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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LiberalArkie

(15,728 posts)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:47 PM Mar 2016

How Clinton’s email scandal took root

By Robert O'Harrow Jr. March 27 at 4:00 PM


Hillary Clinton, who at the time was selected to be secretary of state, checks her BlackBerry on an elevator at the U.S. Capitol in the District in January 2009. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


Hillary Clinton’s email problems began in her first days as secretary of state. She insisted on using her personal BlackBerry for all her email communications, but she wasn’t allowed to take the device into her seventh-floor suite of offices, a secure space known as Mahogany Row.

For Clinton, this was frustrating. As a political heavyweight and chief of the nation’s diplomatic corps, she needed to manage a torrent of email to stay connected to colleagues, friends and supporters. She hated having to put her BlackBerry into a lockbox before going into her own office.

Her aides and senior officials pushed to find a way to enable her to use the device in the secure area. But their efforts unsettled the diplomatic security bureau, which was worried that foreign intelligence services could hack her BlackBerry and transform it into a listening device.

On Feb. 17, 2009, less than a month into Clinton’s tenure, the issue came to a head. Department security, intelligence and technology specialists, along with five officials from the National Security Agency, gathered in a Mahogany Row conference room. They explained the risks to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, while also seeking “mitigation options” that would accommodate Clinton’s wishes.


