Reply With Quote
Yes yes...the republicans put sooooooo much pressure on Obama's DOJ and FBI that they caved and investigated. Lol you stupid .
I won't; we'll just agree your claim that she never answers any tough questions is more of your made up bull .
Yes yes...the republicans put sooooooo much pressure on Obama's DOJ and FBI that they caved and investigated. Lol you stupid .
In the context of the discussion never claimed that. Keep flailing.
It's OK, man. You've made up before and got called on it. Keep flailing.
oops
“So now we know that, contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Hillary Clinton did not turn over all her government emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We also know why Hillary Clinton falsely suggests she didn’t use clintonemail.com account prior to March, 18, 2009 – because she didn’t want Americans to know about her February 13, 2009, email that shows that she knew her Blackberry and email use was not secure.”
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained State Department do ents from February 2009 containing emails that appear to contradict statements by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department and that she did not use her clintonemail.com email system until March 2009. The emails also contain more evidence of the battle between security officials in the State Department, National Security Administration, Clinton and her staff over attempts to obtain secure Blackberrys.
The do ents were obtained in response to a court order in an April 28, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00646), filed after the Department of State failed to comply with a March 10, 2015, FOIA request seeking:
Any and all records of requests by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or her staff to the State Department Office Security Technology seeking approval for the use of an iPad or iPhone for official government business; andOn February 13, 2009, Cheryl Mills (Clinton’s then-chief of staff) sent Clinton an email describing efforts by the National Security Agency to address demands for a secure Blackberry:
Any and all communications within or between the Office of the Secretary of State, the Executive Secretariat, and the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Security Technology concerning, regarding, or related to the use of unauthorized electronic devices for official government business.
In meeting with the NSA person today ([Redacted] NSA’s rep to DOS) – she indicated they could address our BB so that BB could work in the sciff [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility] and be secure based upon some modifications that could be done to each BB (more below).Mills attaches an email from an unnamed NSA official that reports:
Debbie Plunkett, D/Chief of our Information Assurance Directorate, is personally assembling a knowledgeable team to work with you and other members of your staff to move forward on your Blackberry requirement. She will engage State’s CIO and DS/comms security folks to ensure everyone is aware of the art of the possible … I am confident we can get to YES on this! [Emphasis in original]That same day, on February 13 at 12:33 pm Hillary Clinton, using her unsecured [email protected] account responds, “That’s good news.”
As Judicial Watch reported last week, the National Security Agency personnel had denied Clinton’s requests, telling Clinton staff to “shut up and color.”
The new do ents include another February 13, 2009, email, written after the Mills-Clinton exchange, that shows that State and NSA security officials were shocked and surprised by Clinton’s Blackberry demands.
For instance, responding to details of the Clinton Blackberry requirements, an unnamed NSA employee simply writes “Amazing…” in a February, 13, 2009, email to Patrick Donovan, then-Director, Diplomatic Security Service and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, and Greg Starr, then-Director of the Diplomatic Security Service. (The do ents have many redactions under Exemption 7(c), which is for “information compiled for law enforcement purposes that would cons ute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”)
The new emails show that despite prior concerns about security and cost, the NSA and State Department officials came up with a plan to modify six Blackberry devices for Clinton and her staff. A February 20, 2009 State Department email states:
Pat Donovan [head of Bureau of Diplomatic Security] tasked us with a memo that he wanted by today and that we finished last night and that it outlines the vulnerabilities and risks of BB use inside and outside a SCIF (because they’re essentially the same) and concludes with our collaboration with NSA to seek an acceptable solution for their desired BB use.Despite this warning about using Blackberry “outside a SCIF,” Mrs. Clinton and her staff continued to use unsecured Blackberrys. The do ents suggest a continued push for secure Blackberrys in late March 2009 but the do ents are heavily redacted.
