... I'm telling you ANY SECOND!!!!! Wait ... wait ... wait ... almost time ... !!!!

The Great Pumpkin is more likely to show up than the indictment fairy.

is looking like it will blow up her campaign. The FBI Director in charge is known for pissing off all sides, and would not be involving prosecutors to impanel a grand jury if there wasn't something "there". Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart and a Clinton donor are all already notches in his belt - he has an IMPECCABLE ruthless reputation.

There is a chance he is going to say "no big deal" but it isn't looking good.

This has nothing to do with Bernie - these actions (including keeping the Inspector General post vacant for the four years she was at State) all went down before Bernie decided to step into the race. (You may recall it happened about a year ago, with no "preparation" on his part - now I am wondering if he saw the writing on the wall, or Obama gave him the heads up. Hmmm...)

People are currently sitting in jail for this type of stuff. We are talking Epic Huge Bad Decision Making, and if it doesn't get resolved (because a Clinton is above the law), it will taint and/or destroy her candidacy in the General, or (assuming the fear of Trump puts her in office) her entire time in office.

She is going to be testifying UNDER OATH in two civil cases about how FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) was being violated because all of her government records (her missing email) were not disclosed to requesters AS PER THE LAW.

Republicans are holding their fire on this, but only because they are shooting each other. Candidly, if we put someone up who BROKE THE LAW, GOT CAUGHT and LAUGHED WHILE LYING, well, it doesn't really leave us a lot of room to fuss about the next Bush/Cheney crime wave.

It is a sad, infuriating situation. Epic Bad Judgment. EPIC.

from our RW friends.

Looks pretty silly when a self proclaimed liberal does it.

Last edited Fri Apr 1, 2016, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)

I hope it didn't totally negate the rest of the message I sent, but if it did, understand.

My only excuse (lame) is that my message started out after an interaction with my children, and I was initially still in "mommy mode!"

Forgive, please?

ON EDIT: Will delete the term in an edit if you would like, but will also leave it if you want people to see what you were reacting to - so embarrassing! Thank you for the call out - doh!

as condescending. That wasn't my intent. I was still in "mommy mode" which I know wasn't a good excuse, but was what happened. I also use "honey" A LOT with both husband and children, as well as "hun" - silly stuff, but not appropriate when talking to peers on a message board.

I think you are trying to be nice because you probably didn't see it as offensive? Thank you! And welcome to DU!

I just interpreted it as a regional affectation.

Why are people here so worried about being offended?

Bring it on.

It is an interesting alert about a different post?

My foolishness here are your results

Sweet pea, I don't know about any indictment fairy, but this issue
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1622570

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"sweet pea"? Rude and condescending. Also more full of what looks like wishful thinking than facts: "if we put someone up who BROKE THE LAW, GOT CAUGHT and LAUGHED WHILE LYING"

These kinds of posts are not productive. Quite the opposite. Rude and inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:49 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's an opinion, period. Considering possible replacements for the rather endearing label of "Sweet Pea", I wouldn't be offended if said to me.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: stop alert stalking, if you can't argue with logic or facts then shut up and go away
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I mostly agree with the alerter
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree that the "sweet pea" was condescending but as a whole the post is fine
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTF is there to alert about on this?
Glad people are listening to Skinners words regarding alert stalking. *sarcasm*

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

And thank goodness I apologized BEFORE I knew there was an alert - phew! - because honestly, I might have gotten contrary, instead of accepting responsibility and apologizing. (I have been waiting to see if the poster wants me to edit it out, or leave it as "evidence" with the apology for posterity.)

I wonder if I am being alert stalked? Apparently not very successfully!

Thank you for sharing the results and being a nice juror!

I am happy to discuss issues on DU and pleased I was seen to be abiding by community standards.

HOWEVER, it is still a crime to lie to the FBI and that is how Martha Stewart was nabbed.

Keep in mind that the FBI will know immediately if she lies.

could prove troublesome for her...

re: the FOIA issues, as both judges have agreed separately to allow for depositions and testimony as part of the discovery (which is totally different than the criminal FBI investigation).

There is no there, there.

See Benghazi, White Water, and .....

At the end of her tenure. Illegal.

deleted 30k emails that *she* detemined were personal, with no govt oversight. What was in those emails? Was it personal or was it incriminating?

Did not inform State that her email server was in her home basement.

Did not have the server "secure" til two months after taking office.

Carried blackberry in a SCIF (her office on mahogany row) This is a CLEAR violation of rules. Blackberry is notoriously easy to compromise, turning it into a listening device. Security told her about that specifically because she had travelled to China. Still she carried it.