Snip



https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html
116 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How Clinton’s email scandal took root (Original Post) LiberalArkie Mar 2016 OP
Things Are Heating Up noretreatnosurrender Mar 2016 #1
That was my first thought as well. n/t femmedem Mar 2016 #2
There is no reasonable explanation for having the server... Yurovsky Mar 2016 #57
yes grasswire Mar 2016 #70
It may happen quickly now LiberalArkie Mar 2016 #3
The Comments noretreatnosurrender Mar 2016 #4
It very well be the reason. I have not read the comments yet. I was digesting the LiberalArkie Mar 2016 #5
The comments sound surprisingly like DU comments. senz Mar 2016 #24
Probably is. Not of the general public, but of news & political junkies. LiberalArkie Mar 2016 #30
Could very well be nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #13
The political calendar requires them to settle this SOON nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #6
Didn't See NY Post Story noretreatnosurrender Mar 2016 #7
It was posted here but it was hisden nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #8
Thanks noretreatnosurrender Mar 2016 #9
That would be interesting as the FBI straight out rebuffed the State Dept NWCorona Mar 2016 #10
They have to "wrap this" before the convention nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #11
Indeed NWCorona Mar 2016 #12
Catherine Herridge at Fox reported that Clinton foundation Halliburton Mar 2016 #62
More than that nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #64
The state dept FOIA office had to freak out when they found out that the SOS had NO LiberalArkie Mar 2016 #106
Not to worry... Bernie is well poised to be our nominee and leads all Rethugs in the GE. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2016 #71
Jesus, this is from the LA Times version of this story nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #14
If I was her, I would be moving cash to some other country and packing my jet. LiberalArkie Mar 2016 #15
My personal opinion is that she will be offered a deal Samantha Mar 2016 #37
I think the foundation is toast once the deals are in the record. LiberalArkie Mar 2016 #39
I don't know how far they will take the "pay-to-play" issue because I do not know what the evidence Samantha Mar 2016 #46
You might just be right about that Samantha Mar 2016 #96
why should she be above the law, though? grasswire Mar 2016 #72
I don't know that she will continue to profit from the Clinton Foundation; it is being investigated Samantha Mar 2016 #95
I've read that there is a widely-held expectation that the FBI will recommend charges to the DOJ RiverLover Mar 2016 #16
The leaks started two weeks ago nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #17
I don't think he will refuse to indict because Comey and other FBI agents will resign Samantha Mar 2016 #38
And Sid wasn't just a casual email here & there. He was one of her most frequent. RiverLover Mar 2016 #47
Yes, but Obama had explicitedly told Hillary Clinton at the beginning NO BLUMENTHAL Samantha Mar 2016 #56
I know. That's why I posted it. To show just how much she directly went ag Obama. RiverLover Mar 2016 #61
Okay, I am sorry -- I think I should quit posting tonight because I am just too tired and making Samantha Mar 2016 #65
No problem. RiverLover Mar 2016 #67
it's going to be a bumpy April, Sam grasswire Mar 2016 #80
Thanks grasswire Samantha Mar 2016 #92
Another think I noticed from the diagram. No Obama or Biden listed. LiberalArkie Mar 2016 #107
thanks for that chart. grasswire Mar 2016 #78
He would probably also be upset if she taints his legacy with scandal, since he has run one of tblue37 Mar 2016 #116
the backlash would be like Watergate grasswire Mar 2016 #73
Obama will never jeopardize his legacy for Clinton. NWCorona Mar 2016 #82
she wrongfully sought to evade the Freedom of Information Act. it's not more complicated than that. Vote2016 Mar 2016 #18
That is the CIVIL side of this with the Judicial Watch lawsuit nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #20
What does it mean when a story like this is dropped on Holiday Sunday at 4PM? LiberalArkie Mar 2016 #22
It is almost as good as a friday news dump nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #25
I think news Monday. Everyone is back home after Easter, pick up evening paper. LiberalArkie Mar 2016 #28
That is my thinking, because the digi edition this late is the morning paper edition nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #29
Do you have enough pop corn for next week? LiberalArkie Mar 2016 #33
I need to stock up nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #35
Good point. senz Mar 2016 #36
Oh I am betting on a few martinis nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #75
I know but the DOJ is not going to follow the FBI's indictment recommendation so that won't go anywh Vote2016 Mar 2016 #23
Then we jump into 1973 nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #26
exactly Vote2016 Mar 2016 #27
And the Judge is understandably upset about that Samantha Mar 2016 #42
undoubtedly. Bill had to surrender his law license. I don't know the status of hers for now Vote2016 Mar 2016 #83
Daaaaamn EdwardBernays Mar 2016 #19
Two things about the Harlow piece: leveymg Mar 2016 #21
Did I translate this as exremely serious as a civilian? nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #31
Yes. That was in the WaPo piece as well. I read it the same way. leveymg Mar 2016 #40
Ah good, my decoder ring is not off nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #41
Got mine in a box of Cracker Jacks. leveymg Mar 2016 #45
LMAO nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #50
Her days are numbered. truedelphi Mar 2016 #32
Tip of the Ice Burg FreakinDJ Mar 2016 #34
I think that had to be a big influence on Obama Samantha Mar 2016 #51
I think its worse then that FreakinDJ Mar 2016 #54
I do too but I am not so sure they want the world to know the entire scope Samantha Mar 2016 #68
I don't think there is a way for Obama to jump in and save her if the FBI recommends indicting her karynnj Mar 2016 #58
You said exactly what I told a Republican a couple of days ago, but he shot me down Samantha Mar 2016 #74
Biden will not run, forgetaboutit nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #77
The neat thing about Bernie is that he is scandal free. And then the Dems can blame LiberalArkie Mar 2016 #108
Yes, but he is not bribable IMO nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #113
The Chicago Tribune is mirroring the story Babel_17 Mar 2016 #43
Wow. That shows both knowledge AND intent. RiverLover Mar 2016 #52
That depends on how you approach viewing the comment Babel_17 Mar 2016 #60
That is 4 major papers nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #66
I just saw your link upthread to the LA Times Babel_17 Mar 2016 #76
The Wapo is owned by joe Bezos nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #79
Thanks for that info Babel_17 Mar 2016 #84
Very slow news day nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #86
Nothing Yet noretreatnosurrender Mar 2016 #87
Separate operating nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #88
Guardian noretreatnosurrender Mar 2016 #90
Why does she do this shit? senz Mar 2016 #44
It would have been worse if we were in the General right now. leveymg Mar 2016 #48
That depends on what happens right now, does it not? senz Mar 2016 #55
And some toss around the word "entitled" - well, here's the epitome of ENTITLED. nc4bo Mar 2016 #49
Transcends entitlement and crosses into the vast realm of mental. senz Mar 2016 #59
I agree with your assessment that something is terribly wrong with her. DiehardLiberal Mar 2016 #63
I wonder if she has a tank of sharks with laser beams on their heads? notadmblnd Mar 2016 #112
Well I hope so! senz Mar 2016 #115
Why?....Hubris pure and simple. yourout Mar 2016 #69
plus....the potential reward was sooooooo great grasswire Mar 2016 #81
This was incredibly poor judgment and it will remain a big issue BlueStreak Mar 2016 #53
Hillary . . .. poor judgement . . . .. . . pdsimdars Mar 2016 #99
Unfortunately, even if we assume the best possible story, karynnj Mar 2016 #103
It was hubris pure and simple DebbieCDC Mar 2016 #85
She very well could end up in jail yourout Mar 2016 #100
Obviously, the FBI is sexist. Marr Mar 2016 #89
K & R! DiehardLiberal Mar 2016 #91
If this doesn't become a major issue during the primaries, it will in the GE. n/t blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #93
Massive appologist article. She had to break federal law for convenience. Zira Mar 2016 #94
I think "convenience" is just the cooked up excuse. Vinca Mar 2016 #101
Apologist? I would say it is ultimately, very damning karynnj Mar 2016 #102
It's sounding more and more like it was a matter of Marr Mar 2016 #109
It's a wonder this woman didn't get hacked. What a national security risk. Zira Mar 2016 #97
Why assume she did not? ChairmanAgnostic Mar 2016 #98
The Clinton email "scandal" began when the Benghazi sufrommich Mar 2016 #104
Yes, the FBI is just another a vast, right-wing conspiracy. Marr Mar 2016 #110
It is probably true that without Benghazi, there would not have been the same demand for her emails karynnj Mar 2016 #111
Watergate started as a third rate burglary. ... nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #114
Has there ever been another TeddyR Mar 2016 #105

