supporters really are rooting for the Benghazi committee.

until it uncovered the unsecured private server.

And 40 random emails contained 2 with Top Secret/Sensitive information, including CIA satellite data on NK nukes.

I assume that more sensitive info is likely to be found among 10s of thousands of emails.
I assume that more work-related emails will be found among the 10s of thousands of "personal" emails.

Clinton's ISP was hacked in 2011 by the Chinese. I won't be surprised if they find evidence that her unsecure server was hacked in the process because I assume she was a prime target. I also won't be surprised if they *don't* find evidence, since the server was unsecure and not being monitored in the way that government servers are.

At least one of the messages found to be presumed classified by the Intelligence Community IG was sent by Hillary to Blumenthal.

The emails hacked were of the type that had been subpoenaed and had been FOIAed, which the State Department claimed in its response did not exist in its file search. Now we know why. Hillary intentionally withheld them.

She's not going anywhere.

just when things we're getting dull around here.

Hillary all day long.

The NON story about the email is all they have so they have to repeat it thousands of times a day.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose her nomination without resorting to made-up nonsense

... Why they didnt turn them in long ago dumbfounding

Rose law firm papers. Both were very difficult to find for days. Could happen to anyone.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/06/us/elusive-papers-of-law-firm-are-found-at-white-house.html

Her stubborn refusal to respond to Whitewater subpoena resulted in Bill's impeachment
(To belabor the obvious, she ignored a legal subpoena in order to keep her business records SECRET.)

Bottom line, she was subpoenaed to produce to a court her billing records from when she was a partner at the Rose law firm. Against the advice of counsel, she stonewalled and for two years, she insisted she had no idea where they were and they couldn't be found. According to Sid Blumenthal's Clinton era book The Clinton Wars, HRC was the one who was against just putting out every detail they had on Whitewater and killing the issue. He wrote of her being extremely angry after several Democrats, including Moynihan, Kerry and Bradley - some former prosecutors recommended that.

So the Whitewater investigation dragged on for 2 years until a White House employee found a stack of files (the Rose billing records) on a table outside the door to HRC's office in the White House family quarters and turned them in. Ken Starr had pretty much shut down his investigation at that point, but the discovery of those documents led him to reopen it, and it was AFTER that that L'Affaire Lewinsky developed. THAT led to Bill being deposed about Monica, and getting caught (blue dress evidence)lying under oath and THAT led to his impeachment.

Now here's the documentation of all of the above:

Interesting that the Republicans pushing on the email investigation and missing emails have not, as far as I've seen, mentioned the similarity to the missing Whitewater documents. That was some 20 years ago, so younger posters probably never heard of this, but I have no doubt that GOP oppo research team is drooling to throw this at HRC should she win the primary.

Republicans on the special Senate Whitewater committee released a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation today showing that the fingerprints of the First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, were found on records discovered in the White House family quarters two years after they were first sought by investigators.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/05/us/hillary-clinton-s-fingerprints-among-those-found-on-papers.html



Those Whitewater documents had been subpoenaed from HRC and for 2 years she stoutly claimed she had absolutely no idea where they were. Then they were found on a table in the first family's private quarters - just outside the door to HRC's office. And she again disavowed any knowledge of how they got there.

It was so painful and ugly, for me as a Democrat who had worked for Bill's election and even been a guest at his first inauguration, to go through all the years of investigations and embarrassing results thereof. If she's the Dem. nominee, we will all have to go through months and months of rehashing this yet again. Horrifying to contemplate. If the Clintons had come clean and cooperated with the Whitewater investigations, Ken Starr would never have gotten around to Monica Lewinsky.

In January 1998, Starr suddenly requested and received permission to expand his investigation again. The new area of inquiry: whether Clinton and his close friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr. encouraged Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath about whether she had an affair with the president. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/whitewater.htm


Ted Koppel did a masterful Nightline report on the whole incident. Here's a link to the transcript of Ted Koppel's coverage of this nightmare. HRC is caught in mis-statement after mis-statement after mis-statement and keeps trying to spin and twist her way out of it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/01301996.html
The Whitewater Lost And Found Records
January 30, 1996
Correspondent: Chris Bury
Anchor: Ted Koppel

Announcer: January 30th, 1996.

