Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

motionspotlight

(18 posts)
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 08:36 PM Mar 2016

An exerpt of the emails from Wikileaks, specifically between Clinton and Blumenthal

Over 20 emails released by the FBI are cited, wikileaks simply made it easier to search through. Although this focuses on Hillary Clinton's time when she was Secretary of State, not in relation to the primaries, it was deemed off-topic for a "General Discussion". Am I allowed to post this at all? Or will I be censored? I'm beginning to think that this website won't tolerate free-speech and any discussion that is extremely important.


Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State
In office
January 21, 2009 – February 1, 2013

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

Hillary Clinton's statements regarding her emails:
1. "I fully complied with every rule I was governed by."
2. "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material."
3. "I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two," she said. "Looking back, it would have been better if I'd simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn't seem like an issue."

The purpose of this article is to shed a spotlight on the email correspondence between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal, a civilian, during her tenure as Secretary of State. Using https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/ and the search terms "blumenthal confidential", 562 results appeared (this report lists only emails from the first 301 results). While, all the emails are marked "unclassified" they are also marked "confidential" and ostensibly paint a picture of utilizing Sidney Blumenthal as source for intel on various state matters.

This is problematic because while the emails were not classified, they ostensibly show evidence of corresponding about state business in real time, often referencing sources. Mr. Blumenthal was then employed by the Clinton Foundation, not the state department, and was not given proper security clearance to pass along state secrets to Secretary Clinton. In turn, he did not email her without response, she responded regarding these highly sensitive matters. Since, their correspondence is exstensive, some emails will be referenced, that were and were not retroactively classified, to highlight her POSSIBLE violation of security procedure.


Sidney Blumenthal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Blumenthal):
Relationship to Secretary of State Clinton:

"After her January 2009 appointment as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton wanted to hire Blumenthal. However, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, blocked his selection due to lingering anger among President Barack Obama's aides over Blumenthal's role in promoting negative stories about Obama during the Democratic primary. According to a report in the New York Times, "Emanuel talked with Mrs. Clinton ... and explained that bringing Mr. Blumenthal on board was a no-go. The bad blood among his colleagues was too deep, and the last thing the administration needed, he concluded, was dissension and drama in the ranks. In short, Mr. Blumenthal was out...
During this hearing Democratic members asked that Blumenthal's deposition transcript be made public so that comments regarding his involvement could be placed in context. The motion was defeated by a voice vote, followed by a roll call vote along party lines."
(so the GOP voted against making it public, while the Democrats wanted to, that's very peculiar...)

Here's an email regarding Wikileaks: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/1036
November 29, 2010
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re: Wikileaks

"The Wikileaks documents can be cast as reflecting a positive light on the U.S. government and
diplomacy. Your statement about how the documents underscored the Iranian nuclear threat is
headed in the right direction.
1. The Wikileaks disclosure is the opposite of the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papersprovided evidence from an internal study conducted by the Department of Defense that
the U.S. administration was not telling the truth about the Vietnam War. On the contrary, the Wikileaks papers prove that the U.S. government today has been telling the truth about the threats we face in the world. Our government is telling the truth.
2. The Wikileaks papers prove that American diplomats are hard at work at the difficult,
often frustrating job of protecting and advancing our interests in the world. These
documents are testimony to the diligence, intelligence and clear mindedness of our diplomats. Our diplomats are doing their work on the frontlines of national security."



These two emails pertains directly to the Petraeus Scandal, which relates to the ongoing FBI investigation, though they are looking into 30,000 emails not publicly released (those released are still of considerable impact):

1: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12339
From: Sidney Blumenthal
To: Hillary Clinton
Date: 2012-11-12 12:05pm
Subject: H: PETRAEUS. SID

"My operative theory on Petraeus scandal is that it became an October Surprise that failed. Forcing the scandal public and his resignation would have been the trifecta--leaks, Benghazi, then Petraeus-- allowing Romney to argue that Obama had created a national security collapse. It would have overtaken the end of the campaign.
My thought is that Leahy should be in this now and that Feinstein should be made aware, if she is not already, of the October Surprise scenario.

