own private mail system, too.

And hides that his "education progress" was really pumping money into FL schools, which is the LAST THING Repugs want to hear, NOT any other policies.

[Blake]

As for the OP, I keep my work and personal emails separate. One would think that the sec of state would hold themselves to this very minimal standard, if not a much higher standard.

Yeah exactly. For at least the last 6-7 years I've made a very specific point to keep my business internet and email account strictly business. I also would never see the need to use a personal account for business, although the Sec of State is obviously in a different position.

But if this turns out to truly be a personal account where she also sends out lol memes then I really overestimated her smarts.

[boutons_deux]

Yeah exactly. For at least the last 6-7 years I've made a very specific point to keep my business internet and email account strictly business. I also would never see the need to use a personal account for business, although the Sec of State is obviously in a different position.

But if this turns out to truly be a personal account where she also sends out lol memes then I really overestimated her smarts.

I read the Kerry is supposedly the FIRST official to use EXCLUSIVELY govt mail services for govt business.

I'm not defending Hillary, but this OUTRAGE is very definitely more right-wing fabrication that ignores that just about everybody, including REPUGS, also do govt business on non-govt mail services.

[Blake]

Yeah, seems like a lot of grand standing and will probably turn up with nothing, but it's still not a good look for her to say "oh I didn't know you wanted the benghazi emails from my personal account too"

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton’s Emails: Is This A Scandal? Or A ‘Scandal’?

a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist predicted she would end up in prison (http://www.salon.com/2000/03/14/ray/)! –

Yet many prominent people, both in and out of government, have preferred private email, in the belief that those accounts provide stronger encryption and safeguards against hacking.

So far, the former Secretary of State doesn’t appear to have breached security or violated any federal recordkeeping statutes, although those laws were tightened both before and after she left office. She didn’t use her personal email for classified materials, according to the State Department. The Government Executive magazine website nextgov.com (http://nextgov.com/) offers an admirably concise review of the legal and security issues here. (http://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2015/03/three-things-you-should-know-about/106566/)

Certainly Clinton wasn’t the first federal official or cabinet officer to use a personal email account for both personal and official business, as most news outlets have acknowledged by now – indeed, every Secretary of State who sent emails had used a personal account until John Kerry succeeded Clinton in 2013.

Last year, the State Department requested that all of the living former Secretaries of State turn over relevant emails for its archives.

To date, only one of them has complied: Hillary Clinton. Her aides provided more than 50,000 emails to the government – and sent about 300 to the House Select Committee that is still investigating Benghazi.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/hillary-clintons-emails-is-this-a-scandal-or-a-scandal/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=MM_frequency_six&utm_campaign=Morning%20Memo%20-%202015-03-05

[Blake]

"....... AP) Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona). Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) just gave a candid reply for why he doesn't use email.According to*a National Journal report*published Wednesday, McCain said he might angrily fire off missives he ends up regretting later."I don't email at all," McCain said. "I have other people and I tell them to email because I am just always worried I might say something. I am not the most calm and reserved person you know?* I am afraid I might email something that in retrospect I wish I hadn't."

McCain is sometimes known for speaking his mind when he is frustrated with others. At a January Senate committee hearing, for example, he*told some hecklers,*"Get out of here, you low-life scum."*........"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/john-mccains-explanation-why-doesnt-233807500.html



damn, this moron was almost president

[boutons_deux]

damn, this moron was almost president

it was clear during 2008 the McLiar was emotionally unstable, and his bullshit since has not convinced me otherwise.

[Cry Havoc]

the NYT heavily hinted about the long rumored relationship with Abedin. if nothing related to Benghazi turns up, I expect that to be the angle.

dumb as hell for HRC to do have done this. if it sinks her, good riddance to smelly garbage.

Completely agree.

[boutons_deux]

Abedin is a Muslim terrorist mole married to a Jew!

From what I read, the only real difference is that HRC set up her own mail server, when others used non-govt mail servers. They apparently all ran mail traffic outside of govt mail servers, except for John Kerry.

outrage!

[Th'Pusher]

As guv, he ran his own private mail system,

Seems Rick Perry did the same.

[Spurminator]

If nothing on Benghazi shows up I expect the story to be about Hillary deleting all emails related to Benghazi.

[boutons_deux]

WATCH: Jon Stewart Ridicules Drummed-Up Clinton E-mail Scandal

Didn't anyone notice at the time that they were e-mailing her at a personal e-mail address?

http://www.alternet.org/video/watch-jon-stewart-ridicules-drummed-clinton-e-mail-scandal

[spurraider21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yswuleqFIGk&feature=youtu.be

[CosmicCowboy]

It's funny watching this whole thing unfold. I agree that it isn't quite as scandalous as shoving a presidential cigar up a chubby 18 year old interns snatch. Bottom line is if there is nothing to hide the expedient thing would be to turn over the server and put this whole "scandal" thing behind her. Her reaction instead is what continues to roil suspicion. With the latest she was claiming that many of the emails deleted were between her and her husband Bill. Meanwhile Bill's reps in an interview with the WSJ has stated that he has sent two emails in his LIFE. Neither of which was to Hillary. I really couldn't care less whether her emails get disclosed or not but watching her duck and dodge and refuse to disclose certainly makes it obvious that SHE cares.

[ChumpDumper]

It's funny watching this whole thing unfold. I agree that it isn't quite as scandalous as shoving a presidential cigar up a chubby 18 year old interns snatch. Bottom line is if there is nothing to hide the expedient thing would be to turn over the server and put this whole "scandal" thing behind her. Her reaction instead is what continues to roil suspicion. With the latest she was claiming that many of the emails deleted were between her and her husband Bill. Meanwhile Bill's reps in an interview with the WSJ has stated that he has sent two emails in his LIFE. Neither of which was to Hillary. I really couldn't care less whether her emails get disclosed or not but watching her duck and dodge and refuse to disclose certainly makes it obvious that SHE cares.If the emails were personal, why make them public?

[Spur-Addict]

She glossed right over the Saudi financial contribution/Women's rights question :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

If the emails were personal, why make them public?

:lol at the diehard apologists.

It was apparently the only email she used for personal and business.

Are you trying to advocate that she never sent any business emails to anyone?

Like I said. Chump...if there is nothing to hide then don't hide.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol at the diehard apologists.

It was apparently the only email she used for personal and business.

Are you trying to advocate that she never sent any business emails to anyone?Those have already been turned over to State.

55,000 pages worth.

I figure most of those were already in the government's possession since they were sent to government addresses.

What are you saying she is hiding?

[ElNono]

Unfortunately, I don't see enough outrage out there about this other than the usual suspects, which is disappointing. I was hoping this would kill her candidacy.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

OK Chump.

She is just pure as the fucking wind driven snow and wouldn't try to hide anything.

And you spewing talking points that "most were already in the governments possession IFFFF they were sent to government addresses is just monumentally dumb considering the Secretary of State does a shitload of business with parties that don't use US.Gov.

From this point on I'm OK with being a silent observer of this thread. Feel free to declare victory and continue to spew Hillary talking points. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

OK Chump.

She is just pure as the fucking wind driven snow and wouldn't try to hide anything.

And you spewing talking points that "most were already in the governments possession IFFFF they were sent to government addresses is just monumentally dumb considering the Secretary of State does a shitload of business with parties that don't use US.Gov.Like whom?

ISIS?

Osama?

She turned over 55,000 pages so you already failed at one talking point.


From this point on I'm OK with being a silent observer of this thread. Feel free to declare victory and continue to spew Hillary talking points. :lolPretty big cop out just to avoid this question:

What are you saying she is hiding?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Those have already been turned over to State.

55,000 pages worth.

I figure most of those were already in the government's possession since they were sent to government addresses.

What are you saying she is hiding?
Literally 55,000 pages. She's stalling this as long as she can as they wade through boxes upon boxes of her emails.

[TheSanityAnnex]

What are you saying she is hiding?
What difference does it make?!?!

[ChumpDumper]

Literally 55,000 pages. She's stalling this as long as she can as they wade through boxes upon boxes of her emails.No, she actually turned over emails last fall.

You guys are really badly informed.


What difference does it make?!?!So you're saying she's not hiding anything?

I'm really confused at what you guys are angry about here. Your anger is apparently keeping you from reading anything factual about this.

[TheSanityAnnex]

No, she actually turned over emails last fall.

You guys are really badly informed.i haven't followed this closely and just overheard the news at lunch say they were paper copies she turned over. No?


So you're saying she's not hiding anything?

I'm really confused at what you guys are angry about here. Your anger is apparently keeping you from reading anything factual about this.
that line went over your head?

[ChumpDumper]

i haven't followed this closely and just overheard the news at lunch say they were paper copies she turned over. No?No. There would really be no reason to do so. If you want to go the black helicopter route, you can say she just deleted whatever incriminating emails you are dreaming of last fall before turning in the rest.



that line went over your head?https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8f/41/da/8f41da2a9439d3d35213ccf79fcaab5d.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

So, Chump...

( I know I said I wasn't coming back to this one but your hack partisan defense is so laughable I couldn't resist)

Are you saying using private email accounts shows good judgement for a Secretary of State?

[TheSanityAnnex]

No. There would really be no reason to do so. If you want to go the black helicopter route, you can say she just deleted whatever incriminating emails you are dreaming of last fall before turning in the rest.


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8f/41/da/8f41da2a9439d3d35213ccf79fcaab5d.jpg
:lol first time if seen that .gif

so she did not turn over actual paper files of her emails? I am positive that is what I heard.

I really don't care one way or another, anything negative to come upon this vile **** gets me hard.

[ChumpDumper]

So, Chump...

( I know I said I wasn't coming back to this one but your hack partisan defense is so laughable I couldn't resist)

Are you saying using private email accounts shows good judgement for a Secretary of State?Kerry is the first to use government servers exclusively.

Powell used private email exclusively and deleted everything from his server when he left office. I don't think that's a big deal either. Rice and Albright claim they didn't use email regularly.

Email and the resulting record keeping is pretty new. I'm sure the new policy will be adopted from here on out.


:lol first time if seen that .gif

so she did not turn over actual paper files of her emails? I am positive that is what I heard.Since she had control over what was turned over and the request came from the Obama State Department, I don't see how it would possibly play out in such an adversarial manner.


I really don't care one way or another, anything negative to come upon this vile **** gets me hard.So it appears.

[CosmicCowboy]

And DumpyChump artfully dodges a direct question and talking point deflects to pointing the finger at others.

BTW, Hillary Clinton who you have decided to "champion" *horn chorus sounding for DumpyChump* has already admitted it was a pretty bad idea to use a private email server.

