2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow 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)
For Clinton, this was frustrating. As a political heavyweight and chief of the nations 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 Clintons 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, Clintons chief of staff, while also seeking mitigation options that would accommodate Clintons wishes.
Snip
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)femmedem
(8,207 posts)Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)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.
you are on the right track.
The emails are a fig leaf, covering over unprecedented corruption.
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)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)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)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)Same themes, attitudes, phrases, even. More constraints here, though.
DU could be a microcosm of everything out there.
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)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)I wonder if the FBI leaks to the NY Post... were truly taken as a shot across the bow of state?
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Do you happen to have a link?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)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...
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Yeah, I'm familiar with the NY Post's well deserved rep.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)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)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.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Halliburton
(1,802 posts)is also under investigation. There are 2 seperate probes.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)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)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)Say hello to President Sanders!
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)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.
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)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
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)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)It is hard to see how Bill and Hillary can continue with business as usual.
Sam
grasswire
(50,130 posts)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)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)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)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)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).....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)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
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)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
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Get some rest, Sam. I should as well.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)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)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
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)that article is dated today.
Everything is popping at once.
tblue37
(65,488 posts)the cleanest administrations ever, and he has been justifiably proud of that.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)And chaos.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Vote2016
(1,198 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)which has also been granted discovery.
This is a criminal investigation
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)or... this will be in the news tomorrow
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)They could have dropped it Friday and it would have been lost.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and damn it, I have a city budget to read too
senz
(11,945 posts)What could be going on behind the scenes. There are probably several layers of scenes. We'll never know.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)at the local bar... on the bright side smoking is no longer that huge.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I hope that Delorean has enough space for all of us
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)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
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)That's pretty damning stuff.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)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)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.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html
leveymg
(36,418 posts)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.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Analog, eats D batteries , and weighs a ton, but still works perfectly fine. Unless it rains.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Can't say I am sad at all about these developments!
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)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)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
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)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)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)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)the Dems will have a Sanders problem, and trust me, for the dems, that is a problem
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)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.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That is a problem in a pretty corrupt environment
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)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.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Thanks for posting. Very interesting.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)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.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)this is exploding.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)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)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)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".
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)sure, I could see the asteroid story
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)on NYT website.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Ok someone has to do it... let's check foreign press
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Nothing yet.
senz
(11,945 posts)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)We may have missed the bullet. Maybe.
senz
(11,945 posts)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.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Something is terribly, terribly wrong with this person.
I always end up feeling sorry for her husband and child.
DiehardLiberal
(580 posts)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)I'm sorry, your comment made that scene from the movie flash through my mind.
senz
(11,945 posts)If she wins, she can have it installed in the basement of the WH.
yourout
(7,533 posts)Laws are for everyone else.....not the political elite.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Riches untold. Power unmeasureable.
They are running for the border right now, trying to get away with it all.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)If she didn't have poor judgement, she would have no judgement at all.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)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)"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)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.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Or racist. Or whatever.
DiehardLiberal
(580 posts)blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)Zira
(1,054 posts)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)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)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)keeping illegal actions off the official books; using her position as SoS as a money maker for the Clinton Foundation.
Zira
(1,054 posts)"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.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)A good hacker would leave little trace.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)"scandal" failed to bring down Obama in 2012. They pivoted to bringing down Hillary after that.
Marr
(20,317 posts)karynnj
(59,504 posts)- 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.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)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.