Some questions:
1. Are there agents and other employees at FBI in regular contact with Republican members of the House outside the regular channel of the House Intelligence Committee?
2. Exactly how soon was Cantor contacted by FBI sources after Petraeus was exonerated by the investigation?
3. What was the decision making process of those involved in contacting congressmen Reichert and Cantor?
4. Who exactly in the FBI was involved in that discussion? How many people? What was their connection to the investigation? Or was it a single rogue individual?
5. Did Cantor ever notify Speaker Boehner that he had been contacted and that he had contacted Mueller? Why not? What does Boehner have to say about what Cantor did?
6. Did Cantor or any House staff member speak about the matter with any member of the Romney-Ryan campaign?
7. Claims that Cantor was simply alerting the FBI of the investigation by contacting Mueller are absurd on its face. The FBI knew it was conducting the investigation. What is Cantor covering up? Was he attempting to create pressure to force Petraeus' scandal into the public and his resignation before the election?
8. What was the connection between those involved in contacting Cantor and those involved in contacting Bob Woodward about a "Benghazi" story?
If there were irregularities in the investigation, the disgruntled FBI agents or employees should have contacted the FBI Inspector General. They did not. Was it because there were no irregularities? No one has suggested any. Did they know it is a felony to disclose an espionage investigation?
Will the FBI agent(s) and employee(s) who leaked the espionage investigation to congressmen Reichert and Cantor be the targets of a Justice Department criminal investigation? Will a grand jury be empaneled?"

2: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12340
From: Sidney Blumenthal
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:51 AM
To: H
Subject: H: Here it is, what did Eric Cantor know and when did he know it. Sid

"...The F.B.I. investigators were not pursuing evidence of Mr. Petraeus's marital infidelity, which would not be a criminal matter, the official said. But their examination of his e-mails, most or all of them sent from a personal account and not from his C.I.A. account, raised the possibility of security breaches that needed to be addressed directly with him. 'Alarms went off on larger security issues,'' the official said.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/usgbi-said-to-have-stumbled-into-news-of-david-petraeus- affair.html?pagewanted=all)"



Emails marked CONFIDENTIAL, unclassified on 01/07/2016, and released in part and/or full:
For more information follow the link of each email.

1. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12560
From: Hillary Clinton
To: Sidney Blumenthal
Date: 2011-10-20 02:32 pm
Subject: H: URGENT INTEL POST-Q, INTERNAL NTC POLITICS. SID

"Thx again."

October 20, 2011
For: Hillary
From: Sid
2011-10-20 12:23pm
Re: Libya post-Q, internal politics NTC

"SOURCE: Sources with direct access to the Libyan National Transitional Council, as well as the highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services."

2. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/13013
May 2, 2011
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re: Bin Laden, AQ & Libya

"Latest report: During the early morning of May 2, 2011 sources with access to the leadership of the Libyan rebellion's ruling Transitional National Council (TNC) stated in confidence that they are concerned that the death of al Qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden will inspire al Qa'ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) to use weapons they have obtained, which were originally intended for the rebels in Libya, to retaliate against the United States and its allies for this attack in Pakistan."


3. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12171
For: Hillary
From: Sid
July 24, 2012
Subject: Re: Syria, Turkey, Israel, Iran

"SOURCE: Sources with access to the highest levels of the Governments and institutions discussed below. This includes political parties and regional intelligence and security services. 1. According to an individual with access to the highest levels of major European governments, the intelligence services of these countries are reporting to their principals that the commanders of the Israeli military and intelligence community believe that the civil war in Syria is spreading to neighboring countries, including Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey . These European officials are concerned that the ongoing conflict in Syria will lead to uprisings in these countries that will bring increasingly conservative Islamic regimes into power, replacing existing secular or moderate regimes. This individual adds that, Israeli security officials believe that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is convinced that these developments will leave them vulnerable, with only enemies on their borders."

4. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/437
February 17, 2010
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re: Iran, Saudi

"Had dinner last night (Tuesday, February 16) with Joschka Fischer. We had an interesting
conversation on Iran and Saudi Arabia, among other things. (As you know Fischer is now
director of the Nabucco pipeline project.) On Iran, harsh, targeted sanctions are absolutely
necessary, but are most effective diplomatically when always coupled with an offer to negotiate.