TED KOPPEL (VO): The accusation? Obstruction of justice, knowingly withholding subpoenaed documents. The location? A book room on the third floor of the White House, a room in the first family's private quarters. One clue? A White House log handed over today with the names of all the people who might have had access - from Mrs Clinton's chief of staff, to Chelsea Clinton's friends, to dignitaries visiting the President. Tonight, the mystery of the lost and found records.


ANNOUNCER: This is ABC News Nightline. Reporting from Washington, Ted Koppel.
TED KOPPEL: Almost exactly two years ago, a subpoena was issued for some billing records from the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas. These are records that go back about 10 years or so and that would, it was believed, shed some light on how much work attorney Hillary Clinton did on a particular real estate deal, and for whom she did that work. For the better part of these last two years, those records could not be found. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, they turned up earlier this month in the office of a woman named Carolyn Huber. What turned that into a major story is that Ms Huber works at the White House, and that she says she found the billing records in the private quarters of the first family - found them, in fact, last August, right outside Mrs Clinton's private office - didn't know what they were, packed them up, didn't realize what they were until a couple of weeks ago, when she was tidying up her own office. If someone has been deliberately concealing those records, that would be a federal crime. The White House says that a surprisingly large number of people actually had access to the Clintons' private quarters last August We'll tell you more about that later, but we want to use most of our time this evening to put this latest development into context. We begin by taking something both the President and the first lady have said recently.

CHRIS BURY, ABC NEWS (VO): The President and Mrs Clinton complain that the questions keep changing, but the controversies over Whitewater and the Travel Office have stayed alive, in large part, because the answers keep changing, too.

CHRIS BURY (VO): On January 15th, Mrs Clinton told a radio interviewer all documents had been released. Five days later, the White House issued a statement to The New York Times saying that wasn't quite true. On Castle Grande, Hillary Clinton's legal work for a land deal regulators describe as fraudulent: in May 1995 she told the Resolution Trust Corporation, quote, 'I don't believe I knew anything about any of these real estate parcels and projects.' But after billing records showed Hillary Clinton had at least 14 conversations with Seth Ward, the major player in the deal, Mrs Clinton told Barbara Walters she knew the project by another name.

HILLARY CLINTON: ('20/20,' January 19, 1996) And so when I was asked about it last year, I didn't recognize it, I didn't remember it. The billing records show I did not do work for Castle Grande. I did work for something called IDC, which was not related to Castle Grande.

CHRIS BURY (VO): That is not how Susan McDougal, the Clintons' former business partner, remembers it.
SUSAN MCDOUGAL: It was always the same thing. As far as I know, IDC and- and- and Castle Grande were one and the same.

It's not the initial decision to use her own private email account, it's the perceived cover-up. It was an attempted cover-up by Bill Clinton which resulted in his impeachment. "Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

....I hope this lasts the day!

Give it up, it is becoming embarrassing both to the GOP and the LW allies of Clinton fake smears and fake scandals....perhaps the strange and unseemly encouragement of the GOP attacks on Clinton could be explained, because I do not get it - I need a clear explanation of WHY?

Boooooring things like not encrypting the communications with the server for the first 3 months.

Or leaving the default VPN keys installed.

Or using self-signed certificates.

Or the typosquatter at clintonmail.com

What are those weird-sounding terms anyway? They must not mean anything.

oh...wait a minute...

they probably did, since her ISP was hacked by the Chinese back in 2011. Oopsie!

(Just saving Fred the effort of replying)

Her ISP, Internap, was hacked in 2011. It appears 5 times on the list at the link below.

Who Else Was Hit by the RSA Attackers?
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/10/who-else-was-hit-by-the-rsa-attackers/

INTERNAP-2BLK – Internap Network Services Corporation
INTERNAP-BLK – Internap Network Services Corporation
INTERNAP-BLK – Internap Network Services Corporation
INTERNAP-BLK3 – Internap Network Services Corporation
INTERNAP-BLOCK-4 – Internap Network Services Corporation

At the end of the victim list is a pie chart that shows the geographic distribution of the command and control networks used to coordinate the attacks. The chart indicates that the overwhelming majority of the C&Cs are located in or around Beijing, China.

Very damning list.

What Josh - and the HRC supporters around here - don't seem to understand is it's not the emails, it's the security and the decision to house national security information on an unsecured server without State knowing about it.

I couldn't care less about Chelsea's wedding plans, but when Huma emails Clinton about the travel plans of top officials and any joe-blow from Russia or China can see it, well, then it becomes a problem.