noretreatnosurrender

(1,890 posts)
1. Things Are Heating Up
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:27 PM
Mar 2016
coming from the Washington Post no less. The same paper that wrote 16 negative Bernie stories in a 24 hour period.

Yurovsky

(2,064 posts)
57. There is no reasonable explanation for having the server...
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:30 PM
Mar 2016

it was purposely set up outside government auspices and FOIA requests for a reason. I would venture to guess the primary reason was the rather unsavory shakedowns of foreign governments and global corporations for the Clnton Global Initaitive/Slush Fund. You know, the tax-free ATM that Hill & Bill could use to pay associates in need, travel like rock stars, and once in a great while give a nod & a wink to actual charity work.

When Sidney Blumenthal needed a DC gig (and Obama wasn't hiring his ilk), she put him on the payroll. When Anthony Weiner left Congress in disgrace, Huma got paid for an imaginary job, or double-dipped for her existing duties. And foreign governments/corporations looking to do business with the USA knew they could toss a million here or there at Bill and Hill would make things happen. Gee no wonder Hillary thought a secret server might come in handy.

Say what you want about Bernie, it'll be a cold day in hell before he pulls shenanigans like that.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
70. yes
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:48 PM
Mar 2016

you are on the right track.

The emails are a fig leaf, covering over unprecedented corruption.

LiberalArkie

(15,728 posts)
3. It may happen quickly now
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:38 PM
Mar 2016

One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. The FBI has accelerated the investigation because officials want to avoid the possibility of announcing any action too close to the election.


From article

noretreatnosurrender

(1,890 posts)
4. The Comments
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:50 PM
Mar 2016

for the article at the Post are brutal.

I wonder if this story is why we suddenly saw the corporate media covering Bernie events?

LiberalArkie

(15,728 posts)
5. It very well be the reason. I have not read the comments yet. I was digesting the
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:57 PM
Mar 2016

facts and laws broken. If it had been a secretary or janitor, they probably would have not been heard of again.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
24. The comments sound surprisingly like DU comments.
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:54 PM
Mar 2016

Same themes, attitudes, phrases, even. More constraints here, though.

DU could be a microcosm of everything out there.



 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
13. Could very well be
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:21 PM
Mar 2016

I do not have sources at DoJ, beyond the usual email all media (and you) can sub to. But their DOJ correspondents do have sources, and sometimes sources throw a few shall we say... clues of what shit is about to hit the fan, and more or less when. I doubt they told them all, but anybody with sources knows precisely what to do with those conversations over a whiskey over ice, that never happened.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
6. The political calendar requires them to settle this SOON
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:02 PM
Mar 2016

I wonder if the FBI leaks to the NY Post... were truly taken as a shot across the bow of state?

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
8. It was posted here but it was hisden
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:05 PM
Mar 2016

since it was the NY Post... they have been getting a few leaks in the recent past.

I will send you a PM. and realize it's the NY Post...

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
10. That would be interesting as the FBI straight out rebuffed the State Dept
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:09 PM
Mar 2016

When the judge ordered the two departments to work together when this first broke. The State wasn't doing anything at the time to make sure that they had Hillary's complete record.

Things are moving

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
11. They have to "wrap this" before the convention
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:11 PM
Mar 2016

because if they decide there is enough to convict, and this is national security kids, not elections. it will have an effect on the elections... nasty quagmire.