The iron fist in the velvet glove approach achieves several objectives: According to Fischer's
intelligence, Ahmanijehad wished some negotiated settlement but was blocked. The regime has
splits at the top. Perhaps true, perhaps not. But constantly pushing negotiations alongside
sanctions puts additional pressure on internal divisions, whatever they are. Extending an open
hand while brandishing a stick closes diplomatic and political room to maneuver for Iran. Its

refusal to accept the open hand justifies application of the stick. Even when sanctions are
enforced it always remains useful to say another way is open. The damage done to Iran is
therefore the result of its own choice. This approach also aids the opposition. A purely condign
sanctions strategy can contribute to the regime's will to punish and tighten repression. Talking of
regime change, of course, undermines the cause of regime change. It is a gift to the regime. The

opposition is a new factor in the Iran equation that must be taken into account on the political
and moral level. Pushed to the wall, the regime may feel compelled to repress, which might
involve thousands or tens of thousands of political killings. On Saudi Arabia, Fischer points out
that if Iran develops nuclear weaponry the Saudis already have their own bomb. The Saudis
invested in Pakistan's nuclear weaponry partly for this eventuality; that's their bomb in reserve."


5. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12181
For: Hillary
From: Sid
July 14, 2012
Re; Egypt internal politics

"SOURCE: Sources with access to the highest levels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and Western Intelligence and security services. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION COMES FROM AN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE SOURCE AND SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH CARE."

5. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12198
For: Hillary
From: Sid
June 6, 2012
Re: Libya Latest

"SOURCE: Sources with direct access to the Libyan National Transitional Council, as well as the highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services."

6. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12389
September 14, 2012
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re: Morsi's private conversations & coordination with Magariaf

"SOURCE: Sources with direct access to the Libyan National Transitional Council, as well as the highest levels of European governments, and Western Intelligence and security services."

7. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12376
October 3, 2012
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re: Turkey v. Syria (plus Iran)

"SOURCE: Sources with access to the highest levels of the Governments and institutions discussed below. This includes political parties and regional intelligence and security services.

1. On October 2 and 3, 2012, Turkish and Syrian forces exchanged fire across their border near the Turkish town of Akcakale; several Turkish civilians (including children) were killed, while Syrian casualties are not yet known.."


8. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/3758
January 30, 2010
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re: NI breakthrough

Shaun Woodward then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Blumenthal acted as a liason to Secretary Clinton.

"Shaun has just called me—about 9 p.m. EST. He says it is very likely that an agreement will be announced on Monday. The parties have reached agreement tonight. Shaun will call you on Sunday to brief. Gordon will fly into Belfast on Monday for a ceremony if all goes according to plan now. He will mention your role. You should be prepared to speak to the parties before the event and issue a statement. Hope it doesn't come unraveled over the next 36 hours."

9. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/6551
March 27, 2011
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re: Lots of new intel; Libyan army possibly on verge of collapse

"...Source Comment: Speaking in strict confidence, one rebel commander stated that his troops continue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting..."

10. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12566
From: Hillary Clinton
To: Sidney Blumenthal
Date: 2011-09-17 07:57
Subject: H: INTEL: ALLIES IN LIBYA/OIL. SID

"Thx. I'll try to check in w you this week."

September 16, 2011 1:32pm
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re: France, UK, et al, jockeying in Libya/oil

"During mid-September 2011 French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron traveled to Tripoli to meet with and express support for the leaders of the new government of Libya under the National Transitional Council (NTC). According to knowledgeable individuals, as part of this effort, the two leaders, in private conversations, also intend to press the leaders of the NTC to reward their early support for the rebellion against Muammar al Qaddafi. Sarkozy and Cameron expect this recognition to be tangible, in the form of favorable contracts for French and British energy companies looking to play a major role in the Libyan oil industry."