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated that the 55,000 pages of do ents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails. In response to a court order in other Judicial Watch litigation, she declared under penalty of perjury that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.” This new email find is also at odds with her official campaign statement:
On December 5, 2014, 30,490 copies of work or potentially work-related emails sent and received by Clinton from March 18, 2009, to February 1, 2013, were provided to the State Department. This totaled roughly 55,000 pages. More than 90% of her work or potentially work-related emails provided to the Department were already in the State Department’s record-keeping system because those e-mails were sent to or received by “state.gov” accounts.The Associated Press previously reported that the State Department was provided by the Department of Defense with emails between Clinton and General David Petraeus that also predate March 2009. Those emails have not been released to the public.
Early in her term, Clinton continued using an att.blackberry.net account that she had used during her Senate service. Given her practice from the beginning of emailing State Department officials on their state.gov accounts, her work-related emails during these initial weeks would have been captured and preserved in the State Department’s record-keeping system. She, however, no longer had access to these emails once she transitioned from this account.
“So now we know that, contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Hillary Clinton did not turn over all her government emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We also know why Hillary Clinton falsely suggests she didn’t use clintonemail.com account prior to March, 18, 2009 – because she didn’t want Americans to know about her February 13, 2009, email that shows that she knew her Blackberry and email use was not secure.”
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...te-department/
Hard to really talk with a Hillary person, tbh. They're bias to such an extent that they see all the other candidates as satan and will twist any piece of information to a hit piece on other candidates
Tough choice between a Cruz cultist and a Hillary lapdog.
I've never mat a "Hillary person". They're less frequent than people who admit they support trump.Hard to really talk with a Hillary person, tbh. They're bias to such an extent that they see all the other candidates as satan and will twist any piece of information to a hit piece on other candidates
Tough choice between a Cruz cultist and a Hillary lapdog.
They're a silent group of voters, tbh. They won't openly support their candidates unlike Bernie people, but they do vote and vote in droves. You can spot them easily, though - just look for a "progressive" voter who loves twisting facts.
The Goal of the Neo-Liberal Consensus Is to Manage the Decline
If you think of the country as in decline, as most people do, and you think the cause is the predatory behavior of the big-money elites, as most people do, then you must know you have only two choices — acceptance and resistance.
Why do neo-liberal Democrats, like the Clinton campaign, not want you to have big ideas, like single-payer health care? Because having big ideas is resistance to the bipartisan consensus that runs the country, and they want to stave off that resistance.
But that’s a negative goal, and there’s more. They not only have to stave off your resistance. They have to manage your acceptance of their managed decline in the nation’s wealth and good fortune.
Again: The goal of the neo-liberal consensus is to manage the decline, and manage your acceptance of it.
I want to turn the keyboard over to one of my favorite left commenters, Avedon Carol, proprietor of Avedon’s Sideshow, to explain. Her kickoff point is the iden y-fight on the left, or as she calls it, an attempt to “actively divide us by making personal and tribal differences into the main show of the public political arena.” She offered her thoughts via email (emphasis hers):
Bernie Sanders wants to do these two important things:
- Create enough abundance for everyone so that there is far less resentment and bitterness to divide us.
- Empower us to be better able to fight for ourselves.
Clinton’s program for dealing with sexism and racism is … what?
As far as I can see, she’s offering, at best, a kind of paternalistic sympathy that does little to ameliorate the actual problems we face.
And yet, the Clinton campaign is attacking Sanders for some sort of weird and undefined insensitivity to issues of racism and sexism that is “proven” by an inadequacy of photo-ops and the fact that some of his supporters, just like some of her own supporters, say things that are sexist and insensitive.
And she is still talking like the DLC.
Corey Robin says when Clinton tells the truth, believe her:
“Amid all the accusations that Hillary Clinton is not an honest or authentic politician, that she’s an endless shape-shifter who says whatever works to get her to the next primary, it’s important not to lose sight of the one truth she’s been telling, and will continue to tell, the voters: things will not get better.
Ever. At first, I thought this was just an electoral ploy against Sanders: don’t listen to the guy promising the moon. No such thing as a free lunch and all that. But it goes deeper.