Halliburton

(1,802 posts)
62. Catherine Herridge at Fox reported that Clinton foundation
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:38 PM
Mar 2016

is also under investigation. There are 2 seperate probes.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
64. More than that
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:44 PM
Mar 2016

1.- Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit (The Witch hunt and what started the whole thing) It is civil and discovery has been granted

2.- Email Server
3. Foundation

These two are criminal most likely

The next two could offer evidence for 2 or 3, or both

4, Inspector General of the State Department investigation
5.- CIA IG

And now there are rumors, not that the NSA will confirm, after SAP material appeared in a Blumenthal email. that the NSA is getting involved.

Yeah, she managed to piss the intel folk. They don't just play, they play to win.

LiberalArkie

(15,728 posts)
106. The state dept FOIA office had to freak out when they found out that the SOS had NO
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:37 AM
Mar 2016

emails at all. That had to be an OH SHIT moment. She has managed to piss off everyone that could have walked her out of the problem. When people are at that level they don't have real friends, just people who are out to see what they can get. I tend to think that the Blumenthal deal may have burnt some bridges with 1600 Pennsylvania.

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,122 posts)
71. Not to worry... Bernie is well poised to be our nominee and leads all Rethugs in the GE.
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:50 PM
Mar 2016

Say hello to President Sanders!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
14. Jesus, this is from the LA Times version of this story
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:28 PM
Mar 2016
“The interviews are critical to understand the volume of information they have accumulated,” said James McJunkin, former head of the FBI's Washington field office. “They are likely nearing the end of the investigation and the agents need to interview these people to put the information in context. They will then spend time aligning these statements with other information, emails, classified documents, etc., to determine whether there is a prosecutable case."


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

Ask any criminal lawyer for a translation, but usually this means the FBI already knows the answers, and they are going to have prosecutors as part of this. If I were her, I would be sweating a smidgen.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
37. My personal opinion is that she will be offered a deal
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:03 PM
Mar 2016

I have no facts. I think Comey will not agree to anything that allows Hillary to keep her security clearance. He is a stickler for the rules. Some say he wants an indictment. Some people believe he along with other FBI agents will resign if Hillary is not indicted. So I am not really sure if he would give her the deal, but perhaps Loretta Lynch and President Obama will convince him not to pursue an indictment in exchange for revoking her security clearance and an agreement that she will not pursue holding Federal office again (ever).

I just don't think anyone wants to see Clinton get a prison term over this. However, even if she reaches a deal, that still leaves the Clinton Foundation hanging....

I do not know the extent of the damages so perhaps I am very wrong about this.

This is a double whammy, with the Foundation being involved.

Sam

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
46. I don't know how far they will take the "pay-to-play" issue because I do not know what the evidence
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:14 PM
Mar 2016

is. You may be entirely correct. I am just going to say I am not going that far yet because I am stuck on Part 1. Part is Part 2 to me (that includes Bill). I have been waiting for this to happen, and now that it has hit the mainstream, it takes my breath away.

Sam

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
96. You might just be right about that
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 03:19 AM
Mar 2016

It is hard to see how Bill and Hillary can continue with business as usual.

Sam

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
72. why should she be above the law, though?
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:53 PM
Mar 2016

Why should she be permitted to continue to profit from the Clinton Foundation and the corruption?

I think there are plenty of people who would feel a prison sentence appropriate if the criminal activity is what we think it is.

Gee. Even Martha Stewart went to prison, for comparative diddly squat.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
95. I don't know that she will continue to profit from the Clinton Foundation; it is being investigated
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 03:15 AM
Mar 2016

as well. I personally think that is why Bill Clinton made that ugly comment the other day about the really bad last eight years. The minute he said it I thought he was publicly insulting Obama. That evening the Clinton campaign walked the comment back by saying Bill was not referring to Obama but the Republican obstruction. I thought well the FBI must be investigating the pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation and Bill is ticked.

I think it would be a national embarrassment for Hillary Clinton to go to jail and for the rest of the world to see that. I think a deal would eliminate that. You are right that it is not fair but I think the excuse would be something like she has contributed so much positive over the years she has served. Her security clearance would be revoked, she would pay a fine, she would resign from the race "for health reasons" and never run for public office again. A deal would shut the discussion down really quickly, and I think that is to the Country's good.

Martha Stewart should have never gone to jail.

Sam

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
16. I've read that there is a widely-held expectation that the FBI will recommend charges to the DOJ
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:43 PM
Mar 2016

And President Obama will refuse to indict. Despite the evidence.