Retroactively Classified emails between Secretary Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal:

Emails completely blank or partly erased due to retroclassification.
See this website for classification procedure per "Executive Order 13526 - Classified National Security Information" (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information).

Sec. 1.6. Identification and Markings. (a) At the time of original classification, the following shall be indicated in a manner that is immediately apparent:
(1) one of the three classification levels defined in section 1.2 of this order (the 3rd pertains to documents marked "Confidential&quot .

Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels. (a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

(1) "Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

BOLDEN
(3) "Confidential" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security in accordance with section 1.2 of this order, and it pertains to one or more of the following:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

(b) foreign government information;

(c) intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;

(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;

(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security; or

(h) the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction.


1. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/16223
RELEASE IN PART B4,1.4(B),B1,1.4(D),B6
From: Hillary Clinton
To: Sidney Blumenthal
Date: 2009-11-10 01:18
Subject: FWD: FROM JOE WILSON
"Berlin was terrific. Lots of good exchanges w leaders. Have you heard anything else? 1.4(B ) 1.4(D )"

2. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/26180
RELEASE IN PART B1,1.4(D),B6
From: Sidney Blumenthal
To: Hillary Clinton
Date: 2009-07-14 04:18
Subject: IMPORTANT. NOT FOR CIRCULATION. YOU ONLY. SID
Re: Moscow Summit/Germany/UK

"1. I have heard authoritatively from Bill Drozdiak, who is in Berlin and has just met with

1.4(D) B1

This is the third message I have received from sources about the disastrous nature of the Obama trip. Drozdiak also says that the US is totally out of the loop in Berlin--no ambassador, no DCM and a political cou nselor who has just arrived. The Germans have nobody to talk to and they don't expect to deal seriously with Obama's ambassadorial appointment. We should expect that the Germans and Russians will now cut their own separate deals on energy, regional security, etc., and those deals will reflect narrow, parochial economic and political needs indifferent to whether or not we deem them to be in the broader interest of the Western alliance."


3. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/11467
Reason: 1.4(d)
Subject: Blank
"Sources with access to the highest levels of the governments and institutions discussed below. This includes."

4. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/11644
Subject: BAHRAIN, IRANIAN INTELLIGENCE
Reason: 1.4(d)

5. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/11789
Subject: H: INTERIM LIBYAN COMMITTEE IN FORMATION. SID
Partly Classified, Reason: 1.4(d)
"Some names of key people in interim governmental committee provided by former adviser to 1.4(D) B1 Qaddafi, now in exile, provided to Cody. (Cody has helped his son get jobs, etc.) Some names are obvious; some other interesting detail. May prove accurate and useful."

6. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/11869
Subject: MEMO FROM SHAUN WOODWARD ON LATEST NI DEVELOPMENTS. SID
Reason: 1.4(b) + 1.4(d)

7. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/11896
Subject: LATEST/N. IRELAND
Reason 1.4(d)

8. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/20931
Reason: B1,1.4(B),1.4(D ),B6
From: Hillary Clinton
To: Sidney Blumenthal
Date: 2010-03-05 23:12
Subject: H: VERY, VERY LATEST ON NI. IMPORTANT INFOR. SID (NI = Northern Ireland)



Secretary Clinton's Statements:
1: http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_27689239/hillary-clinton-emails-fact-checking-her-statement
2: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-press-conference/index.html

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
An exerpt of the emails from Wikileaks, specifically between Clinton and Blumenthal (Original Post) motionspotlight Mar 2016 OP
Hmmm...Blumenthal was banished by Obama, right? AzDar Mar 2016 #1
That is correct. Wilms Mar 2016 #7
He was paid very, very well NWCorona Mar 2016 #12
That's a lot of work. Thanks for pulling that together. leveymg Mar 2016 #2
I'll try... motionspotlight Mar 2016 #5
Yes thank you for putting all UglyGreed Mar 2016 #3
Thank you motionspotlight!! Segami Mar 2016 #4
Thanks m8 motionspotlight Mar 2016 #6
It IS off-topic for GD. Wilms Mar 2016 #8
So being a presidential candidate, though I discuss her time as... motionspotlight Mar 2016 #9
Admin has stated many times that things about primary candidates belong in the forum uppityperson Mar 2016 #10
Thanks for the collection of emails. Here's more that struck me: Jarqui Mar 2016 #11
It's not the personal email account. It's the private server. Autumn Mar 2016 #13
Exactly. Fawke Em Mar 2016 #16
Nice lucrative work for Scumbag Sid BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #14
I'd like to know where he was getting his information. Fawke Em Mar 2016 #18
He wasn't on the government payroll so I don't think he needed a security clearance BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #20
Thanks and welcome :) nt slipslidingaway Mar 2016 #15
Proving that the American people are smarter than either party gives them credit for pdsimdars Mar 2016 #17
Interesting. . anyone else notice the complete lack of Hillary supporters defending her on the ISSUE pdsimdars Mar 2016 #19
 

