Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Hillary

Maximum Peach





Posts: 8643
(8641 all sites)
Registered: 12/14/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2016 at 12:27 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/tracking-the-clinton-co ntroversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer

DAVID A. GRAHAM 11:50 AM ET POLITICS
All of Hillary Clinton’s emails are out there. Now, how bad will the fallout be?

On Monday, the State Department released the last batch of Clinton’s messages when she was secretary of state—a total of around 30,000. And late Wednesday, The Washington Post reported that the Justice Department has granted immunity to a former Clinton staffer to work with investigators, an indication of progress in the criminal case over the emails. Bryan Pagliano, the staffer, helped Clinton set up a server in her home in New York, which she used for her emails while running the State Department. Pagliano previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when called to testify by congressional committees. A spokesman said the Clinton campaign was “pleased” that Pagliano was cooperating, though what else are they going to say?

Clinton herself is likely to be questioned by the FBI sometime in the next few weeks. The Post reports:

As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents will likely want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.
Obviously this is not good news for Clinton. The question is just how bad it is.


Clinton is effectively fighting a two-front war. On one side, she’s running a political campaign for president. On the other, she’s working to defend herself against charges of wrongdoing in the email investigation, since criminal charges could effectively doom her campaign. The latest developments in the email case come just as things were starting to look good on the political side—Clinton has hit her stride in recent primaries and seems to have a solid edge over Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic nomination.

What isn’t clear yet is who might face criminal charges: Clinton? Other aides? No one at all? There’s not yet any evidence of a grand jury being convened to handle the investigation.

The case of David Petraeus, the former CIA director who it was one speculated might run against Clinton, looms over the case, and its impact is unclear. The Post reports that Petraeus’s wrongdoing is seen as worse, and since he got off with a light sentence of two years’ probation and a $100,000 fine, officials felt it would be hard to go after Clinton. But Petraeus’s escape angered some in the Justice Department and FBI who alleged political interference, adding to the scrutiny in this case and the pressure for an independent process. The final decision rests with Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The fact that Clinton was using a private server for her work email emerged in the course of the investigation into the September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, which killed four Americans. None of the content of the emails so far has been especially damning about Benghazi or anything else—though there are some embarrassing moments, including Clinton’s seeming technological ignorance and the flattery of friends like Sidney Blumenthal. But a total of 65 emails were not released because they contain information classified “secret.” Clinton and her aides insist she did not send any classified information, and that anything that is now secret had its classification changed later. Others, including the inspector general for the Intelligence Community, have disagreed.


The emails have become a classic Clinton scandal. Even though investigations have found no wrongdoing on her part with respect to the Benghazi attacks themselves, Clinton’s private-email use and concerns about whether she sent classified information have become huge stories unto themselves. This is a pattern with the Clinton family, which has been in the public spotlight since Bill Clinton’s first run for office, in 1974: Something that appears potentially scandalous on its face turns out to be innocuous, but an investigation into it reveals different questionable behavior. The canonical case is Whitewater, a failed real-estate investment Bill and Hillary Clinton made in 1978. While no inquiry ever produced evidence of wrongdoing, investigations ultimately led to President Clinton’s impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice.

With Hillary Clinton leading the field for the Democratic nomination for president, every Clinton scandal—from Whitewater to the State Department emails—will be under the microscope. (No other American politicians—even ones as corrupt as Richard Nixon, or as hated by partisans as George W. Bush—have fostered the creation of a permanent multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them.) Keeping track of each controversy, where it came from, and how serious it is, is no small task, so here’s a primer. We’ll update it as new information emerges.

Clinton’s State Department Emails

What? Setting aside the question of the Clintons’ private email server, what’s actually in the emails that Clinton did turn over to State? While some of the emails related to Benghazi have been released, there are plenty of others covered by public-records laws that haven’t.

When? 2009-2013

How serious is it? Serious. Initially, it seemed that the interest in the emails would stem from damaging things that Clinton or other aides had said: cover-ups, misrepresentations, who knows? But so far, other than some cringeworthy moments of sucking up and some eye-rolly emails from contacts like Sidney Blumenthal, the emails have been remarkably boring. The main focus now is on classification. Sixty-five emails contain information that is now classified. The question is whether any of it, and how much of it, was classified at the time it was sent. Clinton has said she didn’t knowingly send or receive classified material on the account. The State Department and Intelligence Community have disagreed about that. In addition, the Intelligence Community’s inspector general wrote in a January letter that Clinton’s server contained information marked “special access program,” higher even than top secret. Some emails that Clinton didn’t turn over have also since surfaced.