But hey, DumpyChump keep talkin those talkin points.

[ChumpDumper]

And DumpyChump artfully dodges a direct question and talking point deflects to pointing the finger at others.

BTW, Hillary Clinton who you have decided to "champion" *horn chorus sounding for DumpyChump* has already admitted it was a pretty bad idea to use a private email server.

But hey, DumpyChump keep talkin those talkin points.I think it was fine. I don't see how you could miss that.

The problem I had was going cheap on the security certificate; but I would probably fault whoever set it up.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hillary Clinton , seeking to tamp a simmerng controversy before the expected launch of her presidential campaign, said she used a personal email account instead of a government address during her four years as secretary of state because it was more convenient.

In retrospect, she said, she should have used separate accounts. “I thought using one device would be simpler, and, obviously, it hasn’t worked out that way,” Mrs. Clinton told a news conference Tuesday at the United Nations in New York. “Looking back, it would have been probably…smarter to have used two devices.”

And that statement itself invites ridicule considering this redneck cowboy checks three email accounts from one "device". Is she trying to say she had to carry an Ipad for every email account?

[CosmicCowboy]

So is an email account a device?

Guess that depends on what your definition of is, is.

Funny how history repeats itself.

[ChumpDumper]

And that statement itself invites ridicule considering this redneck cowboy checks three email accounts from one "device". Is she trying to say she had to carry an Ipad for every email account?Man, board Republicans are really reaching these days.

May as well concede now if this is the best you can do.

[ChumpDumper]

So is an email account a device?

Guess that depends on what your definition of is, is.

Funny how history repeats itself.Keep trying, CC.

Something may stick someday.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

and DumpyChump farts and slinks out of the room.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

and DumpyChump farts and slinks out of the room.I'm commenting on the game too.

It is SpursTalk after all.

Do you have anything more than gossip and innuendo at this point?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Kerry is the first to use government servers exclusively.

Powell used private email exclusively and deleted everything from his server when he left office. I don't think that's a big deal either. Rice and Albright claim they didn't use email regularly.

Email and the resulting record keeping is pretty new. I'm sure the new policy will be adopted from here on out.

Since she had control over what was turned over and the request came from the Obama State Department, I don't see how it would possibly play out in such an adversarial manner.

So it appears.
Do you believe she turned everything over? minus personal emails

[TheSanityAnnex]

And I'm still reading conflicting reports. Did she actually hand over 55,000 paper files?

[ChumpDumper]

Do you believe she turned everything over? minus personal emailsI don't see why not in this case. I keep asking you what you think she's hiding.


And I'm still reading conflicting reports. Did she actually hand over 55,000 paper files?Post your sources for the 55,000 sheets of paper.

Here's mine saying it's digital:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/03/10/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department/24668715/

[TheSanityAnnex]

I don't see why not in this case. I keep asking you what you think she's hiding.

Post your sources for the 55,000 sheets of paper.

Here's mine saying it's digital:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/03/10/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department/24668715/


It says 55,000 pages. Where are you getting its digital?

[angrydude]

It says 55,000 pages. Where are you getting its digital?

Why would they print them out? Why does it matter?

[TheSanityAnnex]

I don't see why not in this case. I keep asking you what you think she's hiding.

Post your sources for the 55,000 sheets of paper.

Here's mine saying it's digital:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/03/10/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department/24668715/


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-asks-state-dept-to-review-emails-for-public-release.html?_r=0&referrer=

Finally, in December, dozens of boxes filled with 50,000 pages of printed emails from Mrs. Clinton’s personal account were delivered to the State Department. Those documents were then examined by department lawyers, who found roughly 900 pages pertaining to the Benghazi attacks.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Why would they print them out? Why does it matter?

I don't know. It seems very odd.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/paper-tigress-1425931087

[TheSanityAnnex]

Still haven't found a digital reference.

Chump will you still be casting your vote for her?

[ChumpDumper]

Do not know who is running.

What do you think she is hiding?

I never saw any complaints about the way it was delivered from State, but can look more if it is that important to you.

[ChumpDumper]

Now that I think about it, wouldn't hard copies be preferable so as not to be subject to tampering as easily?

Had any other Secretary of State turned in any emails, we could compare.

Has any other Secretary turned them in?

[tlongII]

Do not know who is running.

What do you think she is hiding?

I never saw any complaints about the way it was delivered from State, but can look more if it is that important to you.

I think she's hiding emails linked to The Clinton Foundation.

[ChumpDumper]

I think she's hiding emails linked to The Clinton Foundation.
And what do you think those emails say?

Also, what would that have to do with her duties as Secretary of State?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Now that I think about it, wouldn't hard copies be preferable so as not to be subject to tampering as easily? :lol why is she refusing to let them search her server?


Had any other Secretary of State turned in any emails, we could compare.

Has any other Secretary turned them in?I never saw any other Secretary of State turn in any emails, but can look more if it is that important to you.

[boutons_deux]

It appears that ALL govt politicians do email off of govt servers. Hillary's main difference was to run her own mail server.

[boutons_deux]

just more Repug/Fox fabricated outrage to carry on for months and months.

BENGHAZI FOREVER!

:lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

It appears that ALL govt politicians do email off of govt servers. Hillary's main difference was to run her own mail server.Why though?

[boutons_deux]

Why though?

Trey Gowdy, SC :lol, may get an answer to that in a few weeks, as he's hauling into Congress, again. O U T R A G E !

[ChumpDumper]

:lol why is she refusing to let them search her server?Was that request made?


I never saw any other Secretary of State turn in any emails, but can look more if it is that important to you.Powell deleted all of his.

Are you angry about that?

[ChumpDumper]

Why though?Precedent.

[tlongII]

And what do you think those emails say?

Also, what would that have to do with her duties as Secretary of State?

Conflict of interest.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Was that request made?yes


Powell deleted all of his.

Are you angry about that?im not angry about HRC, I'm entertained watching her squirm.

[ChumpDumper]

Conflict of interest.Regarding what?


yesWas that in the link you gave earlier?

[ChumpDumper]

im not angry about HRC, I'm entertained watching her squirm.So it's OK if she and Powell deleted emails?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Was that in the link you gave earlier?Don't know, you could click the link or do a google search.

[TheSanityAnnex]

So it's OK if she and Powell deleted emails?

Guess it depends on what was in the deleted emails. Why do you think she won't let them search her server? She should have nothing to hide.

[ChumpDumper]

Don't know, you could click the link or do a google search.i did a Google search and couldn't find anything. Is it in the link?


Guess it depends on what was in the deleted emails. Why do you think she won't let them search her server? She should have nothing to hide.Why can't they search your server?

If you just want it to be a fishing expedition, just say so.

[TheSanityAnnex]

i did a Google search and couldn't find anything. Is it in the link?I just did a quick google search and found in a Politico article.


Why can't they search your server?

If you just want it to be a fishing expedition, just say so.???

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-press-conference-115947.html

[ChumpDumper]

???Do you want it to just be a fishing expedition?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Do you want it to just be a fishing expedition?

Like I said, whatever makes her squirm.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-press-conference-115947.htmlWhere is the part about only sending hard copies of the emails?

[boutons_deux]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-press-conference-115947.html

:lol which other politicians have been ordered to turn over their PERSONAL emails?

[ChumpDumper]

Like I said, whatever makes her squirm.So fishing expedition.

Not a big privacy proponent are you?

Or just a hypocrite.

[TheSanityAnnex]

So fishing expedition.

Not a big privacy proponent are you?

Or just a hypocrite.No one forced her to set up her own server.

Funny watching the liberal media go after her
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/03/11/ap-files-lawsuit-to-force-clinton-email-release/70151508/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-WJWzIgt7LKzkV3qvvsjdlA

[ChumpDumper]

No one forced her to set up her own server.No one told her not to.

Good to know you don't really care about issues of privacy.

[TheSanityAnnex]

No one told her not to.

Good to know you don't really care about issues of privacy.

When you only hand over paper copies and refuse to let your server searched people should be suspicious.

[ChumpDumper]

When you only hand over paper copies and refuse to let your server searched people should be suspicious.Again, where is the paper copy only line?

Why should her private server be searched?

Was a crime committed?

[spurraider21]

Do not know who is running.
who would you cast a vote for over Hillary Clinton, assuming everybody was an option?

[boutons_deux]

Should we be suspicious when Bishop Gecko refused to turn over his tax returns for the years when he was caught in tax evasion? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

who would you cast a vote for over Hillary Clinton, assuming everybody was an option?Dunno.

Could you narrow it down to less than every person eligible to run in the United States?

[boutons_deux]

The only candidates I'd hate more to vote for than HRC, is ANY Repug.

[spurraider21]

Dunno.

Could you narrow it down to less than every person eligible to run in the United States?
Ok. How about we limit it to members of congress, the cabinet, and governors

[ChumpDumper]

Ok. How about we limit it to members of congress and the cabinetSo you can't think of any names?

Kind of stupid to limit it that way, since Jeb Bush isn't included in that group for instance.

[spurraider21]

So you can't think of any names?

Kind of stupid to limit it that way, since Jeb Bush isn't included in that group for instance.
i edited my post to include governors. and just to spice it up, lets include former governors

[ChumpDumper]

i edited my post to include governors.He's not a governor right now.

Are we counting ex-governors?

[spurraider21]

He's not a governor right now.

Are we counting ex-governors?
if you weren't spamming your refresh button like a maniac you would know the answer to that before asking it

[ChumpDumper]

if you weren't spamming your refresh button like a maniac you would know the answer to that before asking itWell, take your time before posting.

You won't have to spam the edit button like a maniac.

Out of that list, there cold be several I might vote for over Clinton.

[spurraider21]

Well, take your time before posting.

You won't have to spam the edit button like a maniac.

Out of that list, there cold be several I might vote for over Clinton.
care to share an example?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Again, where is the paper copy only line?I already linked that for you, twice I believe. I also linked her refusing to let her server be searched.


Why should her private server be searched? She stupidly put both gov and personal on the same server.


Was a crime committed? Imagine a common peasant like yourself being investigated and turning over only paper copies of requested documents and telling the Feds you deleted everything off your server. How do you think that would go over for you?

[ChumpDumper]

care to share an example?I haven't committed to any candidate as of March 2015. I will exclude Rick Perry right now if that makes you happy.

[spurraider21]

I haven't committed to any candidate as of March 2015. I will exclude Rick Perry right now if that makes you happy.
could have said this from the start instead of dancing around and answering questions with questions, unless the attention pleases you

[ChumpDumper]

I already linked that for you, twice I believe.The words "paper" and "print" don't show up once.
I also linked her refusing to let her server be searched.That is not in question.