Wilms

(26,795 posts)
7. That is correct.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 08:49 PM
Mar 2016

So it looks like he was payed by the Clinton Global Initiative to serve some capacity.

On the plus side, it avoids over-sight...unless your email becomes public.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
2. That's a lot of work. Thanks for pulling that together.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 08:44 PM
Mar 2016

Don't let the bastards intimidate you. Please continue posting.

motionspotlight

(18 posts)
5. I'll try...
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 08:47 PM
Mar 2016

it's hard though once they, decide to temporarily ban you or deem your post as off-topic, being a newbie, I can't message the moderator to appeal yet.

motionspotlight

(18 posts)
6. Thanks m8
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 08:49 PM
Mar 2016

Just trying to shed some light on the truth, not sure why the mod decided the thread was off-topic for the General Discussion thread.

motionspotlight

(18 posts)
9. So being a presidential candidate, though I discuss her time as...
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 08:55 PM
Mar 2016

....Secretary of State, over three years ago, that means it belongs in a primary discussion? If the mods and you think that's so then I'll accept it.

uppityperson

(115,674 posts)
10. Admin has stated many times that things about primary candidates belong in the forum
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:00 PM
Mar 2016

about primary candidates because it may or will have influence on voters in the primary.

Above the posts on the main page of any and every forum/group is a button labeled "About this forum". It contains the Statement of Purpose about that forum.

Also, threads locked for not fitting a forum's statement of purpose generally have a last reply which contains the reason for the lock, posted by the Host who locked the thread with consensus of the other Hosts. For instance, in your locked GD thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7695613

Jarqui

(10,110 posts)
11. Thanks for the collection of emails. Here's more that struck me:
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:34 PM
Mar 2016
Search result: 259 emails found with the phrase "extremely sensitive", 205 with "extremely sensitive source"

Isn't the state department often supposed to protect their sources? All of the ones I looked at are about foreign countries - "extremely sensitive" information about foreign countries is arguably born classified.

"So why isn't it classified now?" Because for example, Qaddafi is dead - it doesn't need to be classified any more.

334 emails found with "Intel" (short for intelligence)

Meanwhile, Hillary is trying to get us to believe that the more than 2,100+ emails that had classified information were ALL retroactively classified. Can you imagine what the odds are of that in 31,000+ emails - that 2,100+ were retroactively classified and none were classified at the time, when emails with defense, foreign information, intelligence, etc are born classified?

If that was truly so, where are all the emails she did classify? And how did she do it without using a .gov email address - because it's on the record that she did not use one? (Oops, maybe they didn't think that one through).

Why should the 18 emails between the President and the Secretary of State be avilable to hackers and potentially put out on the internet? Why are nine more of them missing after she only deleted personal emails?

If she didn't transmit classified information (which she claims), how come the Inspector General has depositions from agents in his Intelligence Community that say they found emails with classified information at the time of transmission? And why didn't the State Department dispute that finding in their Feb 4th press conference?

Why should 100-150 FBI agents spend many man months looking at this if there was nothing to look at? Don't they have better things to do - like catch some terrorists or something?

Why did Hillary lie about the four significant points she brought up in her first press conference on this (ie she wanted to keep emails between her and Bill confidential when Bill doesn't email)?

Lots of good questions and no good answers from the Clinton camp.