Benghazi


What? On September 11, 2012, attackers overran a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Since then, Republicans have charged that Hillary Clinton failed to adequately protect U.S. installations or that she attempted to spin the attacks as spontaneous when she knew they were planned terrorist operations. She testifies for the first time on October 22.


When? September 11, 2012-present

How serious is it? Benghazi has gradually turned into a classic “it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup” scenario. Only the fringes argue, at this point, that Clinton deliberately withheld aid. A House committee continues to investigate the killings and aftermath, but Clinton’s marathon appearance before the committee in October was widely considered a win for her. However, it was through the Benghazi investigations that Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server became public—a controversy that remains potent.

Conflicts of Interest in Foggy Bottom

What? Before becoming Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills worked for Clinton on an unpaid basis for four month while also working for New York University, in which capacity she negotiated on the school’s behalf with the government of Abu Dhabi, where it was building a campus. In June 2012, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin’s status at State changed to “special government employee,” allowing her to also work for Teneo, a consulting firm run by Bill Clinton’s former right-hand man. She also earned money from the Clinton Foundation and was paid directly by Hillary Clinton.

Who? Both Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin are among Clinton’s longest-serving and closest aides. Abedin remains involved in her campaign (and she’s also married to Anthony Weiner).

When? January 2009-February 2013

How serious is it? This is arcane stuff, to be sure. There are questions about conflict of interest—such as whether Teneo clients might have benefited from special treatment by the State Department while Abedin worked for both. To a great extent, this is just an extension of the tangle of conflicts presented by the Clinton Foundation and the many overlapping roles of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons’ Private Email Server


What? During the course of the Benghazi investigation, New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt learned Clinton had used a personal email account while secretary of state. It turned out she had also been using a private server, located at a house in New York. The result was that Clinton and her staff decided which emails to turn over to the State Department as public records and which to withhold; they say they then destroyed the ones they had designated as personal.


When? 2009-2013, during Clinton’s term as secretary.

Who? Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton; top aides including Huma Abedin

How serious is it? It looks more serious all the time. The rules governing use of personal emails are murky, and Clinton aides insist she followed the rules. There’s no dispositive evidence otherwise so far. The greater political problem for Clinton is it raises questions about how she selected the emails she turned over and what was in the ones she deleted. The FBI has reportedly managed to recover some of the deleted correspondence. Could the server have been hacked? Some of the emails she received on her personal account are marked sensitive. Plus there’s a entirely different set of questions about Clinton’s State Department emails. The FBI is investigating the security of the server as well as the safety of a thumb drive belonging to her lawyer that contains copies of her emails. And the AP reports that the setup may have made the server vulnerable to hacking. Given the shabby state of State Department cybersecurity, she might not have been any better off using the official system.

Sidney Blumenthal


What? A former journalist, Blumenthal was a top aide in the second term of the Bill Clinton administration and helped on messaging during the bad old days. He served as an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and when she took over the State Department, she sought to hire Blumenthal. Obama aides, apparently still smarting over his role in attacks on candidate Obama, refused the request, so Clinton just sought out his counsel informally. At the same time, Blumenthal was drawing a check from the Clinton Foundation.

When? 2009-2013

How serious is it? Some of the damage is already done. Blumenthal was apparently the source of the idea that the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous, a notion that proved incorrect and provided a political bludgeon against Clinton and Obama. He also advised the secretary on a wide range of other issues, from Northern Ireland to China, and passed along analysis from his son Max, a staunch critic of the Israeli government (and conservative bête noire). But emails released so far show even Clinton’s top foreign-policy guru, Jake Sullivan, rejecting Blumenthal’s analysis, raising questions about her judgment in trusting him.

The Speeches


What? Since Bill Clinton left the White House in 2001, both Clintons have made millions of dollars for giving speeches.