FWIW, I wasn't all that interested in the email story until I started hearing about the security lapses. It WAS a non-story to me, for the most part, until some of this new information started coming out.

She's a naughty girl who should be punished for telling the truth.

So far, I don't think she's made a statement about this server that was not later retracted or corrected.

We've been repeatedly told that, even if we prefer Sanders on issues, we should support Clinton for the nomination because Sanders can't possibly win the general.

The clear import is that, in picking a nominee, that person's chance of success in November is a relevant consideration. With that general statement I agree.

Well, if Clinton is the nominee, there will be Republican attack ads about email, just as surely as Sanders as the nominee will face ads about that dreaded "S" word. Part of what goes on, in the race for the nomination, is the vetting process. It's reasonable for all significant problems of every candidate to be explored at this stage.

If Clinton and her supporters can't come up with good answers on the email questions (or on any other subject, for that matter), better we should find out now. A polite agreement on DU not to post or comment on GOP talking points won't make those points magically go away.

My own current impression is that there's not much substance to the email thing. There probably was no criminal violation, there probably was a departure from best practices, but it's not a huge deal. I confess, though, that I haven't paid it much attention. It's helpful that those on all sides of the argument who have paid attention thrash out the issue now. Ideally, by the time people start voting, we'll know whether this does have some real substance that would be a problem for Clinton in the general election, or if it's just another Benghazi that won't resonate with anyone except those who were always voting for the Republican anyway.

To take an example that's been mentioned in the past: In 2007 the National Enquirer published a story alleging that John Edwards had had an extramarital affair. The publication has a reputation as an unreliable scandal-monger, Edwards denied the whole thing, and the story didn't get much traction at the time. Suppose Edwards had won the 2008 nomination and then been forced to admit during the general election campaign that he had lied. We'd have been in deep trouble. As it happened, he wasn't nominated; Obama locked up the nomination before Edwards's confession. But it's an example of what can happen. Anything that might be a problem for the candidate should be thoroughly aired during the primary season -- even if that process involves citing some less-than-sterling sources.

News is boring. But this stuff...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Which is not exactly surprising since he isn't a technical guy.

Fact is, the security on her server was abysmal. They left the default VPN keys installed (equivlaent of leaving your keys in your car door). Communication with her server was unencrypted for the first 3 months. They used (and are still using) self-signed certificates. And there's a typosquatter at clitnonmail.com, which is a fantastic way to steal logins or other phishing attacks.

And that's just the technical fuck-ups. It doesn't even get into the mishandling of classified.

Josh is only looking at this from the political angle, and just does not understand the technical or classified angles.

It doesn't address any of the new revelations that Hillary lied about why she turned over the emails, that State knew was fully aware of her private server, etc. It doesn't address the issue that Hillary again didn't turn over all the emails she was supposed to under House subpoena. It doesn't address the issues of classified material. The article is talking about this as a media created scandal.

The Bloomberg story is a lot of words around a very concise new piece of news. The news - the FBI seems to have been able to get data off the server. (note "seems" )

Now, when the server was obtained by the FBI, people postulated two things. 1) Upon examining the server, it could become clear that work was done to intentionally, very completely erase any trace of messages. 2) they could get messages. At that time, the CW was that either could be bad (or good) for HRC. The first possibility could suggest that there was an effort to coverup - or she could argue that as she was not using the server, it would be irresponsible to just leave anything on it. As to the FBI finding messages - they could verify that the sort was well done with only a few - likely in grey areas - that were handled differently.

However, what TPM doesn't say is that - while this news article does nothing to make HRC look worse or better - the problem is that this thread of the story is not over. If there was any pattern of NOT sending the SD some emails that in retrospect were not something they wanted public -- we may soon know. Then in a coup de grace giving them to the SD on paper - so they spent 5 weeks scanning them in.

As to the Washington Post article, this goes DIRECTLY to HRC being personally dishonest in speaking of the entire effort of the SD to get the emails back. This was not HRC getting a letter sent to all former SoS and then voluntarily reaching out and doing it to be transparent. HRC's mess has created a huge amount of work for the State Department - work they are doing by increasing a 12 person group by 50 people - working long hours - and still getting bad press for taking longer than they should.