This is made up republican horse crap. Sec. Powell did pretty much the ame things
as Sec. Clinton did as per his emails.

Hillary broke them. It's not just "she sent and rcvd emails"

All of the other Secretaries of ALL POSTS have ".gov" email because their work is GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. Madeleine Allbright and Condaleeza Rice didn't use email; Colin Powell used a secured desktop with his ".gov" email and kept his PERSONAL email on his "aol" account. Everyone was also scrambling to keep up with the technology and make sure "security issues" for classification stuff were adhered to with the "new stuff" rules.

Hillary walked in comfortable with technology and didn't want to keep her business and private accounts separate because Really Stupid Reason: she liked her Blackberry and didn't want to use a Desktop. Unfortunately, it turns out "smart phones" being a spying tool isn't just a Hollywood gimmick, and the folks in charge of technology told her NO (and explained it repeatedly).

So, she set up a PRIVATE SERVER, and then circulated her email to EVERYONE as "HDR22@clintonemail.com" - do NOT ask me how no one paid attention to that because they probably did what the rest of us do - copy/paste/save contact/type name - so ALL OF HER GOVERNMENT EMAILS WERE OFF THE GRID (plus her personal stuff was combined, including yoga schedules and classified communication with unauthorized people like Blumenthal and presumably love notes from hubby asking for help for the Clinton Foundation donors).

Okay, a simple stupid error, right? Except she didn't tell anyone about it (so it barely had standard anti-virus protection/may have been hacked), didn't give copies to any of the folks responsible for FOIA stuff, and "forgot about it" when being investigated by the House people checking into Benghazi (which is why they went batshit crazy when someone figured it out).

Oh, and she FLAT OUT LIED repeatedly about it: "There were no classified documents" was the line, except there were a couple of thousand of them (most pretty minor, but 22 freak out worthy), one of which may have cost the intelligence community an asset (which is why they are PISSED - bad enough when Bush did it!), then minimized it ("they over classified everything" - she thinks they are a bunch of idiots who classify things for shits-and-giggles?), then pretended she was psychic because the Secretary of State GETS classified stuff from her boss, her peers and world leaders but she knew IN ADVANCE due to her AMAZING PSYCHIC ABILITIES that no one was going to send her anything that important? (They did, by the way; hence the emails no one can see.) Oh, and bonus: she WROTE a bunch of classified stuff because that was part of her job.

But the final nail: when she retired, she didn't turn the government records - her business emails - over and then SIGNED A DOCUMENT saying she had turned "everything in" when the records were still in her basement for two years - and were only caught because someone else was on the chain with a ".gov" email - specifically, HER STAFF.

Epic, epic, EPIC bad decision making - not the same thing.

is that she turned her server over to a small company in CO who did not have clearance to handle classified info.

She didn't set up a server specifically for her email. She hooked up to one that was already in existence, being used by Bill Clinton, and The Clinton Foundation, iirc.

But I thought it was a "separate" server, dedicated to her use?

Now I have to go find the back up link for that because I think you are right!

that relate to the Clinton Foundation.

Which is also under investigation.

if and how much Bill Clinton was privy to State Dept business while Hillary was Secretary of State.

Clinton Foundation "donations".

I remember when it was put out that Bush Sr. was the only former president still asking for and getting CIA briefings, but that was years ago.
I haven't heard anything since about any briefings from any agency or department for any former president.

With an "Embedded" Reporter who he also let read his classified emails as part of their pillow talk. Unfortunately she did not handle their break up well/got jealous and stalker-ish with who she thought her replacement was, and all heck broke loose because adultery makes people with security clearances vulnerable to blackmail plus bad pillow talk/leaking classified material.

You can read more about him at the wiki - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus#Extramarital_affair.2C_resignation_and_criticism

Petraeus, 'knowingly' stored and shared classified information in violation of the law. Petraeus had physical “black books”—which contained his schedule and personal notes from his time as commander of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. The black books contained sensitive, classified information about the identities of covert officers, secret operations and military strategy.

Petraeus was required by law and his oath to mark his journals as "top secret" and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither.

After he retired from the military in 2011, Gen. Petraeus kept the black books in his private residence. He gave the books to Paula Broadwell as she worked on his biography.

CRITICAL POINT: Petraeus told Paula Broadwell on tape, "I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don't have it on it, but I mean there's code word stuff in there."

THEN Petraeus lied to FBI about how he stored the books and whether he gave them to Broadwell.

Completely different situation based on the facts as we know them now. I am sick and tired of people comparing the two.