She stupidly put both gov and personal on the same server.You didn't answer the question.


Imagine a common peasant like yourself being investigated and turning over only paper copies of requested documents and telling the Feds you deleted everything off your server. How do you think that would go over for you?You didn't answer the question.

[ChumpDumper]

could have said this from the start instead of dancing around and answering questions with questions, unless the attention pleases youYour getting pissy about it pleases me.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/06..._r=0&referrer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-asks-state-dept-to-review-emails-for-public-release.html?_r=0&referrer=)

Finally, in December, dozens of boxes filled with 50,000 pages of printed emails from Mrs. Clinton’s personal account were delivered to the State Department. Those documents were then examined by department lawyers, who found roughly 900 pages pertaining to the Benghazi attacks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should I highlight the words for you?

[boutons_deux]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/06..._r=0&referrer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-asks-state-dept-to-review-emails-for-public-release.html?_r=0&referrer=)

Finally, in December, dozens of boxes filled with 50,000 pages of printed emails from Mrs. Clinton’s personal account were delivered to the State Department. Those documents were then examined by department lawyers, who found roughly 900 pages pertaining to the Benghazi attacks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should I highlight the words for you?



... and the emails proved Hillary, State, and Exec were lying about BENGHAZI!

[spurraider21]

Your getting pissy about it pleases me.
good to know your perception of my emotional state is important for you

[ChumpDumper]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/06..._r=0&referrer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-asks-state-dept-to-review-emails-for-public-release.html?_r=0&referrer=)

Finally, in December, dozens of boxes filled with 50,000 pages of printed emails from Mrs. Clinton’s personal account were delivered to the State Department. Those documents were then examined by department lawyers, who found roughly 900 pages pertaining to the Benghazi attacks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should I highlight the words for you?




Yes, highlight the part where it says she refused to send digital copies.

Thanks in advance.


good to know your perception of my emotional state is important for youJust going by the tone of your posts.

You can try to deny it if that's important to you.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Yes, highlight the part where it says she refused to send digital copies.

Thanks in advance.

You asked for paper and print and were given it three separate times. I never claimed she refused to send digital copies, as far as I know though she has not sent any. I said she denied access to her server, which I also linked for you.

[ChumpDumper]

You asked for paper and print and were given it three separate times. I never claimed she refused to send digital copies, as far as I know though she has not sent any. I said she denied access to her server, which I also linked for you.OK, I'm glad you finally made yourself clear.

[TheSanityAnnex]

OK, I'm glad you finally made yourself clear.
I was never unclear.

Was she ever asked to send digital copies?

[tlongII]

Regarding what?

Was that in the link you gave earlier?

Conflict of interest due to her position as Secretary of State as well as being a beneficiary related to The Clinton Foundation.

[boutons_deux]

Conflict of interest due to her position as Secretary of State as well as being a beneficiary related to The Clinton Foundation.

the foundation paid her while she was Secretary of State?

[tlongII]

the foundation paid her while she was Secretary of State?

I don't know, but that's irrelevant anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

I was never unclear. You were.


Was she ever asked to send digital copies?Was she?

Has she?


Conflict of interest due to her position as Secretary of State as well as being a beneficiary related to The Clinton Foundation.What does that mean?

Are you saying she broke a law?

Which one?

[TheSanityAnnex]

I was very clear, you just needed your hand held

[ChumpDumper]

I was very clear, you just needed your hand heldYou conflate a bunch of issues, arguing stuff I never disputed.

Do you have anything besides innuendo at this point?

[tlongII]

You were.

Was she?

Has she?

What does that mean?

Are you saying she broke a law?

Which one?

I'm sure aware of the conflict of interest.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sure aware of the conflict of interest.Meaning what?

[TheSanityAnnex]

You conflate a bunch of issues, arguing stuff I never disputed.

Do you have anything besides innuendo at this point?
You were unaware of some key aspects and needed clarification. Nothing wrong with that.

[ChumpDumper]

You were unaware of some key aspects and needed clarification. Nothing wrong with that.You conflated a bunch of issues. I finally got you to make unambiguous statements.

Nothing wrong with that.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It is amazing watching you try to spin this, even boutons has given up.

The only reason to set up a personal server is to have complete control over it and it's contents. This bitch is a modern day Rose Mary Woods.

[ChumpDumper]

It is amazing watching you try to spin this, even boutons has given up.

The only reason to set up a personal server is to have complete control over it and it's contents. This bitch is a modern day Rose Mary Woods.What's to spin?

She did the same thing her predecessor did, but you aren't losing your shit over Powell's private email account even though he deleted every single one of the emails on his server.

You're a hypocrite. I'm consistent.

I don't think it's a big deal for either since there was no set policy at any time until now. That's just the way it went.

I can completely believe you are still trying to spin this. You have to.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You have an interesting definition of losing your shit.

Powell did not have his own private server, stop comparing the two.

[ChumpDumper]

You have an interesting definition of losing your shit.It's what you're doing.

Hypocritically.


Powell did not have his own private server, stop comparing the two.“I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files,” Powell said. “A lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and state.gov domain, but I don’t know if the servers in the State Department captured those or not. “

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department-115870.html#ixzz3U8OGoYuy

Admit you're wrong. Unless you want to get into a semantic argument about personal accounts and servers.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know if Powell had a server at his home, but he certainly had complete control over all his emails and destroyed them all.

Where is your outrage over that?

[TheSanityAnnex]

It's what you're doing.

Hypocritically.

“I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files,” Powell said. “A lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and state.gov domain, but I don’t know if the servers in the State Department captured those or not. “

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department-115870.html#ixzz3U8OGoYuy

Admit you're wrong. Unless you want to get into a semantic argument about personal accounts and servers.


Did Powell delete these emails during an investigation? And no, he did not set up a private server at his home.

[TheSanityAnnex]

If anyone had any doubts at to who you'd be casting your future vote for they are gone now. Your defense of her behavior is embarrassing.

[ChumpDumper]

Did Powell delete these emails during an investigation? And no, he did not set up a private server at his home.It's actually a little unclear if the personal emails were actually deleted. If the Republicans want the server they can subpoena it.

If you have something more than a tinfoil hat conspiracy to suggest here, spill it. All you have is innuendo and pantshitting.



If anyone had any doubts at to who you'd be casting your future vote for they are gone now. Your defense of her behavior is embarrassing.It's consistent. I don't have a problem with Powell's use or deletion of his private emails either. The regulations in place at the time allow it. I'm glad they have changed but I'm not going to gin up some retroactive outrage like you are and Republicans and Fox News want you to.

You forgive the Republican but condemn the Democrat. Now you want to make straw men to distract from your hypocrisy.

Congratulations, you're a partisan hack.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I missed the part where you answered whether or not Powell was under investigation when he deleted his emails.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Funny you mention this as being solely a Fox news outrage, Jon Stewart just shit on her, boutons will be along shortly with a clip I'm sure. The entire media is shitting on her.

[ChumpDumper]

Funny you mention this as being solely a Fox news outrage, Jon Stewart just shit on her, boutons will be along shortly with a clip I'm sure. The entire media is shitting on her.lol now Jon Stewart counts with you.

Tell me what you think she is hiding. I'm eager to hear your take.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I missed the part where you answered whether or not Powell was under investigation when he deleted his emails.

[ChumpDumper]

For what is Hillary under investigation?

I missed that.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Lol

[ChumpDumper]

Lol
You didn't answer the question.

[DMC]

The difference between her and us is that, for most of us, we are not our professional identities while we are not at work. She is always her professional identity, as is a cop or the President or anyone who holds public office. All of her emails are therefore work related. They may not be about recipes, but because she is who she is, they are what they are.

[DMC]

I don't know if Powell had a server at his home, but he certainly had complete control over all his emails and destroyed them all.

Where is your outrage over that?

One thing is for certain, we are likely never going to know if there is something compromising if the feds pull it before a private interest does.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You didn't answer the question.

Lmao

[TheSanityAnnex]

when will the NSA step or not step in? Peasants are fair game, why not Hillary?

[ChumpDumper]

Lmao
You didn't answer the question.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You didn't answer the question.

I usually humor your schtick but not tonight. I'll check back in tomorrow to see if you found any investigations HRC had been involved in since taking her seat as Sec of State

[ChumpDumper]

I usually humor your schtick but not tonight. I'll check back in tomorrow to see if you found any investigations HRC had been involved in since taking her seat as Sec of State
If you don't know of anything for which she is actually being investigated, that's fine.

It's what I suspected.

[TheSanityAnnex]

A 6 pack of Mountain Dew and 3 bags of Cheetos later and you've still got no Federal investigations involving Hillary?

[boutons_deux]

A 6 pack of Mountain Dew and 3 bags of Cheetos later and you've still got no Federal investigations involving Hillary?

House and Senate Klown Kars investigated Hillary/Benghazi, $10Ms wasted on witch-hunting, aka, Repug governance.

[The Reckoning]

speaking of work related emails. do y'all ever work at work?

[TheSanityAnnex]

speaking of work related emails. do y'all ever work at work?

$215,000 in sales so far today.

[Wild Cobra]

$215,000 in sales so far today.
Too bad with your reputation, nobody believes you.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Too bad with your reputation, nobody believes you.

$255,000 now. Thanks HEB.

[ChumpDumper]

A 6 pack of Mountain Dew and 3 bags of Cheetos later and you've still got no Federal investigations involving Hillary?For what are they investigating her?

I really want to know.

Are you able to explain?

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL any investigation now into the missing emails will be purely to damage her politically. I'm pretty sure this won't be a Lois Lerhner where the missing emails mysteriously reappear. Clinton's are smart enough to make sure those 30,000 emails they didn't want anyone else to see are gone, gone, gone.

[TheSanityAnnex]

For what are they investigating her?

I really want to know.

Are you able to explain?Tired schtick is tired.

[ChumpDumper]

Tired schtick is tired.I doubt anyone can actually explain what she is being investigated for, so don't feel bad.

[Blake]

Clinton's are smart enough to make sure those 30,000 emails they didn't want anyone else to see are gone, gone, gone.

like the way they made the semen stained dress disappear?

[CosmicCowboy]

like the way they made the semen stained dress disappear?

:lol

Wasn't like Bill could take it off of her and have her walk out of the Oval Office naked...

I have to admit, though...that dress always cracked me up...just the thought that the chubby bitch kept the semen stain as a momento instead of sending it to the cleaners was hilarious.

[boutons_deux]

Why Is Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy Refusing to Talk About His Private Email Address?

raising important questions about if those who are investigating her – such as the chairmen of congressional committees who deal with sensitive information during the course of investigations – are themselves using private email.

