This poster is just losing their shit all over DU the last few days.

Like most people losing their shit, probably best just to ignore them.

When you say right wing, do you mean Clinton's allies the Bushes and her policies like supporting the Bush bailout and Bush wars?

So anything out of his mouth is worthless.

"Barack Obama's former top military intelligence official" is a GOP hack?

Nice...I thought you Hill supporters were all into Obama.

...we know that it's the last thing on her mind.

And prestige, power, influence and $$$

Neither Powell nor Rice had private servers in their basement and didn't have to turn over their emails years after they left the State Dept.

From the link:

snip

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon later told Tapper the general's suggestion was "just silly" and pointed to similar FBI probes of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and of aides to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"In both of those two cases, you now have the same agency looking at their emails, personal emails, and saying that there is information that in retrospect they think should be treated as classified," Fallon said. "The exact same situation playing out in the two previous secretaries before Secretary Clinton. So I think that tells you everything about the relative seriousness of this."

Total CYA bullshit. Hillary's situation is much much more serious.

She spilled the beans.

She told Chris Wallace that Hillary had done the same thing that previous SoS were allowed to do "except for the personal server."

Yep.

is working for Trump, this is just a preview of what's to come.

seriously? I don't care what some Lt Gen, who want's his guy to win, says. If that's the case, if it's Bernie, I have a feeling Trump has some nasty things about Bernie, also. Who cares.

And this is a security issue.

And he didn't like Obama, so there's that...

And duh, it's and election, of course they are going after her. It's not a security issue just because this guy says so. These type of people think everything should be top secret clearance, even when it's a joke. So, if you don't mind, I don't care what he thinks or says.

not have any credibility discussing Military Intelligence Officers.

Military Intelligence Officers should not be capitalized. I guess you must lack credibility.

.....only to make their own typo the very next response.

They should be ashamed of trying to make so much out of nothing trying to score cheap shots. What an utter failure.

Practice makes perfect right? Southern states don't count because black, OOoops! conservative. New York doesn't count because provisional ballots (forget the fact that the majority of provisional ballots will be Hillary votes), poor people don't count because they aren't voting for Sanders. It just goes on and on. SEND 27 DOLLARS KIDS. Mr. Sanders needs your lunch money.

But all american girl has said repearedly, and perhaps representatively, that she does not care.

(And on that basis votes Clinton.)

Here it is again...http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/02/12/cnns-jake-tapper-repeatedly-challenges-trump-ad/208573

imho.

RIP.

...we didn't have too much snow.

May will be warmer still.

Patreaus!

To his non-Sec cleared mistress..
.and went to jail for it.


...oh wait...

President. This before she has been charged, much less convicted of anything. That alone is a huge penaty.

In essence, this is why this is a mess. It is incredibly unfair to deny her a nomination and/or election that she may win because she MIGHT be found guilty - of ... something.

On the other hand, we face either this continuing ambiguity that she could be charged, or people directly working for her both then and now could be charged. On this, I have two competing thoughts:

1) Obama likely knows as much as anyone could know at this point. The Intelligence IG and State Department IG both report (maybe indirectly) to him. He certainly knows anything the current State Department knows as well. Yet, he has gone out of his way to praise HRC - even as he did not endorse her. Here, the fact that almost the entire Democratic party power structure has been 100% behind HRC suggests that he does not know of anything that could result in her being indicted. Consider that the NYT article, disclosing the server, was in March 2015 - still enough time to pull back support on HRC -- and it spoke of the SD negotiating to get the email a year before that. I would bet that Obama knew the details at that point in time - March 2014. Many things Obama has accomplished depend on a Democrat following him. If Obama knew there was anything really damning 2 and a half years before the election and did NOT push the powers that be (and HRC herself) to not go with HRC, I will be shocked at his willingness to take that risk.

2) Clinton could have avoided most of this issue if she would have simply left the emails that she later gave the SD with the SD when she left -- electronically. She KNEW there were many Congressional requests and FOIA that applied to them and it would have been a reasonable guess that the SD picking up only a few Clinton email (from the other end) would at some point be questioned by the career people doing these pulls, the Republicans getting almost nothing and that the question would be pushed up.

Note that had she done this, there would have been no call to put all the email online. In fact, only things that met specific inquiries would even have gone to the Republicans. It is also very likely that had the republicans gotten the emails in a timely fashion, no one might have noticed that she had a weird address - so we might never have known of her private server. At minimum, everything would have happened about 2 years earlier than it did - with far less work required by the State Department.

He's also a politician, and has known all along that Hillary stood the best shot at the nomination of his party to be his successor, which means the person with the best chance to burnish his legacy. Why go out of his way to sabotage that if there's any chance of avoiding it?

That's the point you are making. I don't agree with that.
But you may be right, after all he didn't prosecute Bush and Cheney, and he also didn't prosecute anyone from Wall Street.

The attorney general does.

And what is against the law or a threat to national security is open to interpretation.