I hope that's an incorrect assumption. The backlash would be devastating, esp with the LAT getting this type of information.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
17. The leaks started two weeks ago
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:45 PM
Mar 2016

the ship of state is starting to leak

I will send you the link to the NY Post, realize it is the NY Post... but they seem to have found a leak... reminds me so much of oh 1972

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
38. I don't think he will refuse to indict because Comey and other FBI agents will resign
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:06 PM
Mar 2016

I think he will try to negotiate a deal. I think there are limits to which he will go, though. He has to be upset that Hillary was one might say running a rogue operation. He did say from the outset no Sidney Blumenthal yet there in the emails is Sidney giving Hillary foreign affairs advice....

Sam

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
47. And Sid wasn't just a casual email here & there. He was one of her most frequent.
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:15 PM
Mar 2016


.....Using data provided by U.S. Department of State, the NYU study group analyzed over 4000 emails. The visualization provide additional insight into the former Secretary's inner circle, her communications, what she shared and who she shared it with.
"We wanted to apply statistical methods to identify interesting patterns from Secretary Clinton's emails since it's been such a hot topic this election season. With the public release of the data, we wanted to better understand the issue in analytical terms," said Eugene Kwak, whose team at Stern conducted the analysis.

FBI investigating Hillary Clinton's server

Based on a theory that measures how individuals and groups interact within their network, the chart reveals Monica Hanley, Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Sidney Blumenthal as the most important nodes.

This group signifies a high degree of centrality, or the individuals that communicated the most in the network besides Hillary Clinton. Blumenthal's role has been especially controversial, because he was not a government employee but appeared to have handled classified information.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/27/hillary-clintons-emails-what-does-the-data-show.html

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
56. Yes, but Obama had explicitedly told Hillary Clinton at the beginning NO BLUMENTHAL
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:29 PM
Mar 2016

He did not have a security clearance (you are right about that), but when the emails were revealed there was Sidney giving her foreign affairs advice, some of which she discussed with Obama, but of course did not reveal her source. She put Sidney on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation since he could not be on the government payroll.

So I believe President Obama had to be p*ssed when he discovered this.

Sam

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
65. Okay, I am sorry -- I think I should quit posting tonight because I am just too tired and making
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:44 PM
Mar 2016

mistakes. I knew this thing was going to accelerate, and people would start paying more attention when the leaks went to more mainstream sources.

Previously, the items I was reading was mostly conservative sites. People of course would think this was just something political. So I thought when it started hitting mainsteam, it would really take off. They just released so much suddenly, it is overwhelming. I feel like I can't catch my breath. In the coming days, there will be so much happening with this and the election, it is going to be a rough ride.

Sam

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
80. it's going to be a bumpy April, Sam
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 11:04 PM
Mar 2016

I'm having trouble keeping up with all the comments sections of the articles published today. So many times there are great comments.

Get some rest! We need all hands on deck digesting this stuff.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
92. Thanks grasswire
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 02:36 AM
Mar 2016

You are right. This is going to be a tough one to follow while doing my income taxes!

Things are going to get very complicated with this investigation and the election running on parallel tracks.

Sam

tblue37

(65,488 posts)
116. He would probably also be upset if she taints his legacy with scandal, since he has run one of
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:38 PM
Mar 2016

the cleanest administrations ever, and he has been justifiably proud of that.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
20. That is the CIVIL side of this with the Judicial Watch lawsuit
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:51 PM
Mar 2016

which has also been granted discovery.

This is a criminal investigation

LiberalArkie

(15,728 posts)
28. I think news Monday. Everyone is back home after Easter, pick up evening paper.
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:57 PM
Mar 2016

They could have dropped it Friday and it would have been lost.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
36. Good point.
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:00 PM
Mar 2016

What could be going on behind the scenes. There are probably several layers of scenes. We'll never know.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
75. Oh I am betting on a few martinis
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:57 PM
Mar 2016

at the local bar... on the bright side smoking is no longer that huge.

 

Vote2016

(1,198 posts)
23. I know but the DOJ is not going to follow the FBI's indictment recommendation so that won't go anywh
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:53 PM
Mar 2016

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
42. And the Judge is understandably upset about that
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:10 PM
Mar 2016

When FOIAs were presented, the automatic State Department response was "We have no records." Of course it didn't. They were all on Hillary's server. So the requests were denied and that is a huge, serious problem. It was illegal to respond we have no information when in fact there was information (without the State Department's knowledge).

Sam

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
21. Two things about the Harlow piece:
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:52 PM
Mar 2016

1. New info about Hillary personally acknowledging the DSS warning about Blackberry use, but continuing to use it exclusively anyway.2. The Post apparently hasn't read her signed security agreement that lists the felony statutes Sec 793 and 794 under which she can be charged for mishandling of classified materials.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
31. Did I translate this as exremely serious as a civilian?
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:59 PM
Mar 2016

Or am I right that this is as serious as it gets, as in the FBI already has the answers... and are going to give up the rope.