Take, for example, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who succeeded Rep .Darrell Issa (R-CA) to be head of the House's Government Oversight committee. Chaffetz's business card lists a Gmail address, as shown here (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-jason-chaffetzs-business-card-lists-gmail-address/story?id=29368587) by ABC News:

http://cdn.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/gmail.png (http://www.alternet.org/files/gmail.png)


(http://www.alternet.org/files/gmail.png)
But Chaffetz may not be alone in doing official business with private email. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the House's Select Committee on Benghazi, is leading the charge in calling for investigations of Clinton's email.

Yet it's important to note that Gowdy maintains his own domain treygowdy.com.

For example, one campaign contact email he used was [email protected]. While it's not unusual to maintain such a thing particularly for campaign work, it's not clear that Gowdy utilizes this email solely for political campaign work and not congressional tasks.

AlterNet asked Gowdy's office through both a telephone inquiry followed up by an email communication to his press secretary about how he segregates work he conducts through his personal domain vs congressional work. We also inquired about where his personal email server is stored and how it is secured.

We also attempted to contact Gowdy campaign manager George Ramsey, but he did not return our phone calls. In 48 hours, the deadline we set, we received no response.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-benghazi-committee-chairman-trey-gowdy-refusing-talk-about-his-private-email

So, will SC hick Gowdy allow us to see all his emails on HIS private mail server? :lol

[Nbadan]

:lol the new times cover...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_5JANtU8AAbX4t.jpg

[TheSanityAnnex]

Too bad with your reputation, nobody believes you.

Suck a dick
http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/3-12_zps5gaxhh9g.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Suck a dick
http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/3-12_zps5gaxhh9g.jpg

And that proves nothing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is funny that the village idiot of all people was the one to call you out.

[ChumpDumper]

He'll have to turn over his server to prove it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He'll have to turn over his server to prove it.

at least give us independent verification. Any dipshit can fill in a spreadsheet in 6 hours.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Almost 260,000 in sales today. Pretty good considering how flooded the market has been.

[TheSanityAnnex]

He'll have to turn over his server to prove it.
:lol

[Aztecfan03]

LOL any investigation now into the missing emails will be purely to damage her politically. I'm pretty sure this won't be a Lois Lerhner where the missing emails mysteriously reappear. Clinton's are smart enough to make sure those 30,000 emails they didn't want anyone else to see are gone, gone, gone.
hopefully it damges the piece of shit enough to ruin her chances at the presidency.

[boutons_deux]

Fabricated outrage, works again

Repug governance, nasty shit

[spurraider21]

Almost 260,000 in sales today. Pretty good considering how flooded the market has been.
what do u sell

[boutons_deux]

:lol the new times cover...



Hillary Clinton has ‘devil’s horns’ on latest TIME cover

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/hillary-clinton-has-devils-horns-on-latest-time-cover/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

.... will prove to the the evangelical Bible humping End Timer Losers that HRC is the devil.

All they need now is to see her with can of Monster Energy drink:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bntfUA6TmLs

[TheSanityAnnex]

what do u sell

green gold

[CosmicCowboy]

Produce broker? That's a really interesting business. I have some friends in the game.

[Winehole23]

http://gawker.com/how-unsafe-was-hillary-clintons-secret-staff-email-syst-1689393042

[TheSanityAnnex]

Not a broker, I sell to brokers. Grower, packer, shipper. Most fun I've ever had working, basically dealing perishable stocks. Sales team of four did a smidge over 100,000,00 last year.

[boutons_deux]

New York Times undercuts its own Hillary email obsession (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/13/1370646/-New-York-Times-undercuts-its-own-Hillary-email-obsession)


In the 10 days since its initial story on Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email account during her time as secretary of state, the New York Times has run dozens of pieces on the subject. You might have thought they'd hit every possible angle, but on Friday they did something novel and unexpected (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/us/politics/vague-email-rules-let-federal-agencies-decide-when-to-hit-save-or-delete.html?_r=0):

journalism that opens the question of whether this is quite the story they've made it out to be. Or whether it's a Hillary Clinton story at all.One thing that's gotten buried in all of the breathless reporting about how shocking and unprecedented it is that Clinton used a personal email account for work is that it wasn't against the rules.

If you paid really close attention, you might pick that information out of the ninth or twelfth paragraph of any given story, but it wasn't the impression the coverage was designed to leave. And even now, in an article running through the lack of rules about how federal agencies save and store emails and the wide array of ways different agencies deal with that, we get this:


“The wiggle room for Mrs. Clinton is that those policies didn’t come into play until after she was gone” from the State Department in early 2013, said Thomas S. Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, an independent, nongovernmental organization focused on transparency.

"Wiggle room"? Wiggle room is how we describe minor technicalities.

I'd say that the lack of a policy governing how you handle this situation is something beyond wiggle room, unless Blanton has information about time travel somehow playing a role in the Clinton email saga.

Federal rules on saving official emails should be clarified, though email poses major challenges—I mean, do you save the umpteenth email rescheduling a meeting? The log-in info for a webinar you're going to struggle to focus on and mostly wish would just have been sent as a set of detailed instructions? But that's a really, really different story than what the Timesand other outlets have been reporting about Hillary Clinton's email.

And yet what it boils down to is that the policies in place during her time as secretary of state were vague and allowed a lot of personal discretion, that the laws have changed since she left the government, and that

Republicans and reporters alike want to suggest that because she sent official emails from the same account, they have a right to see her personal emails. It's nuts, and yet it's been a media obsession for 10 days and counting.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/13/1370646/-New-York-Times-undercuts-its-own-Hillary-email-obsession?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

aka, MSM and right-wing hate media fabricating a scandal to increase traffic

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://gawker.com/how-unsafe-was-hillary-clintons-secret-staff-email-syst-1689393042
Read yesterday that a security company found out her server was unprotected the first two months it was up.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not a broker, I sell to brokers. Grower, packer, shipper. Most fun I've ever had working, basically dealing perishable stocks. Sales team of four did a smidge over 100,000,00 last year.

What region/produce do you specialize in? My friends are general brokers but also Colorado potato specialists. That's a really interesting and profitable business to be in.

[TheSanityAnnex]

What region/produce do you specialize in? My friends are general brokers but also Colorado potato specialists. That's a really interesting and profitable business to be in.
CA avocados. And then import from Mexico, Peru, and Chile when CA isn't in season.

[CosmicCowboy]

CA avocados. And then import from Mexico, Peru, and Chile when CA isn't in season.

Nice...how is the water situation affecting the biz? Is it as bad as I read?

Are we going to see you on an HEB commercial? "Hi, I'm Sanity and I'm your local HEB produce department!" :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

Nice...how is the water situation affecting the biz? Is it as bad as I read?

Are we going to see you on an HEB commercial? "Hi, I'm Sanity and I'm your local HEB produce department!" :lol
Water situation is really bad. Tons of people turning water off or stumping and planting wine grapes. Lot of water with too much salt as well causing root rot.

[Aztecfan03]

CA avocados. And then import from Mexico, Peru, and Chile when CA isn't in season.
They are always in season at my house. Well not quite, but I have 3 different types in my back yard and they all produce at different times.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Was talking only Hass. We pack and sell green skins, fuertes, reeds, pinkertons, eddingers etc throughout the year but they are such a small part of the total crop. I'm not a big fan of them really, to watery for me.

Pusher how long you been in the industry? Do you enjoy it as much as I do?

[CosmicCowboy]

Watch out. You greedy capitalists are gonna make Boo REALLY jealous.

[Th'Pusher]

Was talking only Hass. We pack and sell green skins, fuertes, reeds, pinkertons, eddingers etc throughout the year but they are such a small part of the total crop. I'm not a big fan of them really, to watery for me.

Pusher how long you been in the industry? Do you enjoy it as much as I do?

I wouldn't really consider myself in the industry. I'm in IT for one of your customers :) Produce is particularly challenging from my perspective, especially when it comes to maintaining data integrity. Too many vendors. Too many variations. Too many pack sizes. Too much seasonality. Difficult to forecast demand with all these variables.

The produce buyers are a different breed for sure.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I wouldn't really consider myself in the industry. I'm in IT for one of your customers :) Produce is particularly challenging from my perspective, especially when it comes to maintaining data integrity. Too many vendors. Too many variations. Too many pack sizes. Too much seasonality. Difficult to forecast demand with all these variables.

The produce buyers are a different breed for sure.
Any experience with Costco's retail link program?

[spurraider21]

BigAvocado is ruining this country :madrun

[Th'Pusher]

Any experience with Costco's retail link program?
No. What's it about?

[TheSanityAnnex]

No. What's it about?
Some ultra complex inventory management program they use, similar to an iTrade or sps. Heard it takes one employee strictly to manage it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

BigAvocado is ruining this country :madrun

The amount of violence, extortion, and corruption it takes to get an avocado from Mexico to the US would shock you.

[unleashbaynes]

What would be in her emails besides maybe event alerts from the society of women with butch haircuts?

[CosmicCowboy]

Boo is gonna be guacamole green with envy. Damn capitalists.

[Th'Pusher]

Some ultra complex inventory management program they use, similar to an iTrade or sps. Heard it takes one employee strictly to manage it.
:tu will investigate

[boutons_deux]

George W. Bush email scandal the media has conveniently forgotten

Even for a Republican White House that was badly stumbling through George W. Bush’s sixth year in office, the revelation on April 12, 2007 was shocking. Responding to congressional demands for emails in connection with its investigation into the partisan firing (http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1597085,00.html) of eight U.S. attorneys, the White House announced that as many as five million emails (http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&title=White+House%3A+Millions+of+e-mails+may+be+missing+-+CNN.com&urlID=21942102&action=cpt&partnerID=2006&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2007%2FPOLITICS%2F0 4%2F13%2Fwhite.house.email%2Findex.html%3Feref%3Dr ss_topstories), covering a two-year span, had been lost.

The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws.

Yet congressional investigators already had evidence (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12emails.html) private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/03/26/11362/rnc-emails-waxman/) of his communications.

As the Washington Post reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102167.html), “Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision- making and deliberations.” But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the_george_w_bush_email_scandal_the_media_has_conv eniently_forgotten_partner/

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Former Gov. Jeb Bush used private email to discuss national security issues while in office

the Washington Post found Bush used his private email account (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-governor-jeb-bush-used-e-mail-to-discuss-security-troop-movements/2015/03/14/0d7fae16-ca49-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html?tid=sm_tw) during his gubernatorial term to discuss some national security issues, including National Guard troop deployments.