When? 2001-present

Who? Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton; Chelsea Clinton

How serious is it? Intermittently dangerous. It has a tendency to flare up, then die down. Senator Bernie Sanders made it a useful attack against her in early 2016, suggesting that by speaking to banks like Goldman Sachs, she was compromised. There have been calls for Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches, which she was declined to do, saying if every other candidate does, she will too. For the Clintons, who left the White House up to their ears in legal debt, lucrative speeches—mostly by the former president—proved to be an effective way of rebuilding wealth. They have also been an effective magnet for prying questions. Where did Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton speak? How did they decide how much to charge? What did they say? How did they decide which speeches would be given on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, with fees going to the charity, and which would be treated as personal income? Are there cases of conflicts of interest or quid pro quos—for example, speaking gigs for Bill Clinton on behalf of clients who had business before the State Department?

The Clinton Foundation


What? Bill Clinton’s foundation was actually established in 1997, but after leaving the White House it became his primary vehicle for … well, everything. With projects ranging from public health to elephant-poaching protection and small-business assistance to child development, the foundation is a huge global player with several prominent offshoots. In 2013, following Hillary Clinton’s departure as secretary of State, it was renamed the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

When? 1997-present

Who? Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton; Chelsea Clinton, etc.

How serious is it? If the Clinton Foundation’s strength is President Clinton’s endless intellectual omnivorousness, its weakness is the distractibility and lack of interest in detail that sometimes come with it. On a philanthropic level, the foundation gets decent ratings from outside review groups, though critics charge that it’s too diffuse to do much good, that the money has not always achieved what it was intended to, and that in some cases the money doesn’t seem to have achieved its intended purpose. The foundation made errors in its tax returns it has to correct. Overall, however, the essential questions about the Clinton Foundation come down to two, related issues. The first is the seemingly unavoidable conflicts of interest: How did the Clintons’ charitable work intersect with their for-profit speeches? How did their speeches intersect with Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department? Were there quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy? The second, connected question is about disclosure. When Clinton became secretary, she agreed that the foundation would make certain disclosures, which it’s now clear it didn’t always do. And the looming questions about Clinton’s State Department emails make it harder to answer those questions.

The Bad Old Days


What is it? Since the Clintons have a long history of controversies, there are any number of past scandals that continue to float around, especially in conservative media: Whitewater. Troopergate. Paula Jones. Monica Lewinsky. Vince Foster. Juanita Broaddrick.

When? 1975-2001

Who? Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton; a brigade of supporting characters

How serious is it? The conventional wisdom is that they’re not terribly dangerous. Some are wholly spurious (Foster). Others (Lewinsky, Whitewater) have been so exhaustively investigated it’s hard to imagine them doing much further damage to Hillary Clinton’s standing. In fact, the Lewinsky scandal famously boosted her public approval ratings. But the January 2016 resurfacing of Juanita Broaddrick’s rape allegations offers a test case to see whether the conventional wisdom is truly wise—or just conventional.

 

____________________
You want to talk to me
Go ahead and talk
Whatever you got to say to me
Won't come as any shock

 
Replies:

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2016 at 01:08 PM
DOJ reportedly grants immunity to former State Dept staffer in Clinton email probe
Published March 03, 2016 - FoxNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/03/doj-reportedly-grants-immunity-t o-former-state-dept-staffer-in-clinton-email-probe.html

Report: Ex-Clinton staffer granted immunity in email probe

The Justice Department has reportedly granted immunity to a former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

A senior U.S. law enforcement official told The Washington Post on Wednesday that the FBI secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the private server at her New York home in 2009.

Current and former agents told the newspaper that agents will likely want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails as part of the ongoing investigation.

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas called the latest developments on the Clinton investigation "ominous" in an interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly on "The Kelly File," and that it meant the process was moving to "a whole other level."

"That suggests the legal jeopardy is getting greater and greater," he said Wednesday.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Monday in an interview with Fox News that the Justice Department has no deadline for concluding the Clinton email investigation and that it’s being handled “like any other review,” even with the presidential election just months away.

Lynch said on "Special Report with Bret Baier" that the investigation is being handled by the agency’s “career independent lawyers” and that they will “review the facts and the evidence and make a determination in due course.”

Lynch, nominated by President Obama to the attorney general post in 2014, also said the agency would look “efficiently, fairly, thoroughly, without any kind of artificial deadline” into whether Clinton broke any laws as secretary of state by using a private email server for official communications.