“The interviews are critical to understand the volume of information they have accumulated,” said James McJunkin, former head of the FBI's Washington field office. “They are likely nearing the end of the investigation and the agents need to interview these people to put the information in context. They will then spend time aligning these statements with other information, emails, classified documents, etc., to determine whether there is a prosecutable case."


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
40. Yes. That was in the WaPo piece as well. I read it the same way.
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:09 PM
Mar 2016

If there were serious doubts she broke the law or a sizable minority view to that effect, we would be hearing that view loud and clear. But, we're instead hearing details of crimes and an effort to determine proper charging.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
45. Got mine in a box of Cracker Jacks.
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:13 PM
Mar 2016

Analog, eats D batteries , and weighs a ton, but still works perfectly fine. Unless it rains.

 

FreakinDJ

(17,644 posts)
34. Tip of the Ice Burg
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:59 PM
Mar 2016

Google "Hillary Blumenthal Syria"

And to think she was doing this behind Obama's back after he Black-Balled Blumenthal from working in the State Dept Hillary led

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
51. I think that had to be a big influence on Obama
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:20 PM
Mar 2016

and that is why I don't think he will jump in to save the day for her. But he might to mitigate the damages. If she resigns from the race, I believe she will say it is for the health reasons.

Sam

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
68. I do too but I am not so sure they want the world to know the entire scope
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:47 PM
Mar 2016

I also don't know exactly what evidence the FBI has.

I also don't know to what extent the Clinton Foundation will be sucked into this (I believe there are huge problems there, but I have no specifics to report).

This is going to be very, very difficult....

Sam

karynnj

(59,504 posts)
58. I don't think there is a way for Obama to jump in and save her if the FBI recommends indicting her
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:30 PM
Mar 2016

or even reprimanding her and her aides.

As it is, this has to some degree, tarnished his administration which was otherwise pretty clean. For his own reputation, he will not defend what she did. He actually, at points, distanced himself, claiming he did not know what was happening.

The REAL sad thing is not that it could harm Clinton, but that it could lead to a terrible Republican President - in a year where any decent Democrat would have beaten any of their contenders. In addition, as has happened before, some of the blame will go to others who were in positions where they could not easily contest what she wanted - and they are face being questioned.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
74. You said exactly what I told a Republican a couple of days ago, but he shot me down
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:55 PM
Mar 2016

I mentioned the fact President Obama had had a remarkably scandal-free administration, and that was truly a feat. I also said if he tried to step in and help Hillary, it would adversely impact his legacy. Got that shot down as well. But I did not know then some of the things I found out yesterday, so with the information coming fast and furiously, who knows what tomorrow will bring.

I am sure my Republican brother from Florida will call me tomorrow and say this will hand the election to Trump. So I am not going to argue that. I have to stay positive and say Trump cannot win. I can't stand Cruz, so what can I say.

I think the Dems will regroup very quickly and I will just wait and see what they come up with (probably Biden jumping in). Personally, I support Sanders so I am sure he is not going to have a scandal crop up tomorrow.

Sam

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
77. Biden will not run, forgetaboutit
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:59 PM
Mar 2016

the Dems will have a Sanders problem, and trust me, for the dems, that is a problem

LiberalArkie

(15,728 posts)
108. The neat thing about Bernie is that he is scandal free. And then the Dems can blame
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:52 AM
Mar 2016

Libya and Syria on a SOS getting bad advice from Blumenthal. A lot of Obama's legacy problems can be flushed down the drain with casting the Clintons out.

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
43. The Chicago Tribune is mirroring the story
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:12 PM
Mar 2016
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-email-scandal-20160327-story.html

I guess the media thinks the public needs to be briefed, in preparation of the release of the Inspectors General reports, and whatever the FBI makes public.

Embedded in the Chicago Tribune copy of the story was a link to their editorial from February 2.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-edit-0203-20160202-story.html

"I'm happy people are looking at the emails," she added. "Some of them are you know, frankly, a little embarrassing. ... You find out that sometimes I'm not the best on technology and things like that."

Her professed naivete collides with a set of now-disclosed 2011 emails. Aide Jake Sullivan, who's trying to send her a message — we don't know its sensitivity — tells her that staffers "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton's reply: "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
Hmm.


Edited to add the quote.