Despite being who he is, he has zero business having any foreknowledge of the investigation and in fact, it is very illegal for him to have any information that is not public domain. He would have been better off not saying anything at all. Those comments create two possibilities, neither good.
Best case, it feeds into teapublican conspiracy theories that he is or will attempt to influence or even cover-up the actual outcome.
Worst case, he is completely wrong and he appears out-of-touch and they question his own choices and judgment as well as all the things from the best case.

I am willing to live with whatever the findings say. To be honest, this is at least the third "hint" from an insider that there may be something there, which may or may not include HRC.
Lynch dropped the first when she made an odd, out-of-context comment while in OR for a speaking event at the same time as the batshit crazy people were already in jail, stating, for no apparent reason, that "no matter how important, no one is above the law."

About a month ago, Comey committing to Congress about how long it was taking basically stated that his agents were doing their job and double checking everything.
Now, the former head of the DIA says this. If this was a simple review, it would have been done by now. Reviews take weeks, not months. Not over a year. You typically don't put this much time, effort and money and give people immunity, unless someone is going to jail. Doesn't mean it's HRC, that remains to be seen, but someone is going to jail.

What I meant was NOT that he had any inside information on the investigation, but that he had more information than we do on what Hillary Clinton did - as Secretary and when the emails needed to be returned.

If your conclusions are on target - and they are well defended - the question would be if things were done that Obama did not know of or if he was willing to risk a nominee under a cloud when he did not try to stop the entire Democratic party from supporting HRC.

I wouldn't. What Hillary did it is much more secure than using those free open email systems.

Ensuring that the servers are secure, and that all applicable security updates are being applied in timely fashion. I'm also going to assume that the sys admin was hired because of their experience, and not out of a sense of loyalty.

In any case, what experience do you have in systems administration or IT security? What's the highest level security clearance that you've ever held?

but that's irrelevant.

Hillary hired a systems engineer to manage the server. I would assume he set it up with standard server and firewall security. Furthermore the server was physically controlled and locked in her house. Very few people had access to it and she knew them all. In contrast who knows who has access to Yahoo and Gmail servers and accounts.

I think she had a more secure system than Yahoo or Gmail.. all things considered.

So no, I can promise you it wasn't as secure as the Yahoo or Gmail servers.

I doubt that will be considered a bid deal to the FBI investigation given it was quickly corrected.

online for three months is no big deal. If that had happened where I work, people's heads would be displayed on pikes in the server room.

Many emails servers back then didn't have encryption.

This was 7 years ago. And this isn't some ordinary mail server we're discussing here.

It was supposed to be a somewhat ordinary email server. She didnt plan to send highly classified information over this server.

Who cares? She did anyway.

or just mistakenly or unknowingly did it.

That's why she is going to be cleared of any wrong doing. Sorry to disappoint you.

That makes a huge difference.

There are often situations where someone at her level has to deal with emergencies and in those cases I can imagine standard procedures might be broken.. but for a good reason.

..and was told that it was undoubtedly hacked by foreign agents in Asia.

In fact Hillary IT guy gave the FBI logs showing it was not hacked. Of course some hackers are good enough to cover their tracks but most are not.

...sure, very safe. I personally have received several of these claiming the account holder was stuck in jail or in another country and needed money ASAP. Pretty much everyone has seen these. All the undeniable evidence I need that gmail and Yahoo is not all that safe.

Show me undeniable evidence of such hacking on Hillary's server.

THAT is a BFD

and attempting to lay every and all blame at the feet of Hillary is disingenuous.

You wanted to defund troops? I was against the war...heavily. But I grew up in a military family...

That's pretty sick. I didn't want them there. But I certainly didnt want soldiers and marines on the ground to be left up shit creek.

That's pretty sick stuff, hombre. Your approach basically sees our men and women without the means to protect themselves in the battlefield.


Sick stuff, dude. Very disappointed.

when you can score political points.

spin it anyway to want...the vote to fund the war was pivotal in its ability to operate at all.

she did NOT have permission to do it. If she asserts again that she had permission she needs to produce proof of that, because it's a blatant lie.

It's a very BFD. But that will be made clear when the FBI's report is released. Then all of her excuses and disclaimers and comparisons will be shown for what they are -- intentional lies.

What she did correlates perfectly with her campaign philosophy of "ask for forgiveness instead of permission" and "do whatever you can get away with". This time though, she won't get away with it, and she won't be let off the hook as she expects to be. If not in court, then the court of public opinion.

Obama had said that Hillary had been "careless" with the emails. . .

Flynn said Obama had also said earlier that she was careless with Libya.
He said that means she was careless with the classified email, careless with Libya, careless with the Russian Reset, careless with the Pivot to the Pacific. She has a history of showing poor judgment.

This is why I always say that JUDGEMENT is more important than EXPERIENCE. Cheney and Kissinger have a lot of "experience". They have terrible judgement.

Cabinet members including SOD, SOS, and VP can and will advise on military matters, but the Commander-in-Chief ultimately decides. The eventual outcome of that decision may be good, bad, or inconclusive. In any event, the president owns it. Period.