Lynch was steadfast in declining to discuss specifics about the Clinton case -- including whether Clinton has been interviewed, if a grand jury had been convened, which departments within the agency are involved and whether she would ultimately decide whether the case will go forward.

“We handle it in the same way, and that's what I'd like to convey to the American people,” she said. “We owe it to the citizens and we owe it to anybody who may be involved in the matter.”

She also declined to comment on Clinton's then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills maintaining her top secret security clearance despite sending information that's now being classified to the Clinton Foundation.

Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-inv estigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-st affer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html?hpid=hp_hp -top-table-main_clintonemail830p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

FBI investigating if Clinton aides shared passwords to access classified info

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/03/fbi-investigating-if-clinton-aid es-shared-passwords-to-access-classified-info.html?intcmp=hpbt2

So much for that “vast right-wing conspiracy”



 

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 794
(794 all sites)
Registered: 11/8/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2016 at 01:10 PM
Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. "The Clintons" are not running for anything so let's separate her actions from his. She's the one who served on or as Watergate, Children's Defense Fund, a US senator, and Secretary of State.

The author writes that the investigation is "pretty arcane stuff."

Should Trump, Rubio, or Cruz be subjected to the same level of scrutiny, some "pretty arcane stuff" will come to light. No one is infallible. Rubio and Cruz should be held to a higher standard because they are public servants. Trump, sketchy as some of his deals are, is a private citizen and owner of private corporations and partnerships. He answers mostly to himself and the IRS.

Should people want to sling it, there is plenty of mud to go around. IMO, voters are sick of mud-slinging and labels and want ACTION from their candidates.




 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2016 at 01:18 PM
quote:
Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. "The Clintons" are not running for anything so let's separate her actions from his. She's the one who served on or as Watergate, Children's Defense Fund, a US senator, and Secretary of State.

The author writes that the investigation is "pretty arcane stuff."

Should Trump, Rubio, or Cruz be subjected to the same level of scrutiny, some "pretty arcane stuff" will come to light. No one is infallible. Rubio and Cruz should be held to a higher standard because they are public servants. Trump, sketchy as some of his deals are, is a private citizen and owner of private corporations and partnerships. He answers mostly to himself and the IRS.

Should people want to sling it, there is plenty of mud to go around. IMO, voters are sick of mud-slinging and labels and want ACTION from their candidates.
________________________________________________________________________

True, partly.

Bill Clinton had no role in Hillary Clinton’s illegal, unsecure and private email server that contained over 2,000 highly classified documents.

Bill Clinton did have a direct role in the corrupt financial dealings of The Clinton Foundation.

History olds true. The Clinton’s are corrupt, criminal and habitual liars.

 

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 794
(794 all sites)
Registered: 11/8/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2016 at 01:31 PM
quote:
History olds true. The Clinton’s are corrupt, criminal and habitual liars.



I just said "The Clintons" are not running for anything; Hillary is.

THE TOPIC IS HILLARY.

No one is considered a criminal until a jury or judge finds them to be guilty of a criminal act.

Trump, Rubio, and Cruz call each other liars so that doesn't seem to be a pejorative in the 2016 race..



 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10065
(10064 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2016 at 04:14 PM
quote:
quote:
Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. "The Clintons" are not running for anything so let's separate her actions from his. She's the one who served on or as Watergate, Children's Defense Fund, a US senator, and Secretary of State.

The author writes that the investigation is "pretty arcane stuff."

Should Trump, Rubio, or Cruz be subjected to the same level of scrutiny, some "pretty arcane stuff" will come to light. No one is infallible. Rubio and Cruz should be held to a higher standard because they are public servants. Trump, sketchy as some of his deals are, is a private citizen and owner of private corporations and partnerships. He answers mostly to himself and the IRS.

Should people want to sling it, there is plenty of mud to go around. IMO, voters are sick of mud-slinging and labels and want ACTION from their candidates.
________________________________________________________________________

True, partly.

Bill Clinton had no role in Hillary Clinton’s illegal, unsecure and private email server that contained over 2,000 highly classified documents.

Bill Clinton did have a direct role in the corrupt financial dealings of The Clinton Foundation.