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
60. That depends on how you approach viewing the comment
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:37 PM
Mar 2016

Long story short, some argue that all the regulations, over-classification, and archaic technology, make the Department of State a hindrance for diplomats to do their work. In that context, Secretary Clinton was just trying to cut through the red tape so she could see what she needed to see, and do her job.

I have issues with that argument, but it has played pretty well so far.

"I'm happy people are looking at the emails," she added. "Some of them are you know, frankly, a little embarrassing. ... You find out that sometimes I'm not the best on technology and things like that."

Her professed naivete collides with a set of now-disclosed 2011 emails. Aide Jake Sullivan, who's trying to send her a message — we don't know its sensitivity — tells her that staffers "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton's reply: "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Hmm.


But the "Hmm" (bold added by me) of the above still stands, even if one grants the "cutting through red tape argument". It sounds like there's dissembling going on when you have those two, apparently conflicting, statements. Now, one can be sharp one moment, and the next day a bit forgetful. But the "Hmm" of that editorial echoes my sense that the FBI will have lots of questions about what everybody's sense of these matters was, and they'll want to know about it as it pertains to many different instances of messages sent and received, and to the means used to send, receive, and store, them.

Who will they talk to, how extensive will they get into it, and will people exercise their Constitutional right not to talk to the FBI, look to be questions of more interest now, after this story by the WaPo has its impact. We'll have to wait and see how far, wide, and deep, that impact is.

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
76. I just saw your link upthread to the LA Times
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:58 PM
Mar 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1590015

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

Thanks for that, and this raises a question, in my mind. Do these other papers have editors who just skim the news, and they all see the WaPo article? Or were they told in advance, and is this coordinated to be a fairly major story for tomorrow's print editions? Is that why it's released now, so nobody is taken by surprise?

If so, "Hmm". Major papers coordinating so as to act in the public's best interest? Huh, might not be all that significant, but I'm at a loss to remember many examples of this.
 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
79. The Wapo is owned by joe Bezos
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 11:01 PM
Mar 2016

but the Chicago Trib and the LA Times are part of one happy family, the Tribune Publishing company. So it is possible that the Tribune family will pick up and mirror the story across the happy family

Also I am sure they have sources in DC. As to one paper running and breaking and the rest picking up a story, happens all the time

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
84. Thanks for that info
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 11:13 PM
Mar 2016

I've seen stories mirrored before, it's just that this is a long and important story. Then again, what does it take to print it online? Tomorrow will tell the tale, when we're told if this is important or not. lol

P.S. It's also that it's not so much news. "How Hillary Clinton's email scandal took root"

Lol, it just makes me think of several papers all deciding to run a feature like "How it's easy for astronomers to miss big asteroids".

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
44. Why does she do this shit?
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:13 PM
Mar 2016

What's wrong with her? What's wrong with her followers?

How the hell did she get to where she is now?

Lady MacBeth comes to mind for some reason, only Lady MacBeth had a conscience.

Sorry for all the unanswerable questions, guess I'm a little nervous.

I'm afraid to hope against hope. The country could get a reprieve from what would be a very bad outcome but I am seriously afraid to get my hopes up.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
48. It would have been worse if we were in the General right now.
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:16 PM
Mar 2016

We may have missed the bullet. Maybe.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
55. That depends on what happens right now, does it not?
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:27 PM
Mar 2016

Either she's somewhat maimed but her blind followers and nonblind establishment backers rally round her and she's lauded with ever more victim status and goes on to perhaps win the nomination and enter god knows what in the GE -- OR, she's taken out now. The latter would be cleaner, if shocking to the country, and we'd have a chance at the only candidate who has the courage and will to actually help the people of this country.

The GE remains up in the air either way but Bernie has greater cross-party appeal. And I'm probably overlooking all kinds of pertinent stuff.

This is nerve wracking.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
59. Transcends entitlement and crosses into the vast realm of mental.
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:30 PM
Mar 2016

Something is terribly, terribly wrong with this person.

I always end up feeling sorry for her husband and child.

DiehardLiberal

(580 posts)
63. I agree with your assessment that something is terribly wrong with her.
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:43 PM
Mar 2016

Her sense of entitlement and lust for power and money overrides what I think what was once a good intent. However, I don't feel sorry for Bill - he is cut from the same cloth. And Chelsea is old enough to have wised up. After all Ron and Nancy's kids did!