And I think I (personally) conflate him with email because that was how he and his lover were communicating.

But I believe your summary of his actual crimes is the accurate, succinct version - thank you! (And well done, by the way - and won't it be interesting to see what his and Hillary's classified email said when we can all eventually see it?)

they both hired the same attorney to represent them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-cohen/clinton-petraeus-is-the-c_b_8032692.html

That's another one she weaseled out of somehow when any regular person would have gotten their ass nailed to the wall.

she has violated the FOIA, for starters; probably the least of it;

He doesn't want to have his legacy tarnished by shielding a corrupt crook. It'll be a great day when the Clintons finally pay for their crimes

The type of behavior that happened between her Tenure as SoS and donations to her foundation that occurred near deals form her department should raise red flags regardless your political leanings. When people say what is wrong with Washington I feel like she is the poster child for that.

you were aware of the pay-for-play arms deals stuff that came out of some emails involving the Clinton Foundation. If you aren't then some of the released emails show a timeline of stalled arms deals that Clinton negotiated through and a timeline of those countries receiving the arms and that had never donated before, suddenly deciding it was a good time to donate millions to the Clinton Foundation. That's just one of the things that have come up in the scandal aside from the server and mishandling of classified information, that aren't being focused on much yet.

when it looked like you didn't understand?

No, I stated facts in my comment, that are easily verifiable by simply looking at the released emails. You can stick your head in the sand and call them false all you want, but it doesn't make it so.

"Shooting first and asking questions later" never struck me as a prudential approach.

Show me something I said that is not in those released emails please.

I don't believe the folks living in sub-Saharan Africa getting HIV medicine at dramatically reduced prices or the people on the continent who aren't literally pooping themselves to death from drinking dirty water hold the Clinton Foundation in such low esteem.

But if you want some aspersions on their character, then the Clintons would have to have some character first. How's that?

Your nice story doesn't change the fact that she lied to unions about fighting the Colomia Free Trade Agreement, and secretly negotiated for it.

It doesn't change her lobbying for the Crime Bill, Welfare Reform or NAFTA.

It doesn't change her mishandling classified materials.

It doesn't change her being owned by the banks.

It doesn't change her lying about Bernie's record.

It doesn't change her lying about her record.

It doesn't change her support of DOMA.

One foundation with their fingers in many pies that happens to help in one area, doesn't change who she is, or what she's done.


*Sigh* is definitely right. I wonder if people with their heads in the sand this deep use dive equip or snorkeling masks...

If a crime could be erased by charitable work, Al Capone would have never gone to prison for tax evasion.

apologizes for putting the democrats through this.

Thank you in advance.

all go away and Hillary will quit lying.

You might as well be trying to compare "speeding 5 mph over the limit" on your way home from work to "speeding 25 mph over the speed limit while driving away from the bank you just robbed and try to say they are both traffic infractions because look! A car!

Please look at http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1622730 for an "English Translation" of what is going on.

I am copy/pasting from a longer post I made the other day using the Washington Post article to translate - note there is some snark, but it does walk through things with sources.

BEGIN COPY =====

Preparing this reply was a huge pain, so I hope I can get through to you. AFTER COPY: Going to get multiple uses out of it, so yeah!

The Washing Post has written a highly detailed account of the whole situation - you can read it here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. I would give my life to defend both of them.

Most of us are so used to crazy right wing smears that figuring out THIS TIME THEY REALLY FOUND SOMETHING BAD feels very "Peter and the Wolf", doesn't it?

Plus, it's complicated. Two weeks or so ago, I made a public post saying "30,000 emails bores me - it just sounds like she was working hard - move on!"

Then I ended up down the rabbit hole thanks to this post - http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511509720 - and the next thing I know, I am actually starting to follow the whole thing, and it keeps getting UGLIER. "Silly emails" suddenly become "paper trail of stupidity".



I cannot believe the Epic Level of Bad Decisions - argh.

Second, the Mediaite link states that Comey will "interview" Clinton personally. The head of the FBI. Meeting with the principle target of a high profile investigation. That wouldn't be happening unless the FBI did something very, very wrong, and Comey had to explain it to his future boss and apologize.

"Clinton Scandal" means "Clinton Was Not Involved"? And Comey's choice to personally interview Clinton means he's going to apologize?

I have literally never used this before, but I just can't think of anything to say besides, " ".

It's purely a mud-slinging political gesture.