Two bits of bad news actually:

1. The fabled tooth fairy has yet to make an appearance
2. The indictment fairy has much better things to do at the moment

The FBI is not a lot of things, and you have noted one with pinpoint precision. However, it is sad seeing certain "progressives" in league with the wingnut right, who are giddy with any and all divide-and-conquer spinoffs that can be mustered outside their own e long-standing hate-Hillary echo chamber. Just to note that the FBI does not indict, and has never had authority to do so. They investigate.

Whatever his work in the past in the Obama administration, is is rendered moot and irrelevant. That's what happens when someone jumps aboard the racist, xenophobic Trump Train as Flynn has.

This is not a tree that the Sanders camp should bark up.

The direction the train is headed should be carefully checked before jumping on to it. Flynn / Trump? Ha! That one is going off a cliff. Board at your peril.
And so it goes....

is that Trump is going into GE mode against Hillary, and Bernie supporters still think we're in primary mode.

Yes, Trump (or Cruz or whoever the clowns come up with) will attack Hillary. If Bernie had any shot at the nomination, they would have started attacking him already. Are we supposed to run scared any time they attack one of our people?

There are not only current potential indictments that we know about but there may be some we don't know about. There may be a transaction by transaction investigations of her's and Bill's speeches, their "foundation" and ties to decisions made while she was Secretary of State such as the Swiss bank UBS situation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

The bottom line is there are too many risks for her getting elected let alone being allowed to govern due in large part to her's and Bill's actions. The only thing they had to sell for speeches was access and or laundering monies for past and/or future "decisions". The Republicans will start impeachment proceedings from day one. Why do you think Trump is calling her "crooked Hillary"? They are going to make all kinds of charges for perceived illegal activities and see which ones stick if any. You think her negatives are high now..... Is it true Bill and Hillary registered corporations in Delaware? If they did, the only reason one does that unless they live in Delaware is to evade and/or avoid something.

I bet you agree with his thoughts as well. I'm really glad I don't have to support Trump advisors and use their propaganda as a desperate last resort to support my candidate.

Becoming president has been the primary aim of her life for decades; and this is her last shot. I do not think that even an indictment would make her let go of it.

If she wants drama and angst, she'll get it in spades.

The problem is that she drags all of us through it with her, always.

that does not automatically mean she gives up the nomination.

So many of you seem not to care. So many say it was an honest mistake or that it shouldn't matter, but to those of us who served, especially in the Intelligence Corps, this matters.

I'm a veteran and my MOS was in intel. He's correct, we'd be held accountable. However, because she's a politician. Because someone else setup the server and because it's just downright bad for her electability we're supposed to ignore it and look away?

No.

I'm sorry, I can't. I wont vote for Trump. I'll probably end up voting for Clinton, but it will pain me. I'd be more likely to support her if others would just acknowledge that this is an issue, a talking point at the very least. I'm not saying she should drop out, but can a little respect be given to the rules?

Policy and procedure. It matters.

All we get from her campaign and her supporters is denial. Or it's a right-wing smear.

It makes it harder to accept her.

Several weeks ago on MTP Hillary made some weird comment challenging others to release their emails
as she has done. It was so strange almost as if she had mixed up "emails" with "transcripts". And she made it sound as if she is the one who out of the goodness of her heart decided to release her State Dept. emails (as if she wasn't required to) and that others should have to release their emails too! WTF?

snip

Clinton’s emails

Clinton repeated her acknowledgment that her use of a private email server was a mistake, along with her assertion that all of her work-related correspondence was sent using government-operated email servers, which would mean that all of those emails should be sitting in government files somewhere.

In any event, she said, all of her emails have been released.

"I think that anybody who's actually looked at this has concluded that I have now put out all of my emails," she said. "Go and ask others for their emails. Ask everybody else who's in public office. I'm the one who's done it, and I did it because I thought it was the right thing to do."

...that we can't trust her with national secrets, and she should not have a security clearance. Plus there's the matter of her running a rogue foreign policy out of sight of Obama and then urging him to act on her flawed narrative. (which he did)

before the primary is over. People should start demanding it.

she is a jerk for putting us all in danger.

And his support for Trump puts him badly out of step with most other security experts
http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/

Did you think we would not check...I will never understand someone who tries to prove something with lies...he is no Obama guy. He is a Trump guy and totally full of it. Tapper forced him to admit, there is no evidence of any of his crap.

"Donald Trump is receiving foreign policy advice from a former U.S. military intelligence chief who wants the United States to work more closely with Russia to resolve global security issues, according to three sources.

The sources, former foreign policy officials in past administrations, said retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who was chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Barack Obama from 2012-2014, has been informally advising Trump."

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/02/12/cnns-jake-tapper-repeatedly-challenges-trump-ad/208573

If it were true that this issue was no big deal, Hillary's supporters would simply ignore any news about the issue.

Yet, the waters of the River Denial run deep, so instead, some of them feel obligated to do their level best to argue that what she did was not illegal.

She doesn't stand a chance in court.

The DNC has known about Hillary's legal problems with this issue for over 3 years.

It's odd that most of the Democrats in Congress would endorse her.
I guess it was like a going-away present, the least they could do.