A Washington Post review of about 280,000 emails Bush released from his private email account, [email protected], found the former governor used that account in two exchanges to stay briefed on Florida National Guard troop plans after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Later that year, he also used the account to discuss National Guard security plans for a nuclear power plant in Crystal River, Florida.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/former-gov-jeb-bush-used-private-email-to-discuss-national-security-issues-while-in-office/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

When the Repugs screw up, Fox yawns, Repugs ignore, the "liberal" MSM silence.

When the Dems screw up THE SAME WAY, Fox, Repugs FABRICATE OUTRAGE, and "liberal" MSM chimes in.

[Winehole23]

from the fire-breathing teabaggers at the Atlantic:


To review, she asserted 1) a thorough investigation that included "going through" roughly 60,000 emails; 2) a standard of erring on the side of disclosing "anything" that could "possibly" be viewed as work related; 3) a "thorough" process robust enough to warrant "absolute confidence" in its results; 4) a process to turn over emails that could plausibly be characterized as "unprecedented."



Nearly everyone listening to these assurances came away with the impression that a person or team of people went through those 60,000+ emails and sorted them into two categories: work or personal. On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart mocked the notion that sorting through tens of thousands of emails was more "convenient" than maintaining both work and personal email accounts. Most criticism of the approach focused on the fact that Hillary Clinton confidantes, rather than neutral arbiters, were making the judgment calls about these 60,000+ emails.



But it turns out that no one was "going through" each email to sort work from personal correspondence or to error on the side of disclosure when the line was blurry.
According to David Von Drehle of Time, the process used was actually as follows: (http://time.com/3741847/the-clinton-way/)



She commissioned a review of the 62,320 messages in her account only after the department—spurred by the congressional investigation—asked her to do so.
And this review did not involve opening and reading each email; instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache—31,830 emails—did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be “private, personal records.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hillary-clintons-laughable-process-for-flagging-work-emails/387670/?utm_source=SFFB

[baseline bum]

CA avocados. And then import from Mexico, Peru, and Chile when CA isn't in season.

Boo Chilean avocados. Everything else though, damn, love that shit.

[boutons_deux]

The New York Times Reverses Course On Clinton's Emails After Public Editor Admits Fault In Reporting

The New York Times' Public Editor Admits Fault In Publication's Initial Reporting On Emails

NYT Public Editor Admits Original Story "Was Not Without Fault."

On March 8, the Times' public editor Margaret Sullivan responded to criticism of the paper's initial reporting on Clinton's use of private email while secretary of state, stating that the story "was not without fault" and "should have been clearer about precisely what regulations might have been violated." [The New York Times, 3/8/15 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-email-coverage-draws-critics-from-both-sides.html?src=twr&_r=1)]


The New York Times Quietly Shifts Positions In New Report On Clinton's Emails

NYT Then: Clinton "May Have Violated" Federal Law With Email Use.

In its initial report, the Times accused Clinton of possibly having "violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record" with her use of personal email for official government business during her time at the department, specifically citing the Federal Records Act. [The New York Times, 3/2/15 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)]
NYT Now: Guidelines On Email Use Were Vague, "Until Three Months Ago There Was No Law." The Times' earlier allegation that Clinton may have violated federal law was undercut by a subsequent report published over a week later explaining that oversight of email guidelines have been "vague" at the time Clinton worked at the State Department:

Members of President Obama's cabinet have a wide variety of strategies, shortcuts and tricks for handling their email, and until three months ago there was no law setting out precisely what they had to do with it, and when. And while the majority of Obama administration officials use government email to conduct their business, there has never been any legal prohibition against using a personal account.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's disclosure that she exclusively used a private email address while she was secretary of state and later deleted thousands of messages she deemed "personal" opens a big picture window into how vague federal email guidelines have been for the most senior government leaders. [The New York Times, 3/13/15 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/us/politics/vague-email-rules-let-federal-agencies-decide-when-to-hit-save-or-delete.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0)]


http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/13/the-new-york-times-reverses-course-on-clintons/202894

iow, Nothing To See, other than Repugs' fabricated outrage and BENGHAZI! :lol

[Winehole23]

lol boutons spinning for HRC nonstop

[boutons_deux]

lol boutons spinning for HRC nonstop

bullshit. I don't like her positions at all

I'm pointing how the Repugs/Fox had fabricated another outrage, and MSM falls right into. NYT broke the story, but now has to swallow the main thrust of illegality, whatever.

[spurraider21]

don't really know much about this story, never peaked my interest enough to get me to go read about it much, but just came across some article saying she deleted everything on her server.... that's gotta be relevant, right?

[boutons_deux]

don't really know much about this story, never peaked my interest enough to get me to go read about it much, but just came across some article saying she deleted everything on her server.... that's gotta be relevant, right?

she said she gave 10Ks of "govt' emails to Congress or somebody official.

She kept her personal emails, that's legal. No doubt the NSA/CIA sniffed them, has them all.

If she wiped the mail server, only Trey Gowdy :lol and Fox GAF.

There will be FABRICATED OUTRAGE of the wiped mail server, although Gowdy :lol knew about this server last summer and didn't run with it, which really pisses of Repugs/Fox.

[ChumpDumper]

don't really know much about this story, never peaked my interest enough to get me to go read about it much, but just came across some article saying she deleted everything on her server.... that's gotta be relevant, right?Maybe, but the thing is there is nothing that ever stopped her from doing whatever she wanted with her own private server. That's why its fun for both sides of the argument.

[boutons_deux]

Maybe, but the thing is there is nothing that ever stopped her from doing whatever she wanted with her own private server. That's why its fun for both sides of the argument.

when this story broke, there were plenty of articles showing other high govt officials, including Repugs, used non-govt email for official business.

so the entire HRC-mailserver-gate is nothing but Repug/Fox fabricated outrage, which they prefer to actually governing, which they hate.

[boutons_deux]

Psst. The Benghazi committee's only interested in taking down Hillary Clinton.

Republicans finally stripped away any pretense that they are more interested in the Benghazi attack than in attacking Hillary Clinton.

With the nine-hour interrogation of bit player Sid Blumenthal (http://www.vox.com/2015/6/16/8786567/sidney-blumenthal) Tuesday, they jumped the shark.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi (http://benghazi.house.gov/) deposed the Clinton confidant in a closed hearing room in a sub-basement of the Capitol. Blumenthal’s never been to Libya. He doesn’t know anything special about the Benghazi attack. He did sometimes forward "intelligence" memos from an ex-CIA officer to his longtime friend Hillary Clinton.

Not surprisingly, the committee — tasked with investigating the Benghazi assault (http://www.cbsnews.com/feature/us-consulate-attack-in-benghazi/) — learned absolutely nothing from Blumenthal about the terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in September 2012.

However, by spending all that time on Blumenthal, they met someone who does know something about Hillary Clinton. Indeed, Blumenthal’s appearance on Capitol Hill — where he was last a prominent figure during Bill Clinton’s impeachment saga — felt like part of a national time warp in which Americans are forced to relive the partisan warfare of the 1990s, when Republicans summoned Clinton aides to testify about an endless string of investigations. A Clinton confidant testifying before Congress is the only thing more '90s than a Bush and a Clinton running for president.

"MY INTEREST IS IN THE PAST, NOT THE FUTURE"

Democrats are so convinced the deposition will make Republicans look partisan and politically motivated that they’re calling for the release of a full transcript to the public.

Chairman Trey Gowdy, who invited reporters to stake out the deposition, insisted that he isn’t trying to affect the election.

"My interest is in the past, not the future," the South Carolina Republican said.

Gowdy, a former prosecutor who may have watched a little too much Law & Order, tried to generate as much drama as possible from the deposition by suggesting at a press conference afterward that the most exonerating evidence was actually the most damning.

Blumenthal "wasn’t the author of a single one of those memos," but "simply and merely a conduit" for someone who may have had a "pecuniary interest" in Libya, Gowdy said, enunciating his words for effect. A new batch of Blumenthal emails is "eerily similar" to those that have been made public before by the State Department, he added. He acknowledged that he didn’t directly learn anything about the Benghazi attack from Blumenthal.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/17/8795707/Benghazi-Committee-Blumenthal-Gowdy

btw, have you rightwingnut forgotten the dubya/dickhead DELETED emails? no objection to that, right, y'all?

Flashback: Rove Erases 22 Million White House Emails on Private Server at Height of U.S. Attorney Scandal – Media Yawns (http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/03/18/flashback-rove-erases-22-million-white-house-emails-on-private-server-at-height-of-u-s-attorney-scandal-media-yawns/)

Clinton has said she deleted about 50,000 emails that dealt with personal matters, citing her daughter’s wedding and her mother’s funeral as examples. All the correspondence pertaining to official business was turned over to archived by State. The deletion of the emails, though perfectly legal, has excited House Republicans, including Speaker John Boehner, who has announced plans to deploy House committees to investigate what might aptly be called Servergate.

Never mind that former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican, has said (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/11/two-names-the-press-omits-from-email-coverage-c/202847) he used a system similar to Clinton’s — and never mind that in 2007 Karl Rove deleted 22 million emails from a private server in the Bush White House — a matter about which the Beltway media said little and Republicans in Congress, like Rep. John Boehner, said nothing.
Here is a brief refresher on the White House email scandal:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/03/18/flashback-rove-erases-22-million-white-house-emails-on-private-server-at-height-of-u-s-attorney-scandal-media-yawns/

[TeyshaBlue]

lol 3rd grade

[boutons_deux]

Abusing Power: How The Benghazi Committee Works ‘The New York Times

Not since Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr used Washington reporters – including reporters at The New York Times – to run his political errands (http://www.salon.com/2003/05/06/blumenthal2/) has a newspaper so eagerly sustained an abuse of power as the Times has done lately for the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

Instead of asking why the Republican Congressional leadership still squanders millions of taxpayer dollars on a wholly redundant investigation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/06/17/benghazi-committee-sinks-deeper-into-absurdity/?wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1), the paper of record has lent its pages to selective and defamatory leaks from the committee majority.

The immediate victim of their chicanery is Sidney Blumenthal, but of course their true target is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

On June 16 Blumenthal testified before the committee for nine hours. When he emerged from the closed hearing room, it swiftly became obvious that the Republican conspiracy theory about him, promoted by the Republicans in copious leaks to theTimes, had proved false in every salient detail.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/abusing-power-how-the-benghazi-committee-works-the-new-york-times/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=MM_frequency_six&utm_campaign=Morning%20Memo%20-%202015-06-18&utm_content=D

[boutons_deux]

Repugs LYING, their main skill

Conservatives Push False Claim That Clinton's Use Of Private Email While Sec'y Of State Was Unprecedented


Fox News' Bill Hemmer parroted an erroneous claim that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email account is unprecedented, when, in fact, former Secretary of State Colin Powell also used a private email account to conduct government business during his time in the Bush administration and did not preserve those records.