Tom loves to write about politics, sports and pop culture. He also loves to make people laugh with his writing. Growing up in Chicago he learned the most about politics by reading Mike Royko. His writings include a humorous screenplay about a friend he knew in the mid 70‘s who is transsexual, a funny sci-fi fantasy children’s book, and he has been blogging in one form or another since 2007. His professional experience included over 20 years of sales experience primarily in the IT marketplace. He has a BA in Psychology and has worked as a social worker. He also has worked in the transportation business.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-pappalardo/

As a friend to the lgbtq community I find the term "transexual" patently offensive. It's lifted straight from the porn genre .

P.S. Before I checked on the link I almost thought this might be the work of a serious journalist.

Well guess what, everyone is fucking flawed. Including you DSB. And you're exposing yours for all to see.

You Hillary fans are a piece of work. Keep up the divisiveness though.

I am glad you are speaking to me in a hostile and threatening tone. I rather be the target of your ire than my friends on this board. That's how how much I care about them.



Love,
DSB

I am glad there is a record. It starts with my first post in this thread which was Post#13. You seemed to take umbrage at my defense of our friends in the lgbtq community.


You have done nothing but try to intimidate me in this thread. But again I am happy you are abusing me here for two reasons; abusing people in real life is fraught with danger and the more time you spend abusing me here the less time you have to abuse my friends.


Love,

DSB

Because I know you'll respond to this. You can't help it. Either that or you'll send me aggressive PM like you have done in the past.

Please treat the fellow members of our community as you would like to be treated.


Thank you in advance.


Love,
DSB

Interesting. I'm waiting for a journalist. David Schuster may have more info later, but so far only tweets.

With the advent of the internet and the proliferation of "news sources" it is getting harder and harder to tell the difference.

HuffPo doesn't pay their writers so they get all kinds of people. Serious journalists want pay and vanity writers do it for the glory.

Some people use it. Some don't.

So maybe don't use my community to hang your hat on there. It's insincere and uninformed. Maybe find another angle to pretend you don't like this person.

But pointing out a reasonable explanation for it that doesn't involve dragging Clinton away in chains doesn't fit the RW Clinton haters' narrative.

Look it up. Shuster's original report doesn't say that.

Chain, would be my guess.

Sort of equal footing,as it were.
And he wants it done properly so there are no questions and second guessing later.

Legal minds here on DU Would have factual reasons, mine is only a guess.

None did, not a single one.

Powell used his state.gov email residing on secure government servers for official communication, while maintaining his private aol email for personal communication. Nothing wrong with this and is what Hillary should have done.

Hillary used her private clintonemail.com email, which resided on a private server in her home, for everything...private, official SoS communication and, presumably, Clinton Founation business as well. She used her state.gov email for little to nothing.

Apt.

I checked him on google and he seems to be a graphic designer who has a "blog" called politicsnpop.com which combines politics and popular culture. Just wondering why no serious journalist is reporting this info.

Thank you in advance.

I see lots of coverage on Bernie.

But the question is Who is Tom Pappalardo?

No the only April fools are those who do not realize that there is a real chance that Hillary's Home Server issue could blowup in our face and if Hillary is our candidate when that happens our chances of winning back the Senate and getting more seats in Congress will have gone down the tubes let alone the fact we would be losing the White House. For the sake of the party it would be best if Hillary was given a clean bill of health by the FBI & DOJ but every one needs to think about what you are going to do if this does not go in her favor.

There is a difference in what Hillary did vs. past SoS.

It doesn't address the point I raised about Condoleeza Rice.

But a larger question is about the content of the emails, such as the 22 that supposedly discussed Special Access Programs (SAPs).

As I understand it, some of these involved Clinton talking with her aides about the subject of drone strikes, that is, how the impact and perception of drone strikes affected State Department objectives and strategies. Now, the official position of the US government is that they neither confirm nor deny drone strikes, or even, absurdly, that they even have a drone program in the region. It's a "Special Access Program."

But the reality is that everyone knows that the drone strikes are the work of the United States. It's widely reported in all of the major news agencies and widely discussed by individuals and institutions all over the world.

I think there's a valid question about whether her discussions were classified, or whether she was simply talking about information that was freely and widely available in the public. I think the legal case is a lot more ambiguous than some people claim.

Colin Powell used a ".gov" account accessed from a secure desktop at work, and did personal email on an "aol" account. He was also a part of working to set up rules/standards for confidentiality issues (being in the military, he was probably epically aware of the dangers of emailing troop movements in hackable form, for example).

Keep in mind Hillary is the first to come in very comfortable with the convenience of modern technology, and apparently a less than anal-retentive respect for the confidential nature of the information she dealt with - one email says to "just copy/paste the data and leave out the warning headers" in regard to a classified document (barely paraphrasing - she walked him through it).