History olds true. The Clinton’s are corrupt, criminal and habitual liars.

Boy are you gullible. and stupid, son

[Edited on 3/3/2016 by pops42]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16019
(16023 all sites)
Registered: 9/24/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2016 at 04:55 PM
quote:
No one is considered a criminal until a jury or judge finds them to be guilty of a criminal act.


But how does it look when your aide is given immunity ?

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19640
(20106 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2016 at 06:10 PM
How does it look? Like they want the aide to admit something or give them something to screw her with; however, it has been said that the FBI "scrubbed" her emails before anything was released to be looked at, after she had deleted stuff she did not feel was important, so they probably cannot find anything there; which is why they want somebody else to fess up. Like Rosemary Woods and those deleted minutes on the Nixon tapes. Nothing will be found because if was, heads would roll. If she was involved in things, others were also, and in Washington, they always cover their backs, and if they can't they just assassinate anyone who they think would give them up. There are people in the intelligence community who are very upset about all this investigating because reportedly one of the things in those missing emails were the names and information about clandestine operatives over there, they will NEVER let that come out, much less anything else.





 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2016 at 01:56 PM
The Washington Post Sunday Edition, Front Page Above the fold:

Not only did Hillary Clinton have over 2,000 classified emails on her unsecure private email server, she wrote and sent over 100 herself:

Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the government says are classified

What we learned from Hillary Clinton's emails

The State Department released 52,000 pages of Hillary Clinton’s emails as part of a court-ordered process. Here's what else we learned from the publicly released emails.
(Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)

By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger March 5 at 8:00 PM

Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information, according to a new Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence.

The finding is the first accounting of the Democratic presidential front-runner’s personal role in placing information now considered sensitive into insecure email during her State Department tenure. Clinton’s ¬authorship of dozens of emails now considered classified could complicate her efforts to argue that she never put government secrets at risk.

In roughly three-quarters of those cases, officials have determined that material Clinton herself wrote in the body of email messages is classified. Clinton sometimes initiated the conversations but more often replied to aides or other officials with brief reactions to ongoing discussions.

The analysis also showed that the practice of using non-secure email systems to send sensitive information was widespread at the department and elsewhere in government.
Clinton’s publicly released correspondence also includes classified emails written by about 300 other people inside and outside the government, the analysis by The Post found. The senders -included ¬longtime diplomats, top administration officials and foreigners who held no U.S. security clearance.

In those cases, Clinton was typically not among the initial recipients of the classified emails, which were included in back-and-forth exchanges between lower-level diplomats and other officials and arrived in her inbox only after they were forwarded to her by a close aide.

For federal employees other than Clinton, nearly all of the sensitive email was sent using their less secure, day-to-day government accounts. Classified information is supposed to be exchanged only over a separate, more secure network.

The Post analysis is based on an examination of the 2,093 chains of Clinton’s email correspondence that the State Department decided contained classified information. The agency released 52,000 pages of Clinton’s emails as part of a court-ordered process but blocked the sensitive information from public view. The Post identified the author of each email that contained such redactions.

The analysis raises difficult questions about how the government treats sensitive information. It suggests that either material is being overclassified, as Clinton and her allies have charged, or that classified material is being handled improperly with regularity by government officials at all levels — or some combination of the two.

The analysis did not account for 22 emails that the State Department has withheld entirely from public release because they are “top secret,” the highest level of classification.

The handling of those emails has drawn particular criticism from Republican lawmakers and officials in the intelligence community, who have argued that Clinton’s use of a private server exposed some of the government’s most closely guarded secrets to hacking or other potential breaches.

The FBI is investigating the security of the server and whether Clinton or her aides mishandled classified information.

The Justice Department granted immunity to the former State Department staffer who set up Hillary Clinton's private email server at her home. Here's what the FBI is looking to investigate and what it means for the Democratic presidential front-runner. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)

Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said the large number of people who sent and received emails that were declared classified was a sign of “overclassification run amok, and indicates that our system for determining what ought to be classified is broken.”

Regarding Clinton’s role in writing 104 of the emails, Fallon said the classification determinations “were after-the-fact .?.?. for the purposes of preparing these emails for release publicly.”

“It does not mean the material was classified when it was sent or received,” he said.

