Mahalo Don

Iraq had no WMD. At all. Nada. Total fabrication.

By contrast, Hillary did send information, that was classified at the time it was sent and still is today, using a server in her house that was unsecure, which is not allowed by law. So, national security has been compromised so Clinton wouldn't have to carry two phones. We just don't know the particulars of how it occured, e.g., was she sent info that was not properly marked as confidential, or did she forget it was confidential, etc.

If she had simply used her work email account for work, like all the little people do, this would not have been an issue.

ever classified.

There is disagreement between the CIA/intelligence people and the State Department about whether the material was classified.

It is also tendentious to claim that every document which is putatively classified endangers national security if leaked.

Certainly anyone who had defended Edward Snowden would reject such a claim.

Care to guess what "IC" stands for?

At all.

Interesting.

The problem is that you apparently do not understand what you wrote.

The IC disagreed post hoc with the State Dept's classification decisions. That is all you have established.

The IC IG also found that there is no overclassification inside the IC.


Feel free to blindly trust the CIA at your own peril.

Also, your claim that Clinton "released info" is blatantly false. Please don't make shit up.

Sec'y Clinton's neck, your goal cannot be accomplished at this time; the information was not classified by the Department overseeing/controlling classified info in the State Dept. Another Department, in another office outside of the State Department, decided it was classified, and still another Department outside of the State Department says the info is not classified. Therein lies the conflict, at least one department saying it is classified, while at least two others say it isn't.

thanks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7026278

Op-Ed columnists and television personalities, you don't pay me to do your research so, do it yourself. BTW, thanks for not denying you would love slipping the hangman's noose around Sec'y Clinton's neck.

You have not. We can leave it to readers to decide.

I have other priorities in my life, e.g., handling the research for the aforementioned clients.

Since I approved the final galley proofs on my next book yesterday.

Whew!

she didn't send the mail.

The Times is not going to reveal its sources, but those are still good questions.

Another good question: Why did the NYT trust those sources so implicitly?


All the President's Men, the film about Woodward and Bernstein and Watergate, showed that Editor Bradlee required Woodward and Bernstein to get corroboration for everything Deep Throat told them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_President%27s_Men_%28film%29

Whatever happened to that kind of stuff?

Everyone has to be first even if they are wrong. I don't get it

Oh and Breaking News has to be actually Breaking not from 2 days ago . . . (sorry pet peeve)

this was a deliberate attempt to derail Hillary.

screw the times.

and you can bet this 'criminal investigation' will be used against her....truth means nothing

for the journalists to stand up and take responsibility for not correctly doing journalists work properly. If the journalists reputation is spoiled, then so be it. If the NYT is going to get its reputation back on track then start checking the journalists sources if necessary, if not then they don't care about their reputation either.

....Woodward and Bernstein. They had a LOT more information than they reported on (which turned out to be true), but they couldn't get corroboration so they refused to print it. THAT is responsible reporting!

"First, you have to admit you have a problem."

And it doesn't appear the NYTimes has any notion that they have a problem here. If they had, then another judith miller-esque episode would not happen. Could not happen. But the NYTimes didn't own up to it then, and they're not doing it now, either. I suspect that reporter, Michael J. Schmidt, or his editors (or both), had another agenda. They were already pre-disposed toward Hillary supposedly being "up to something." They had their conclusion already "written". And then they found something that looked like back-up, believed they finally had their long-wished-for "gotcha!" moment, and they ran with it.

...lol...