The American ruling class has been trying to figure out for years, if not decades, how to manage decline, how to get Americans to get used to diminished expectations, how to adapt to the notion that life for the next generation will be worse than for the previous generation, and now, how to accept (as Alex Gourevitch reminded me tonight) low to zero growth rates as the new economic normal.
Clinton’s campaign message isn’t just for Bernie voters; it’s for everyone. Expect little, deserve less, ask for nothing.
When the leading candidate of the more left of the two parties is saying that – and getting the majority of its voters to embrace that message – the work of the American ruling class is done.”
In Germany after WWI, austerity imposed by outsiders created the conditions for fascism to grow. We knew this. We were even taught this in school. And we certainly know just how good that is for women and minorities.
But in America (and Britain), that austerity is being imposed by our own leaders, and most effectively by leaders of the Democratic Party (and Labour Party) — the supposed “left” party, the party that was understood to support working people.
Clinton, like all of the DLC, talks like this “new economy” of decline is something that just happened, like it’s a natural force.
They do not admit that it was a political decision to break the power of ordinary working people and put it back into the hands of the aristocracy. They pat us on the head and tell us they will try not to make it as bad as the Republicans will, but it will happen and there is nothing to be done about it.
And they actively divide us by making personal and tribal differences into the main show of the public political arena (only 7% of Americans claim never to have used birth control, so how is it a “Democrat” thing?) while behaving like the really big decisions that are wrecking our lives are none of our business.
(Bank bailouts that were opposed 200-1 in calls to the White House from the public! Stopping the prosecutions of fraudulent banksters! HAMP instead of real home-owner relief! Secret TPP talks, for godssakes!)
As a woman and person of funny-color, I know who is being callous and insensitive toward me, and it isn’t Bernie Sanders.
To emphasize one of Avedon’s last points — bank bailouts — Clinton accused Sanders of being against the auto bailout by voting against a bank bailout bill, which she supported. An excellent piece of misdirection — she puts him on defense, when she should be on defense herself. Deeply dishonest, of course, but well-manipulated. (Seems to have cost her though, in Michigan, whose voters weren’t buying it.)
Again, the main point is this one from Corey Robin (emphasis mine):
The American ruling class has been trying to figure out for years, if
not decades, how to manage decline, how to get Americans to get used to
diminished expectations, how to adapt to the notion that life for the
next generation will be worse than for the previous generation, and now,
how to accept (as Alex Gourevitch reminded me tonight) low to zero growth rates as the new economic normal.
All you need to know. Both parties are giving away the store, cleaning out the cash register. Your lives will be very much worse unless you stop them. Yet both parties want you to get used to it, get used to being made poor. The Democrats want to soften the blow more than the Republicans — a kinder, gentler devastation if you will. A softer crash landing.
But either way, the goal of the neo-liberal consensus is to manage the decline, and manage your acceptance of it.
And that’s what this election is about — on both sides. Acceptance or resistance.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/...e-decline.html
Clinton Campaign: No More Debates Until Sanders Starts Being Nicer
"If he does that, then we'll talk about debates."
Joel Benenson, the campaign's chief strategist, said on CNN Monday morning that Sanders needs to watch his tone, or else the Clinton campaign will pack up its ball and head home. "The real question is, what kind of campaign is Sen. Sanders going to run going forward?," Benenson said when asked about Sanders' request for a New York debate.
"Let's see the tone," Benenson continued when pressed about why Clinton was reluctant to debate. "This is a man who said he'd never run a negative ad, he's now running them, they're planning to run more, let's see the tone of the campaign he wants to run before we get to any other questions."
Benenson added, "Let's see if he goes back to the kind of tone he said he was going to set early on. If he does that, then we'll talk about debates."
The problem with Benenson's argument is that the 2016 Democratic primary has been one of the most remarkably friendly contests in recent memory.
While Republican Party leaders mount a #NeverTrump campaign as the front-runner mocks the appearance of his opponent's spouse,
the Democratic candidates have largely focused on minor policy differences, with Sanders waving away efforts to get him to attack Clinton for using a private email server.