Clinton has struggled to fend off the email controversy since it was revealed last year that she used the private server. Republican presidential candidates have vowed to make an issue out of her handling of classified information, with front-runner Donald Trump saying last week: “What she did is a criminal act. If she’s allowed to run, I would be very, very surprised.”

A key question facing Clinton is whether any of the emails she authored — or any of the correspondence stored on her private server — contained information that was classified at the time it was sent.

When her use of a private system was first revealed, she told reporters, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.” At other points, she has said that none of the emails was “marked classified” at the time she sent or received them — a point she reiterated Friday in a CNBC interview.

But government rules require senders of classified information to properly mark it. And the inspector general for the intelligence community has said that some of Clinton’s correspondence contained classified material when it was sent — even if it was not labeled.
The State Department has sidestepped the question.

Spokesman John Kirby said only that the department’s reviewers “focused on whether information needs to be classified today — prior to documents being publicly released.” State officials have not offered an assessment of whether the information was classified when it was sent.

The discrepancy has allowed Clinton to chalk up much of the email controversy to infighting among government agencies.

The 104 classified emails ¬authored by Clinton are difficult to evaluate because of the heavy redaction in the versions that have been released.

They are generally short, running sometimes only a sentence or two.

The emails often were sent in response to another State Department official whose original note has also been redacted in the publicly released version.

In nearly a quarter of the emails, the only classified redaction is the subject line.
Across all the classified emails, the language that remains visible provides only hints of the conversations.

For example, Clinton wrote an email in July 2012 to Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and other top department officials with the subject line “Agrement [sic] for Egypt.” The email includes a short paragraph that has been entirely redacted by the State Department followed by one line from Clinton: “What’s the status?”

In another instance, Clinton engaged in an exchange with top aide Jacob Sullivan on June 7, 2012, all of which has been redacted and classified as “secret,” one of a few dozen messages to receive that higher-level designation from the State Department. The only indication of the exchange’s topic is the subject line: “Khar--where we are.” Earlier that week, Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar had requested that the United States apologize for the death of 24 Pakistani troops in a NATO airstrike.

Sullivan, a top foreign policy aide who now advises Clinton’s presidential campaign, was the most frequent author of classified emails. He wrote 215, the Post analysis found.

Sullivan did not respond to a request for comment. Fallon, the campaign spokesman, said that Sullivan generally sent Clinton more emails than others, “so there was simply more material available for government lawyers to overclassify.”

Other close aides to Clinton, including Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, also authored dozens of such notes. Top officials outside of State wrote some, too, including Clinton’s eventual successor at State, John F. Kerry, who was then a senator.
Representatives for Mills and Abedin did not respond to requests for comment. Kirby, the State spokesman, said Kerry had been “providing Secretary Clinton with information he thought would be helpful.”

But the bulk of the emails that State Department reviewers deemed classified were sent by career officials engaged in the day-to-day business of diplomacy.

Some diplomats point to the volume of classified email as evidence of systemic flaws in deciding what information is sensitive rather than an indictment of Clinton’s actions.

“If experienced diplomats and foreign service officers are doing it, the issue is more how the State Department deals with information in the modern world more than something specific about what Hillary Clinton did,” said Philip H. Gordon, who was assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs and was the author of 45 of the sensitive emails from his non-classified government account.

Kirby, the State Department spokesman, said the agency “takes the protection of sensitive information seriously and our staff are aware of the appropriate channels for transmitting classified information.”

“We stand by the redactions we have made,” he said.

Still, some diplomats who have reviewed their emails that have now been classified have expressed puzzlement. Several said in interviews that they thought the State Department’s review process relied on an overly broad interpretation of ¬public-records laws that restrict release of certain information involving relations with foreign governments.

They said they never stripped classified markings from documents to send them through regular email, as Republicans have alleged occurred in Clinton’s correspondence.

Instead, they said, the emails largely reflect real-time information shared with them by foreign government officials using their own insecure email accounts or open phone lines, or in public places such as hotel lobbies where it could have been overheard.

In other emails, they said they purposely wrote in generalities. Numerous emails were labeled “Sensitive But Unclassified,” indicating those writing did not think the note was classified.

Former ambassador Dennis Ross, who has held key diplomatic posts in administrations of both parties, said that one of his exchanges now marked “secret” contained information that government officials last year allowed him to publish in a book.