My personal favorite is that she didn't want to carry 2 phones. Maybe because it was first and is such obvious bull shit. Or maybe it is because it took the campaign eight freaking days to come up with something that is such obvious bull shit. I honestly am not sure why, but it is my very favorite one.

There are a few more in the story the OP links to:

^snip^

The biggest problem for Clinton comes from the Post story, because it directly contradicts a central pillar of her pushback on the e-mail story. She has, since the private server came to light in March, insisted that the collection of e-mails from State was totally normal and the sort of thing that they did for everyone. “When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, ‘Okay, great, I will go through them again,’” Clinton said on "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

Except not. According to the Post report, State learned of Clinton's exclusive use of a private e-mail server in the summer of 2014 and immediately contacted her to learn more about the setup. That came months before the department made a similar request of other past secretaries.

So, someone is not telling the whole truth here. Clinton's turning over of her e-mails was either standard operating procedure — and therefore not evidence of anything out of the ordinary or suspicious — or it wasn't.

Remember, too, that this latest gap — or discrepancy — in her recollection of the events surrounding the server comes after months in which Clinton has struggled to get her story straight. When the news first broke, she said she used a private server solely out of convenience. She recently apologized for doing so. She initially said that there was no need to turn over the server to a third party investigator; she was eventually forced to do just that.

Time after time, the story Clinton has tried to tell has been contradicted — in ways large and small — by reporting about the e-mail server. She hasn't been able to put the story behind her because the story keeps evolving.

exists for a reason. It's the establishments insurance.

that it was a trial balloon being sent up in case the Clinton campaign ran into serious problems. They sure don't want a non-establishment candidate like Sanders or O'Malley taking the reins.

It seemed obvious to me which is why I was somewhat at a loss when many DU'ers scoffed at the notion that it could imply Hillary may still face some serious accusations.

Clinton is breaking the first rule of crisis communications: Get EVERYTHING out all at once, take the hit and move on. Her approach, which is to give ground on the story only when her position becomes untenable, has already turned what looked like a coronation for the Democratic nomination into a potentially competitive race. It now threatens to do even more damage.


This is a self-inflicted, potentially mortal, wound. First, the incredibly poor judgement of conducting potentially top secret, sensitive work on an unsecure, home server. And then, the incredibly poor judgement when the arrangement came to light, of not just turning everything over to State immediately, leaving a 3rd party to sort out the emails, and getting the mess out of the way and behind her.

It makes the revelation priceless. Sometimes when hate goes too far one becomes unrecognizable from their former self.

Drip. Drip. Drip. Aghhhhh! I can't help myself!!

When Condie Rice and Colin Powell did the same?

they didn't do the same thing at all.

Rice didn't use email and Powell did what Hillary should have done and had 2 email accounts.

The fact that you need to falsify information to defend Hillary proves that what she did was indefensible.


Even she now admits that she should have used 2 emails. I know that will get her banned from the Clinton Forum here, but she said it. Why does anyone else try to defend her making this mistake?

Please provide a link that condi and Colin are running for the highest office of the world. Thanks.

Can't trust her to be honest with you. When her back is against the wall she will lie. Of the things I've heard said about Hillary the most is,' I don't trust her.' Way more than anything else I've heard anyone say about her

stuff, like IWR, TPP, her support for fracking, capital punishment, her support of pro-Monsanto, GMO laws, capital punishment, mandatory minimum sentences, three strike laws, dark money, PACs, the banks, Wall Street, anti-Social Security .....


Keystone is just the beginning.

It actually doesn't!!!

MAKE AMERICA EVEN GREATER - ELECT HILLARY!

Though I want Bernie to win it is obvious the media has latched on to this like a Pit Bull. It's interesting that will all the horrible crap Bush and Cheney pulled they were never held to account like Hillary. If Bernie somehow wins the primary get ready for the same treatment for him.

as multiple agencies, departments, inspectors, congressional oversight, and the media all conduct their own reviews -- every new piece of information will be treated as the new "bombshell", every new speculative essay in the Washington Post will be hotly debated, every new comment or tweet from GOP house members will be greeted as the newest "nail in the coffin".

Drip, drip, drip.

I will continue to be unsurprised by the dripping, and I will continue to not give a shit about this.

Wake me when it's all over (which it never will be for the GOP) and the last report of the last agency oversight committee has been filed and it's recommendation duly noted on page 12 of the New York Times.