Colin Powell: I Used Private Email To Contact Staff, Ambassadors, Foreign Ministers. In his book, It Worked For Me: In Life And Leadership, Powell wrote that during his tenure at the State Department during the Bush administration, he used a personal email account and a private laptop computer to contact staff, ambassadors, and foreign ministers.

From his book:

To complement the official State Department computer in my office, I installed a laptop computer on a private line. My personal email account on the laptop allowed me direct access to anyone online. I started shooting emails to my principal assistants, to individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign-minister colleagues who like me were trying to bring their ministries into the 186,000-miles-per-second world. [Colin Powell, It Worked For Me: In Life And Leadership, page 151]


Politico: Former Secretary Of State Colin Powell Did Not Save Private Emails Sent During His Tenure. Politico reported that Powell "did not keep a cache of" those emails:


Appearing on ABC's "This Week" Sunday, Powell responded to revelations that he used a personal email account, rather than a government one, when he was in charge of the State Department. Questions about his email use arose last week when it was disclosed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email account during her tenure.
"I don't have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files," Powell said. "A lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and state.gov (http://state.gov/) domain, but I don't know if the servers in the State Department captured those or not. [Politico, 3/8/15 (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department-115870.html#ixzz3U1P1gH7j)]

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/29/conservatives-push-false-claim-that-clintons-us/204185 (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/29/conservatives-push-false-claim-that-clintons-us/204185)


FLASHBACK: When Millions Of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered A Media Shrug


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820

[Winehole23]

will you agree it was colossally stupid for HRC to conduct official business on an unsecure server?

[boutons_deux]

will you agree it was colossally stupid for HRC to conduct official business on an unsecure server?

do you know it was insecure? it didn't not use TLS option in SMTP protocol? was not behind a quality firewall?

[Winehole23]

yeah, it was insecure.


The private email system used by Hillary Clinton when she was U.S. Secretary of State didn't encrypt messages during the first two months of use, an Internet security company said Wednesday.



That would have left emails sent and received by Clinton in early 2009 vulnerable to eavesdropping -- just when British and American intelligence agencies were reportedly spying on world leaders.


Internet records show the clintonemail.com domain was first registered on Jan. 13, 2009. Clinton became Secretary of State eight days later, but it wasn't until March 29 that the first SSL certificate was issued for the domain, according to Venafi (https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server/), a security company that analyzes encryption keys and digital certificates.

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2895892/hillary-clintons-email-system-was-insecure-for-two-months.html

[Winehole23]

and widely reported on:


A more specific threat to Clinton’s private email relates to its domain name. Unlike the State Department’s State.gov domain, Clinton’s Clintonemail.com is currently registered with a private domain registrar, Network Solutions, as a simple Whois search reveals. The domain Clintonemail.com (and thus its registrar) was certainly known to at least one hacker: The notorious celebrity hacker Guccifer first revealed it in 2013 when he spilled the emails of Clinton associate Sydney Blumenthal.
Anyone who hacked Network Solutions would be able to quietly hijack the Clintonemail.com domain, intercepting, redirecting, and even spoofing email from Clinton’s account. And Network Solutions is far from the Internet’s hardest target: Hundreds of its domains were hacked in 2010 (http://krebsonsecurity.com/2010/01/hundreds-of-network-solutions-sites-hacked/), a year into Clinton’s tenure at the head of the State Department.


Even if Clinton used the account only for personal messages rather than those of international importance (say, something along the lines of: “Let’s go ahead and drop those bombs, Bibi”) the notion that they could be both intercepted and spoofed through a common hacking vector is particularly troubling. “Even the most mundane of communications can be interesting to an intelligence service,” says the ACLU’s Soghoian. The NSA, he points out, thought it was worthwhile to monitor German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s personal cell phone (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-nsa-spied-on-merkel-cell-phone-from-berlin-embassy-a-930205.html), for instance.1

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

[Winehole23]

more spin in 3, 2, 1...

[boutons_deux]

more spin in 3, 2, 1...

no spin.

Were the Ms of emails that the dubya/RNC/Rove/dickhead Repugs deleted on secured mail servers?

[Blake]

yeah, it was insecure.

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2895892/hillary-clintons-email-system-was-insecure-for-two-months.html

But did she receive an invite to the Playboy mansion

[Winehole23]

no spin.

Were the Ms of emails that the dubya/RNC/Rove/dickhead Repugs deleted on secured mail servers?Dunno. It wouldn't make what HRC did any less dumb if they weren't, would it?

[TeyshaBlue]

Spun again. I can set my watch by croutons. :lol

[boutons_deux]

Dunno. It wouldn't make what HRC did any less dumb if they weren't, would it?

nope

[boutons_deux]

...

[boutons_deux]

GOP’s Benghazi Committee just keeps going (and going)

the panel’s Democratic minority issued a statement (http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/benghazi-investigation-reaches-new-milestones-for-partisanship-cost-and-length) yesterday announcing the committee’s newest milestone.

[Thursday] marks the 700th day since the authorization of the Select Committee on Benghazi. During this time, Republicans have discovered no new evidence that contradicts the key findings of the previous bipartisan and independent investigations.

“As House Republicans drag on their taxpayer-funded partisan attacks on Secretary Clinton closer and closer to the election, their actions have shockingly become even more partisan, secretive, and dysfunctional,” said Ranking Member Elijah Cummings.


I can appreciate why these totals may seem abstract, but to put this in context, the 9/11 Commission, investigating every possible angle to the worst terrorist attack in the history of the country, worked for 604 days and created a bipartisan report endorsed by each of the commission’s members.

The Benghazi committee is now on its 701st day, and even some congressional Republicans have admitted (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/another-republican-admits-benghazi-panel-political) the panel is a partisan exercise, making it that much more difficult to justify its prolonged existence.

Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-S.C.) Benghazi panel has also lasted longer than the investigations into the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the assassination of President Kennedy, the Iran-Contra scandal, Church Committee, and the Watergate probe.

What’s more, following up on our previous coverage (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-benghazi-committee-passes-ignominious-milestone), the Benghazi investigation, which has cost American taxpayers over $6.5 million (http://askedandanswered-democrats.benghazi.house.gov/cost/), isn’t done. There is no end date in mind, and there’s every reason to believe GOP lawmakers will just keep it going, probably with this year’s presidential election in mind, though I suppose it’s possible that it will simply continue forever.

But therein lies the point: seven separate congressional committees investigated the Benghazi attack before the Select Committee was even created. This was already one of the most scrutinized events in American history. Republican lawmakers, however, didn’t quite care for what the evidence told them, so they effectively concluded, “Maybe an eighth committee will tell us something the other seven committees didn’t.”

That, alas, was over 700 days ago. If there’s a coherent defense for this exercise, I can’t think of it.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-benghazi-committee-just-keeps-going-and-going?cid=sm_fb_maddow

well, well, Rachel, you're glossing over the fact the in the meantime, in these 700 days, the Repug Congress, deeply, relentlessly dedicated to their sacred duty of doing their job that they were elected for, has passed a ton of legislation to improve America.

[boutons_deux]

CIA confirms Republican Benghazi Committee is lying about Hillary Clinton

The CIA has weighed in on the Republican Benghazi Committee’s investigation of Hillary Clinton, after Democrats in the House asked the spy agency to declassify some of the numerous details which had been redacted in the various government documents which have been presented as evidence against Clinton. So much of the context has been blacked out that it’s been difficult to tell what the documents actually say. The response from the CIA is stunning: the Republicans are simply lying.

All along, Benghazi Committee Chariman Trey Gowdy, a republican congressman from South Carolina, has insisted that the documents in question were heavily blacked out because they contained information which had been classified by the CIA. But Elijah Cummings, a democratic congressman from Maryland, wrote a letter to the CIA asking it to reveal more details.

The agency responded by stating that there never was any classified information in the documents and that it hadn’t blacked out anything.
Under pressure, Gowdy has now admitted that he himself redacted portions (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/19/1434804/-CIA-Confirms-Trey-Gowdy-A-Bald-Faced-Liar) of the documents without anyone’s knowledge or approval, as dug up by Daily Kos. His claim is that he decided certain details were too sensitive to be released to the public. But now that the CIA has said otherwise, he’ll have no choice but to release the full documents in their proper context.

And now that the CIA has confirmed Gowdy has been lying all along, he’ll have to explain that as well. This means that the CIA, the FBI, the State Department, and the Department of Justice have now all sided with Hillary Clinton over the Benghazi committee in various ways.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/cia-confirms-republican-benghazi-committee-is-lying-about-hillary-clinton/22865/

[spurraider21]

This is how the FBI destroys Hillary: The 10 questions that could end her White House dreams

These questions, if answered honestly, would most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders

The FBI’s upcoming interview of Hillary Clinton (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html)will be a turning point in the race for Democratic nominee, especially since Clinton won’t be able to speak to James Comey and his FBI agents in the same manner her campaign has communicated with the public.

Unlike loyal Hillary supporters who view the marathon Benghazi hearings to be a badge of courage and countless prior scandals to be examples of exoneration, the FBI didn’t spend one year (investigating this email controversy) to give Clinton or her top aides parking tickets.

They mean business, and lying to an FBI agent is a felony, so Hillary Clinton and her aides will be forced to tell the truth.

The doublespeak involving convenience and retroactive classification won’t matter to seasoned FBI agents whose reputations are on the line; the entire country feels there’s a double-standard regarding this email controversy.

Imagine if you had 22 Top Secret emails (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/) on your computer?

Would you be able to claim negligence?

Also, the issue of negligence is a canard. Clinton and her top aides were smart enough to understand protocol. For every legal scholar saying that indictment isn’t likely (because it’s difficult to prove Clinton “knowingly” sent or received classified intelligence), there’s a former attorney general (http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158)and former intelligence officials (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/hillary-clinton-michael-flynn-email-fbi-investigation/) saying that indictment is justified.

Ultimately, every question asked of Hillary Clinton by James Comey will benefit the Sanders campaign. In a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, one candidate is being investigated by the FBI and has negative favorability ratings (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating)in ten national polls. The other candidate, Bernie Sanders, just raised more money in February (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-fundraising_us_56ef3ddce4b084c67220a4da)than Clinton, without the help of Wall Street or oil and gas lobbyists. If Clinton gets indicted, the Democratic establishment and superdelegates will have no choice but to rally around Bernie Sanders.