The emails relate to a back-channel negotiation he opened between Israelis and Palestinians after he left the government in 2011.

“What I was doing was communicating a gist — not being very specific, but a gist. If I felt the need to be more specific, we could arrange a meeting,” Ross said.

Princeton Lyman, a State Department veteran who served under presidents of both parties and was a special envoy to Sudan when Clinton was secretary of state, said he has been surprised and a bit embarrassed to learn that emails he wrote have been classified. He said he had learned through decades of experience how to identify and transmit classified information.
“The day-to-day kind of reporting I did about what happened in negotiations did not include information I considered classified,” he said.

One former senior official who authored some of the now-classified emails referred to a “cringe factor” for officials reviewing their own emails with the benefit of time that was often not available in the middle of unfolding world crises.

The former official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, expressed disagreement with the State Department’s decision to classify the emails. Still, the official said diplomats at the time believed they were sending the material through a “closed system” in which the emails would be reviewed only by other State Department officials. They are becoming public now, the official noted, only because of Clinton’s email habits and her presidential run.

“I resent the fact that we’re in this situation — and we’re in this situation because of Hillary Clinton’s decision to use a private server,” the official said.

Security experts say Clinton’s private server added risk because it functioned beyond typical government safeguards. That would have been the case not only while she was in office but also for two years after she stepped down, when the emails remained in the server’s memory.
The State Department staffer who managed Clinton’s server has turned over security logs to law enforcement officials showing no evidence of a foreign hack, the New York Times reported Thursday.

Nevertheless, Ron Hosko, former head of the FBI’s criminal investigative division, said Clinton’s use of the server offered a one-stop-shop for a would-be hacker or U.S. adversary looking to scoop up the totality of the sensitive information she was receiving.

“Piece by piece, it’s not particularly momentous,” said Hosko, who heads a law enforcement advocacy group whose board includes prominent conservatives. “But as a foreign adversary starts to aggregate that information, it becomes more and more concerning because of the ability to show you, who are the actors? What are our intentions? What is our understanding?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote -104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e 5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html





 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/8/2016 at 11:05 PM
Hillary should be burying Sanders. She's struggling with a 74 year old Socialist!!!

Sucks to be Hillary.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67481
(67998 all sites)
Registered: 10/27/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/9/2016 at 12:27 PM
Oooh.............there's that scary word "socialist" again.


Best candidate of them all for the job.

 

____________________
Hittin' The Web::Hugh Duty Memorial Giveaway has begun!

RIP Hugh Duty

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/9/2016 at 02:16 PM
It is good to know Hillary Clinton surrounds herself with such quality public policy advisors:

Architect of NYC’s New Public Urination Policy Is Hillary Clinton Surrogate

Clinton endorser Melissa Mark-Viverito wrote bill that forced NYPD policy change
BY: Brent Scher - March 9, 2016 5:00 am

The woman behind a policy change that allows people in New York City to commit crimes such as public urination and drinking in public without being arrested is a Hillary Clinton supporter who has appeared with her at official campaign events.

New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito served as author and lead cheerleader for legislation that eases enforcement of so-called “quality-of-life offenses.” The policy change was officially implemented this week.

Mark-Viverito announced her endorsement of Clinton in September and stated her hope that she could play an “important role” to help her campaign reach Latinos in 2016. Mark-Viverito, who was born and raised in Puerto Rico, published her endorsement in Spanish.

Just last week, Mark-Viverito was invited to deliver a speech at Clinton’s rally at New York City’s Jacob Javits Center.

Mark-Viverito came on stage at the end of the rally and “Mrs. Clinton grabbed Ms. Mark-Viverito close,” according to an account by the New York Times.

Mark-Viverito expressed hopes to the New York Daily News this week that a Clinton victory in 2016 could lead to a job for her in the White House.

Though Mark-Viverito was successful in her effort to change the NYPD’s policy towards what she deems “minor crimes,” her critics say this will prove to be “a mistake” for the city that has come a long way from the days when subway cars were covered in graffiti.