Anyway, here's one more email that stuck out that I happened to stumble into:

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05788505.pdf
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2U11 12:58 1-11v1
Re: Q's military strategy and rebel difficulties
Latest:


I'm not going to quote the whole thing- you can click the link to see it. "Q" in the subject is "Qaddafi". The context is the Libyan civil war is underway and NATO has implemented it's no fly zone - and the US Military is engaged as the email states: "forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi are feeling the effects of the western allies bombing and missile attacks, that began on March 19/20"

Incredibly (and arguably, stupidly), Hillary, the Secretary of State, emails a response to this situation to someone not cleared for classified information with "This fits our info anaysis. Thx." on an unsecure network - that was proven to be easily hacked in 2013.

The context stated another way:
there's military action going on with US forces in the middle east and the Secretary of State is confirming what the Obama Admin and US Military know about their enemy combatant and others in an unsecure email with someone who does not have security clearance for such classified information. How is that legal?

Blumenthal is basically an intelligence mercenary. How does anyone know at the time he's not selling Hillary info to others? I do think the guy is a bit of a weasel.

Hillary's response: "fits our info anaysis" is revealing and bad because it tells whoever may intercept or see the email a bunch about the US thoughts on this matter - confirming that in the eyes of the US President, the US Administration, US Intelligence and the US Military, the email has it right. Doing that potentially puts US military lives or others at risk. This email is so obviously born classified. In the worst case, it's classified erring in the side of caution because it is a discussion about a party the US is in combat against. I don't think that's unreasonable or would take a rocket scientist to figure out. What the US President, the US Administration, US Intelligence and the US Military think about an enemy combatant or a situation when they're at war is nobody's business.


How is this classified email fiasco even debatable about exposing, transmitting or revealing classified info and illegally storing classified information at her home? How can one maintain their innocence with such behavior, facts and evidence? It's so outrageous, callous and stupid that it's breathtaking. It boggles my mind how she could do this. It does undercut her assertion that she's ready to be president - because she looks so clueless with stuff like this - and a bunch of her potential future subordinates will not respect or trust her when they see behavior like this ... and that she's standing in front of the American people lying her head off again about it, over and over.

Whether they indict her or not, the GOP will be pointing this stuff out to the electorate during the general election. Why shouldn't they? If Condoleezza Rice did this, wouldn't Dems do the same thing? Sure they would. So let's not get too hypocritical.

Whether one likes Hillary or not and whether they indict her or not, Hillary has a bigger electability problem than most realize. She's served up irrefutable proof of how careless, naive and dishonest she is. You think what they did swiftboating John Kerry with bogus information was bad? Trump or whoever is going to have a field day with this - and they can pretty much prove it. It's really hard to quickly and convincingly refute the truth in an election. You can try to lie, like she has for years, but up against this, most folks except her most loyal supporters won't buy it.

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
14. Nice lucrative work for Scumbag Sid
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:47 PM
Mar 2016

There would be many people around the world that the Secretary of State and the State Department would not want to be on the record as having direct contact with. But Sid, as a non government employee, could be in touch with those kind of people and serve as a go between, like a money launderer. I would guess he mostly copy/pasted text from emails he received into the text of emails he sent. Nice work if you can get it and have no moral compass.

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
20. He wasn't on the government payroll so I don't think he needed a security clearance
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:22 PM
Mar 2016

I would think that as an ostensibly private citizen (on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation and others) that he could talk to anybody and pass it along. Hillary described Sid as a long time friend and suggested that his emails were unsolicited, even though they came in high volume.

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
17. Proving that the American people are smarter than either party gives them credit for
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 01:34 PM
Mar 2016

because in EVERY poll, they have Hillary as one of the LEAST trustworthy. Beauty is as beauty does.
They have her pegged for just who she is.

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
19. Interesting. . anyone else notice the complete lack of Hillary supporters defending her on the ISSUE
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:41 PM
Mar 2016

They don't deal with facts.
They can't explain or rationalize them. . . .
I want to hear the explanation. . .
Of course I probably won't be able to since I have so many on "ignore". Oh well.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»An exerpt of the emails f...