I explain three possible scenarios in my latest YouTube segment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0YtRtScUcs)regarding how the Clinton campaign would react to the reality of indictment. No doubt, certain supporters would still vote for Clinton, even with the possibility of criminal behavior.

In reality, Bernie Sanders is the true front-runner, since he’s free of perpetual scandal and performs better against Trump in general election (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html). Vermont’s Senator also isn’t linked to an FBI investigation, which used to mean automatic front-runner status in American politics.

Therefore, below are ten questions the FBI should ask Clinton and her top aides. These questions, if answered honestly, will most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders. Remember, the issue of convenience or negligence won’t be enough to circumvent repercussions from owning a private server as Secretary of State. FBI director James Comey and his agents aren’t Democratic superdelegates or beholden in any way to a political machine. They’ll demand answers to tough questions and below could be some of the topics discussed in Clinton’s FBI interview.

1. What was the political utility in owning a private server and never using a State.gov email address?

There was a political motive in circumventing U.S. government servers and networks. Clinton didn’t go to the trouble of owning a private server (something her predecessors never did) for work and private use, without thinking of the political ramifications.

An editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/clintons-absymal-record-on-open-government-b99696012z1-374014501.html) titled “Clinton’s abysmal record on open government”explains the possible political motive regarding Clinton’s unconventional email practices:


The issue immediately at hand — and under investigation by the FBI — is Clinton’s use of a private email server for State Department communications. Clinton may have violated national security laws by making top secret documents vulnerable to hackers and available to people without proper security clearance…

In addition, regardless of Clinton’s excuses, the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws. No president, no secretary of state, no public official at any level is above the law. She chose to ignore it, and must face the consequences…

And donations to the foundation from foreign governments have raised conflict of interest questions for Clinton as secretary of state, an office with power over foreign affairs and favors second only to the president’s.


As stated in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws.”

We can’t even see Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches, do you think Clinton wanted the public to know information about her foundation?

2. Were all 31,830 deleted private emails (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clintons-deleted-emails-individually-reviewed-spokesman/story?id=29654638)about yoga?

According to ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clintons-deleted-emails-individually-reviewed-spokesman/story?id=29654638), Clinton’s staff had an amusing way of deciphering how to delete over 30,000 emails:

A Time magazine cover story about the email scandal released last week reported: “This review did not involve opening and reading each email. Instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache — 31,830 emails — did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be ‘private, personal records.’”


There was no government oversight, therefore the FBI has every right to ask why Clinton’s staff was allowed to pick and choose (through keyword searches) private emails from others that could have contained classified intelligence.

3. Why didn’t you know that intelligence could be retroactively classified?

This leads to the issue of negligence; a zero-sum proposition. Either Clinton wasn’t smart enough to know protocol, or breached protocol. Both scenarios aren’t good for a future presidency. Both scenarios won’t prevent legal repercussions, given the 22 Top Secret emails (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/).

4. Why did you use a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA?

An article in Madison.com (http://host.madison.com/news/nation/government-and-politics/emails-clinton-sought-secure-smartphone-rebuffed-by-nsa/article_db18b490-f67d-5808-97a4-f2297bb24a15.html) titled “Emails: Clinton sought secure smartphone, rebuffed by NSA” explains the issue of Clinton’s Blackberry:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency.

A month later, she began using private email accounts accessed through her BlackBerry to exchange messages with her top aides.

“We began examining options for (Secretary Clinton) with respect to secure ‘BlackBerry-like’ communications,” wrote Donald R. Reid, the department’s assistant director for security infrastructure.

“The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive.”

Standard smartphones are not allowed into areas designated as approved for the handling of classified information…


Clinton used a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA. Along with the issue of political motive, and why she deleted tens of thousands of emails, the unsecured Blackberry use could easily lead to an indictment.

5. What did you say to Bryan Pagliano?

Mr. Pagliano recently received immunity (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html). He’s told the FBI, most likely, about his conversations with Hillary Clinton. Any discrepancy in stories could lead to a felony charge for Hillary Clinton or Pagliano’s immunity to be revoked. Both have every incentive to tell the truth.

6. Why were 22 Top Secret emails (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/) on a private server?

This is a simple question with no logical answer circumventing political repercussions. If Clinton and her staff are able to evade this issue, future government officials will also be able to have Top Secret intelligence on unguarded private servers.

7. Was any information about the Clinton Foundation mingled with State Department documents?

The answer to this question could lead to hundreds of other questions.

8. Did President Obama or his staff express any reservations about your private server?

President Obama’s White House communicated (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-emails-classified-release-215359) with Clinton via her private server. If anyone in the White House said anything about Clinton’s server, this could lead to new controversy.

9. Did Bill Clinton send or receive any emails on your private network?

The server was located in their home, so it’s a valid question.

10. How was your private server guarded against hacking attempts?

Foreign nations (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-email-server-hacked-china-south-korea-germany-214546) and hackers (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9160a25f39e14507ab90c977d300dc8b/6000-more-pages-clinton-emails-be-published-wednesday)already tried to compromise Clinton’s server.

These questions could easily give Bernie Sanders the nomination. I explain that Clinton faces possible DOJ indictment in the following appearance on CNN International (http://www.snappytv.com/tc/1571174). Although Bernie can win without Clinton’s indictment, the email controversy will most likely become a giant story very soon.

With issues revolving around trustworthiness before the FBI interviews, Clinton won’t be able to prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination in 2016.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/this_is_how_the_fbi_destroys_hillary_the_10_questi ons_that_could_end_her_white_house_dreams/

[boutons_deux]

We'll see if the 50 FBI attackers can come up with enough to convict, since a failed prosecution "to always get their man" would be horribly embarrassing.

[TheSanityAnnex]

We'll see if the 50 FBI attackers can come up with enough to convict, since a failed prosecution "to always get their man" would be horribly embarrassing.

They've already got enough, it will be up to Lynch. I almost hope Lynch refuses to indict, the shitstorm of leaks that would come out from the FBI would be amazing.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256863&p=8503336&viewfull=1#post8503336

[TheSanityAnnex]

This will be entertaining. Let's destroy your first article with a second article posted by....you :lol


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256863&p=8503336&viewfull=1#post8503336

"So the first test is whether Clinton knew she was putting classified information into an unclassified system. Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didn't. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time.

Some of her emails were later reclassified, including 22 that have been designated “top secret” — but they weren't classified when she sent or received them"




3. Why didn’t you know that intelligence could be retroactively classified?

This leads to the issue of negligence; a zero-sum proposition. Either Clinton wasn’t smart enough to know protocol, or breached protocol. Both scenarios aren’t good for a future presidency. Both scenarios won’t prevent legal repercussions, given the 22 Top Secret emails (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/).

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/this_is_how_the_fbi_destroys_hillary_the_10_questi ons_that_could_end_her_white_house_dreams/


Hillary knew the protocol, she signed an SCI NDA and an additional NDA.



A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information. … “I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states.

Moreover, the agreement covers information of lesser sensitivity. (“In addition to her SCI agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar language, including prohibiting ‘negligent handling of classified information,’ requiring her to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.”) Well, that is awkward, as the FBI continues its investigation into potential negligent handling of classified information.
Her signature on the agreement does not in and of itself make a finding of wrongdoing any more likely. But it robs her of her convenient — and irrelevant — excuse that if documents were not marked “confidential,” she was in the clear. The documents makes crystal clear that her critics are right: She had an independent duty to determine whether information was classified. As someone already operating a private server, Clinton cannot claim she had not been warned about her public obligations; she simply chose to ignore them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/11/06/hillary-clintons-fate-no-longer-in-her-hands/





Nice job shitting on yourself though :lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

The extradition of Romanian hacker “Guccifer” to the U.S. at a critical point in the FBI’s criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email use is “not a coincidence,” according to an intelligence source close to the case.

One of the notches on Guccifer’s cyber-crime belt was allegedly accessing the email account of Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, one of Clinton’s most prolific advice-givers when she was secretary of state. It was through that hack that Clinton's use of a personal account -- clintonemail.com -- first came to light.

Former law enforcement and cyber security experts said the hacker, whose real name is Marcel Lehel Lazar, could – now that he’s in the U.S. – help the FBI make the case that Clinton’s email server was compromised by a third party, one that did not have the formal backing and resources of a foreign intelligence service such as that of Russia, China or Iran.

“Because of the proximity to Sidney Blumenthal and the activity involving Hillary’s emails, [the timing] seems to be something beyond curious,” said Ron Hosko, former assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division from 2012-2014.

On Tuesday, Lazar appeared in an Alexandria, Va., federal courtroom for his detention hearing, attended by Fox News. He faces a nine-count federal indictment on computer hacking charges and, according to both Romanian and U.S. officials, is expected to be in the country for 18 months.

A spokesman for the FBI’s Washington Field Office, which led the Guccifer investigation, had no comment on the extradition, the timing, and any potential intersection with the Clinton email probe.

On or about March 31, Lazar was extradited 3,700 miles to Alexandria from a prison in Arad, Romania, where he has been serving a seven-year sentence for hacking crimes committed in his native country. His targets in Romania were prominent government officials and political figures whom he often taunted under the name of Micul Fum or “Little Smoke.”

Following his 2014 conviction, Lazar was effectively neutralized in prison and no longer a threat, which makes his transfer to the U.S. all the more noteworthy.

The 44-year-old entered the Alexandria courtroom wearing a green jumpsuit, with the yellow word "PRISONER" stenciled on the back. Lazar appeared confident and relaxed during the four-minute appearance, telling the court he did not need the translator provided for the hearing.

According to the 15-page federal indictment, Lazar "specialized in gaining unauthorized access to the online accounts of high-profile individuals" including Clinton ally Blumenthal, who appears to be identified as “Victim 5 … a journalist and former presidential advisor who was the true owner of an AOL account with subaccounts known to the grand jury.”

The indictment went on to note that using his alias of Guccifer on Blumenthal’s account, “Lazar attempted to conceal his identity by accessing the account from a proxy server located in Russia.”

In early 2013, news outlets including Russia Today and The Smoking Gun published memos from Guccifer, with excerpts of exchanges between Blumenthal and Hillary Clinton about Libya including details following the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack.

In a 2015 prison interview from Romania with reporter Matei Rosca for Pando.com, Lazar told Rosca that, "I used to read [Clinton's] memos for six or seven hours ... and then do the gardening."

From London, Rosca told Fox News he is still in touch with Guccifer’s family, including his wife Gabriela. They “lived poor in a dusty town outside Arad. He did not profit from hacking,” he said.