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
112. I wonder if she has a tank of sharks with laser beams on their heads?
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:09 AM
Mar 2016

I'm sorry, your comment made that scene from the movie flash through my mind.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
81. plus....the potential reward was sooooooo great
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 11:06 PM
Mar 2016

Riches untold. Power unmeasureable.

They are running for the border right now, trying to get away with it all.

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
99. Hillary . . .. poor judgement . . . .. . .
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:19 AM
Mar 2016

If she didn't have poor judgement, she would have no judgement at all.

karynnj

(59,504 posts)
103. Unfortunately, even if we assume the best possible story,
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:08 AM
Mar 2016

It will be one the Republicans will use in a way Bernie hasn't and which would actually be poor strategy in the primaries.

What was she thinking? She knew her goal was to run in 2016, why do something like this?

DebbieCDC

(2,543 posts)
85. It was hubris pure and simple
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 11:16 PM
Mar 2016

"I want what I want. I want my Blackberry. I don't want two Blackberries. I don't want to use a desktop. I don't want to be bothered with learning technology. I want everything on my home server. I want gov't and slush fund emails where I can find all of them together".....

blah blah blah

Madame Secretary will be lucky to get out of this with only losing her security clearance for life.

yourout

(7,533 posts)
100. She very well could end up in jail
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:49 AM
Mar 2016

Depending on what is in those deleted emails relative to the Clinton Foundation it is possible it will take an Obama pardon to keep her out of jail.

 

Zira

(1,054 posts)
94. Massive appologist article. She had to break federal law for convenience.
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 02:41 AM
Mar 2016

It was going to take root the second the Republicans heard of it. Blame Hillary Clinton for putting herself up for it.

Vinca

(50,304 posts)
101. I think "convenience" is just the cooked up excuse.
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:53 AM
Mar 2016

It's more likely, since she knew there was a good chance she'd run for POTUS again, her handlers wanted to make sure everything she wrote or said would be out of the reach of FOIA requests. Now that's a backfire.

karynnj

(59,504 posts)
102. Apologist? I would say it is ultimately, very damning
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:56 AM
Mar 2016

Seriously, it would have been too bothersome to use a desk top computer in her office?

Consider no one would be saying that she personally had to set it up and get it working. It also would seem to be there for nothing more than managing email. I bet it would have taken her personal email guy far less time to do that and help her get comfortable than it did for him to do everything he did on the private server.

This was not really about convenience, it was at best refusing to adjust to minor changes and having the arrogance to ignore everyone who said she shouldn't. NEITHER are good personality traits for a President.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
109. It's sounding more and more like it was a matter of
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 10:17 AM
Mar 2016

keeping illegal actions off the official books; using her position as SoS as a money maker for the Clinton Foundation.

 

Zira

(1,054 posts)
97. It's a wonder this woman didn't get hacked. What a national security risk.
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 04:31 AM
Mar 2016

"On Jan. 13, 2009, a longtime aide to Bill Clinton registered a private email domain for Hillary Clinton, clintonemail.com, that would allow her to send and receive email through the server."

In fact, I'm in computers and have ran email servers. It's unlikely she didn't get hacked. If she sent any emails to foreign govs - including England, they were likely watching every email she sent through that address ever after.

sufrommich

(22,871 posts)
104. The Clinton email "scandal" began when the Benghazi
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:11 AM
Mar 2016

"scandal" failed to bring down Obama in 2012. They pivoted to bringing down Hillary after that.

karynnj

(59,504 posts)
111. It is probably true that without Benghazi, there would not have been the same demand for her emails
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 10:44 AM
Mar 2016

- however, there were FOIA actions on other subjects for which they found no Clinton email. It might have been that none of those denials would have led to anyone discovering that she had used a private server. It sounds from this article - confirming the original NYT story, that the State Department demanded she give them the emails. I suspect it was a SD source to that NYT story that spoke of their efforts to get the email, so they could comply. She screwed up not giving her work email to be archived as soon as she left.

The SD was left with the choice of stonewalling for Clinton OR demanding the emails back. They chose following the law over covering for Clinton. I suspect that the Clinton delays and the time needed to get them in shape forced the SD to explain that they had to get the emails back. Otherwise, they would have had no explanation why it would have ultimately taken them 3 years to get all the email.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
105. Has there ever been another
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:12 AM
Mar 2016

Presidential candidate from one of the major parties who was being investigated by the FBI at the same time he/she was running for president?

Setting aside whether she is indicted, the conscious decision to utilize a private server shows such poor judgment and disregard for the rules that it calls into question Hillary's suitability for the presidency. Very Nixonian in my mind.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»How Clinton’s email scand...