Sanders regularly says he'll back Clinton if she's the nominee and encourages his supporters to do the same.
And Sanders has yet to call
Clinton's success "the biggest fairy tale" or circulate old photos of Clinton to question her religious beliefs—actions the Clinton camp took during the far nastier 2008 Democratic race.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...tarts-be-nicer
Really? The Clinton machine of nasty has hurt feelings?
Second federal judge grants legal discovery into Clinton use of private email server
A second federal judge in Washington ruled Tuesday that a conservative legal watchdog group may question the State Department and potentially several top aides to Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton about her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
In a three-page order, U.S. District Senior Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted a request from Judicial Watch, which has sought public records of talking points used by Susan E. Rice, then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in television appearances after the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
Appearing five days later on Sunday-morning talk shows, Rice, now President Obama’s national security adviser, said the assaults appeared to have stemmed from a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video. U.S. investigators later concluded that the attacks were carried out by terrorist groups.
“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 [Freedom of Information Act] cases,” Lamberth wrote.
His decision came about five weeks after another federal judge in Washington, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, ruled that current and former top State Department and Clinton aides could be questioned under oath about her email arrangement in a separate Judicial Watch FOIA case. The group has questioned whether officials intentionally thwarted federal open-records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server during Clinton’s tenure at State from 2009 to 2013.
In both cases, the judges said sufficient doubt had been raised about whether department searches of public records were adequate.
The department faced dozens of FOIA lawsuits after disclosures that Clinton exclusively used a personal server for government business while at State and that several aides also used the server or personal email addresses. Clinton and others have since returned tens of thousands of pages that they or their attorneys have designated as work-related for government FOIA review and potential release.
However, Sullivan and Lamberth criticized what Lamberth called the “constantly shifting admissions by the government and former government officials” about the arrangement. Sullivan said the server arrangement allowed former federal employees to decide what government records to disclose, apparently without ensuring that State records were secured within the department’s own systems.
Calling Clinton’s personal server use “extraordinary,” Lamberth wrote, “An understanding of the facts and cir stances . . . is required before the Court can determine whether the search conducted here reasonably produced all responsive do ents.”
Sullivan, in the earlier case, set an April 12 deadline for Judicial Watch and the government’s lawyers to lay out a plan for how they want to proceed, subject to court approval.
Lamberth said in his order that after Sullivan decides how to proceed in that case, Judicial Watch should submit a proposed discovery plan within 10 days to him in the Rice matter, and the government can respond in another 10 days.
The case before Sullivan concerns public records sought by Judicial Watch about the employment arrangement of Huma Abedin, a longtime confidante who served as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.
Judicial Watch has proposed questioning seven current and former officials, including Cheryl D. Mills, who was Clinton’s chief of staff at State; Abedin, who now is vice chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign; and Bryan Pagliano, a Clinton staff member during her 2008 presidential campaign who helped set up the private server.
Others designated for deposition are Undersecretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy; Stephen D. Mull, executive secretary at State from June 2009 to October 2012; Lewis A. Lukens, executive director of the executive secretariat from 2008 to 2011; and Donald R. Reid, senior coordinator for security infrastructure in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
Judicial Watch said it intends to seek answers about department officials’ creation, maintenance, support or awareness of Clinton’s email system; any instructions given to department workers about communicating by email with Clinton and Abedin; and any inquiries into or discussions about disclosing Clinton’s use of the system.
Sullivan noted in his ruling that senior department officials appeared to know about Clinton’s set-up from her swearing-in at State in January 2009, citing an email chain among Kennedy, Lukens, Mills and others regarding setting up a computer in Clinton’s office so she could check her “off network” email.
Sullivan also noted email traffic among Abedin, Mull, Mills, Kennedy and others discussing communication problems, in which Mull suggested that Clinton be issued a State Department BlackBerry that would protect her iden y but be subject to public-records requests.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...a31_story.html
Hillary Clinton didn't break the law
Let's not mince words: Clinton screwed up.