Rosca emphasized that, “Guccifer has no programming skills and guessed passwords of prominent public figures after reading their biographies.” These included books written by Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell and former president George W. Bush, who were also victimized by Guccifer’s hacking.

“[Lazar] is a simple and delusional man who has a conspiratorial streak and perhaps wasn’t aware of the damage he was causing. His wife and daughter are back in Romania worrying about him and they have not received a phone call yet since he has been in the U.S.”

Rosca said Lazar also claimed to have stashed “unpublished hacked material in the cloud, some of it relating to the Middle East. … He said he was expecting to collaborate with U.S. security services when the time is right. Presumably that would be now.”

Cybersecurity and terrorism expert Morgan Wright told Fox News, “My question is, why now – why just these cases, and why was it so important to bring him [to the U.S.]? I go back to what’s in common, and that’s the exposure.”

The Romanian government told Fox News that the request to extradite Lazar came from the FBI, but when Fox News asked when the process began, a government spokesperson said they were not authorized to comment further.

Romanian media have reported the request came on or about Dec. 29, 2015. That would have been shortly after the intelligence community’s identification of emails beyond “top secret” on Clinton’s personal server, which became public in mid-January.

Clinton’s deliberate choice to use a private, unsecure server based in her home and a private email address for her government business as secretary of state remains under federal investigation by the FBI while she campaigns for president. It has been widely reported in the last month that the FBI is setting up interviews with Clinton and her associates, what is believed to be a final phase in the process.

The FBI declined comment on the case, and the timing, as did representatives from the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia and his court-appointed federal public defender, Shannon Quill.

Hosko, who is not part of the current email probe, read the Guccifer indictment and told Fox News that Guccifer’s technical skills and intent “show the relative ease of getting very close to someone in a high place in government. Not only Hillary Clinton, but Colin Powell and George W. Bush. … It’s important on a couple of levels. Here is an individual in a relatively poor Eastern European country who was able to intrude on sensitive emails about activities in Benghazi.”

While imprisoned in Romania, Guccifer reportedly met with the FBI, members of the Secret Service and members of Cyber Command to discuss how he accessed and read memos marked “official use only.”

Hosko noted that commitment of resources by the FBI to extradite Guccifer to the U.S. with the cooperation of Romania is significant.

A review of recent federal cases by Fox News found that Guccifer’s extradition appears to be an outlier. Hackers typically are extradited in the event of major financial theft, such as a 2013 case where three Romanian men stole in excess of $2 million in a cyber-fraud ring – and not in cases involving a breach of personal privacy.

[CosmicCowboy]

RUH ROH :lol

[boutons_deux]

If Hillary goes down, enjoy your schadenfreude, but Bernie will still smash Trump, Kruz, or any other asshole (is all they have) the Repugs go with.

[TheSanityAnnex]

If Hillary goes down, enjoy your schadenfreude, but Bernie will still smash Trump, Kruz, or any other asshole (is all they have) the Repugs go with.
Wipe your ass

[Winehole23]

RUH ROH :lolbad news for Guccifer, for sure

[boutons_deux]

bad news for Guccifer, for sure

Bad news for US taxpayers if Guccifer ends up in Federal prisons, costing us $30K+/year, instead of Romanian prisons, in addition to the $10Ms FBI and Repugs have already wasted trying to win the 2016 election.

[Nbadan]

Despite Immunity, Former Clinton Staffer Again Says No To Testifying To Congress
Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS
By The Associated Press , Herald-Tribune / Friday, April 22, 2016
WASHINGTON


A lawyer for the former Hillary Clinton staffer who helped maintain her private email server has told Congress that his client still will not appear before Senate committees investigating the matter.

The Senate committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees had renewed their request to question Bryan Pagliano about the server after news broke that the Justice Department, which is also investigating the server, had offered him immunity.

In this Sept. 10, 2015m file photo, Bryan Pagliano, center,a former State Department employee who helped set up and maintain a private email server used by Hillary Clinton, departs Capitol Hill in Washington. A lawyer for Pagliano has told Congress that his client still will not appear before Senate committees investigating the matter. AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

Committee leaders had told Pagliano that the immunity grant should relieve any concerns he had about being prosecuted if he testified and they requested that he appear before them. He had refused to speak with lawmakers last year, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in declining to answer questions about the server and email setup.

But Pagliano’s attorney, Mark MacDougall, said in a March 11 letter obtained by The Associated Press on Friday that Pagliano would continue to “respectfully decline” their invitation.

Read more: http://politics.heraldtribune.com/2016/04/22/despite-immunity-former-clinton-staffer-again-says-no-to-testifying-to-congress/

[Nbadan]

State Dept. Withheld Key Email From Clinton’s Private Server in FOIA Lawsuit
Source: LawNewz


The State Department has now acknowledged that it withheld a key Benghazi e-mail in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in July 2014. The State Department acknowledged finding the e-mail in 2014, but it was withheld in its entirety until last week.

This latest admission comes in a FOIA lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, that seeks records related to the drafting and use of the Benghazi talking points. According to Judicial Watch, it contradicts an earlier admission made by the State Department in the same lawsuit. In a letter dated April 18, 2016, the State Department writes:

.....
.....

The document in question is an e-mail from then Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan addressed to Hillary Clinton concerning Benghazi talking points to be used in discussions with Senators. Although redacted almost in its entirety, the e-mail is important because it contains Clinton’s private e-mail server address, [email protected]. Had the State Department disclosed the e-mail at the time of the 2014 FOIA request, it would have exposed Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server to conduct official State Department business in the early fall of 2014. The timing is significant because the disclosure would have occurred several months before the Clinton campaign says she deleted several thousand “personal” e-mails.

.....

As LawNewz.com previously reported, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth was the second federal judge to grant discovery to Judicial Watch in a FOIA lawsuit. In his order, Judge Lamberth found discovery was appropriate due to the “evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith” on behalf of the State Department in the manner in which they responded to these FOIA requests.


Read more: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/state-dept-withheld-key-email-from-clintons-private-server-in-foia-lawsuit/

[Reck]

6:40 p.m. UPDATE:
On Tuesday afternoon a State Department official issued the following statement:
The State Department generally does not comment on matters in litigation. Here, however, there is confusion arising from an administrative error in recent correspondence in which the Department said that the document in question was withheld in November 2014. That is incorrect. The complete facts surrounding this document are set forth in a public court filing from July 2015. As described in the attached filing, the Department received the document in June 2015 from members of former Secretary Clinton’s senior staff, and did not withhold it until that time. The Department regrets any confusion and will be sending corrected correspondence to Judicial Watch.‎

7:05 p.m. UPDATE:
In a statement to LawNewz.com on Tuesday evening, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, “The State Department can’t keep track of its cover-ups.” Fitton added, ” These changing stories are why two federal court judges granted us discovery.”
--

LOL @ cover up.

[TheSanityAnnex]

6:40 p.m. UPDATE:
On Tuesday afternoon a State Department official issued the following statement:
The State Department generally does not comment on matters in litigation. Here, however, there is confusion arising from an administrative error in recent correspondence in which the Department said that the document in question was withheld in November 2014. That is incorrect. The complete facts surrounding this document are set forth in a public court filing from July 2015. As described in the attached filing, the Department received the document in June 2015 from members of former Secretary Clinton’s senior staff, and did not withhold it until that time. The Department regrets any confusion and will be sending corrected correspondence to Judicial Watch.‎

7:05 p.m. UPDATE:
In a statement to LawNewz.com on Tuesday evening, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, “The State Department can’t keep track of its cover-ups.” Fitton added, ” These changing stories are why two federal court judges granted us discovery.”
--

LOL @ cover up.

A cover up is exactly what it was, and the Obama administration helped.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/state-department-hid-key-clinton-benghazi-email-from-judicial-watch/
Washington, DC) – The Obama State Department last week admitted it withheld a key Benghazi email (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-withheld-2012-email-01242/) of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from Judicial Watch since at least September 2014. If the State Department disclosed the email when first supposedly found, Clinton’s email server and her hidden emails would have been disclosed nearly two years ago, before Clinton authorized the alleged deletion of tens of thousands of emails.The developments come in a July 2014 Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit (https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-three-new-lawsuits-obama-administration-records-relating-benghazi-attack/) seeking records related to the drafting and use of the Benghazi talking points (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-three-new-lawsuits-obama-administration-records-relating-benghazi-attack/) (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). The lawsuit, which forced the disclosure (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/jw-in-center-of-clinton-email-storm/#anc1) of the Clinton email records, seeks records specifically from Clinton and her top State Department staff:

Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.
Contradicting an earlier statement (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-secret-emails-show-hillary-clinton-tied-to-benghazi-talking-points/) to the court, an April 18, 2016, State Department letter (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-letter-regarding-supplemental-search-01242/) admits that it found the email at issue in 2014 but was held back in its entirety:

Also, upon further review, the Department has determined that one document previously withheld in full in our letter dated November 12, 2014 may now be released in part.
The referenced November 12, 2014, letter (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-november-2014-production-01242/) does not reference any withheld emails. A search declaration (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hackett-search-declaration-01242/) suggests the hidden email was found in September 2014 as a result of a search in response to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit.
The September 29, 2012, email to Clinton from then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan concerns talking points for Clinton calls with senators about the Benghazi attack. The email contains Clinton’s non-state.gov address.
It is in this litigation (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-second-federal-court-grants-discovery-in-clinton-email-case/) that U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth granted “limited discovery (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-memorandum-discovery-01242/)” to Judicial Watch into Clinton’s and her aides’ email practices. Judge Lamberth ruled that “where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.” (U.S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan also granted Judicial Watch discovery into the Clinton email matter. The discovery plan (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hillary-email-discovery-01363/), agreed to (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-response-discovery-plan-01363/) by the State Department, is awaiting Judge Sullivan’s approval.)
Last week’s document production also includes material from a records cache (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-dos-us-dep-state-status-report-01511-february-5-2016/) of thousands of new Clinton State Department records (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-finds-new-records-in-clinton-foia-litigation/) supposedly only discovered (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-dos-defendant-motion-stay-01511-january-12-2016/) in December 2015. The new material shows the State Department compiled extensive Libya/Benghazi-related dossiers on Republican and Democrat senators.
“Now we know the Obama administration consciously refused to give up key information about Hillary Clinton’s email in 2014. It covered up this email both from the court and Judicial Watch,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Judge Lamberth was right when he suggested that Obama’s State Department acted in bad faith. This cover-up provided Hillary Clinton enough time to hide potentially thousands of government records. One aim of our court-order discovery will be to get to the bottom of this cover-up.”