Instead of using the State Department's email system, she decided to send business messages through a private, unsecured system set up by a former campaign aide. That was contrary to State Department policies, some of them promulgated by Clinton herself.
But did she commit a crime?
Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is “no.” While Clinton's gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasn't an indictable offense.
The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.
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.
Second, did she “willfully communicate” classified information to anyone not authorized to receive it?
She says she didn't, and there's no known evidence that she did. Most of her exchanges were with other officials who were cleared to look at secret material.
Third, did she remove classified information “with the intent to retain such do ents or materials at an unauthorized location”?
“If all she was doing was exchanging emails with her staff, I don't think they can prove that she had the intent to retain anything,” a former top government lawyer told me.
The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it.
If Clinton's case doesn't clear that bar, it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.
This isn't to excuse her conduct; it's just a diagnosis of the way the law works.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...30-column.html
Y'all Hillary haters gonna take a big one up the poop shoot.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-09-2016 at 04:17 AM.
LA Times Op-Ed columnist knows more than the FBI who is conducting the investigation
the writer consulted with national security legal specialists.LA Times Op-Ed columnist knows more than the FBI who is conducting the investigation
Just like the PP witch hunt, the Benghazi witch hunt, the birther , the HRC email witch hunt will come up with nothing, but Repugs and you rightwingnuts will deny that truth like you deny AGW, Darwin, and all kinds of other FACTS.
when have i ever denied AGW or Darwin
Cleaning Up Hillary’s Libyan Mess
U.S. officials are pushing a dubious new scheme to “unify” a shattered Libya, but the political risk at home is that voters will finally realize Hillary Clinton’s responsibility for the mess
Hillary Clinton’s signature project as Secretary of State – the “regime change” in Libya – is now sliding from the tragic to the tragicomic as her successors in the Obama administration adopt increasingly desperate strategies for imposing some kind of order on the once-prosperous North African country torn by civil war since Clinton pushed for the overthrow and murder of longtime Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.
The problem that Clinton did much to create has grown more dangerous since Islamic State terrorists have gained a foothold in Sirte and begun their characteristic beheading of “infidels” as well as their plotting for terror attacks in nearby Europe.
There is also desperation among some Obama administration officials because the worsening Libyan fiasco threatens to undermine not only President Barack Obama’s legacy but Clinton’s drive for the Democratic presidential nomination and then the White House. So, the officials felt they had no choice but to throw caution to the wind or — to mix metaphors — some Hail Mary passes.
The latest daring move was a sea landing in Tripoli by the U.S./U.N-formulated “unity government,” which was cobbled together by Western officials in hotel rooms in Morocco and Tunisia. But instead of “unity,” the arrival by sea threatened to bring more disunity and war by seeking to muscle aside two rival governments.
The sea landing at a naval base in Tripoli became necessary because one of those rival governments refused to let the “unity” officials fly into Libya’s capital. So, instead, the “unity” leaders entered Libya by boat from Tunisia and are currently operating from the naval base where they landed.
With this unusual move, the Obama administration is reminding longtime national security analysts of other fiascos in which Washington sought to decide the futures of other countries by shaping a government externally, as with the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s and the Iraqi National Congress in 2003, and then imposing those chosen leaders on the locals.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...ys-libyan-mess
The Nation: Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote
http://www.thenation.com/article/hil...peoples-votes/
Someone finally went there. I just now saw this.
Meet the Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Raising Money for Hillary Clinton
Many of Clinton's bundlers are linked to Big Oil, natural gas, and the Keystone pipeline.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists
Bernie is a communist Jew who had his honeymoon in the USSR in the 1960's and said "you know what, this is great! we need more of this in the United States!". I would rather have Hillary. At least she's a good ole' fashioned lordista from Arkansas.
I tough you were a Hillary lover.
He went to Russia as mayor/representative of his town, and coupled it with his honeymoon.
Does that mean he got the government to pay for his honeymoon?
his city govt paid for his official trip, which might have included taking his wife.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