Matthew Hennessey, an editor of New York’s City Journal, wrote recently that the smell of urine in the city will “linger in the minds of those who remember a time when New York was a city in decline.”
“The smell of urine is the olfactory equivalent of the sight of litter in the street, graffiti on the subway, or a building with broken windows,” wrote Hennessy. “All send the same message: No one cares about public spaces in this city, so do as you please.”

Viverito didn’t grow up in New York City, but fellow Democrat Scott Stringer did, and he says it is knowing what New York used to be that makes him against the change.

“Having grown up in this city in the 70s and 80s, I am not in favor of people urinating in the street, jumping turnstiles, or creating dangerous situations by being drunk,” said the city comptroller.

Clinton is yet to directly address the city’s new policy and did not return a request for comment for this story.

Though the new policy has many critics, it is far from the most controversial issue surrounding Mark-Viverito, who has been criticized in the past by New York politicians on both sides of the aisle.

The most stinging critiques came in 2014 after she refused to stand up during the pledge of allegiance at a September 11 memorial service at the World Trade Center. A fellow Democrat in New York said that Mark-Viverito “doesn’t care about America” and that she is a “communist from Puerto Rico.”

After Mark-Viverito attempted to excuse herself for the incident, another fellow Democrat said that Mark-Viverito told her that it was a symbolic “protest” of the United States due to the fact that Puerto Rico hasn’t been granted independence.

She continues to fight for the release from prison of Puerto Rican terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera, who is believed to have been behind a 1975 bombing in New York City that killed four. Rivera was offered a presidential pardon by President Bill Clinton, but turned it down because he refused to denounce terrorism.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/architect-nyc-public-urination-policy-hillar y-clinton-surrogate/




 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/10/2016 at 10:49 AM
Hillary confirms her habitual liar label, Sanders proven to be a communist:

Disappointing performances from Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders

By Todd Graham - Updated 2:38 AM ET, Thu March 10, 2016

(CNN)One of the techniques I teach my debate team is to weave current events into our arguments as much as possible. But neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton understood that you shouldn't just give the same answers as in previous debates. You need to make your arguments responsive to what's happening in the campaign. Failing to take advantage of the situation post-Michigan, both candidates' grades fell in Wednesday night's debate in Miami.

Sanders: C

Keep the momentum. That should have been his primary goal. On every answer -- from Latino issues, to universal health care, to free public college tuition, to his vote against the war in Iraq -- Sanders should have weaved in his campaign theme of a political revolution.

Something like this: "Hey...this could actually work...even the people in Michigan agree. People all over the country are voting for me, just like Michigan, because they know it's more than a dream, it's a possibility. Don't listen to the polls, we won't give up till we have the nomination in hand!"

I think that's a solid approach. Instead, he gave the same answers from previous debates, on every issue, with no frame of reference to his "Yuge" victory in Michigan except in his opening.

More than that, Sanders honesty took a hit. He's consistently seen among the presidential candidates as the most "honest" and "trustworthy" in polls. He voted against comprehensive immigration reform in 2007 and claimed in previous debates that he did it for the welfare of the guest workers, who would have been akin to "slaves."

However, when shown a videotape of his explanation at the time, Sanders stated that guest workers would, "work for lower wages and drive wages down even lower," for American workers. When confronted with this contradiction, Sanders simply ignored it. He continued his usual approach of reminding everyone that even some Latinos were against the bill and it was bad for the guest workers. Correct, senator. But this revisionist rationale is not why you stated at the time you voted against it.

And in another videotape, Sanders is seen as praising Fidel Castro. Just like in the previous video, Sanders ignored it, and instead insisted that the United States shouldn't be overthrowing other countries. Maybe so, but that's not what young (did you see how young he was!) Sanders just said in the interview screened.

Sanders took a hit on Latino issues in the debate, especially his veracity on the subject.

Clinton: C

Hillary Clinton should have focused on pulling voters back to her. The one area she possibly succeeded was on Latino issues. Clinton was stronger than Sanders on this issue, but it was by no means her best debate on the topic, given her lack of clarity on some of the answers. More than anything, she put doubt in our mind over Sanders.

Still, when asked about why she lost Michigan, she gave a non-answer, rambling about how she won one and lost one and that it's a marathon and that she's overall pleased, and blah, blah, blah.

No. Clinton should answer the question, and do it in a way that makes her seem personable. Something like this: "I think we could have fought harder to encourage our supporters to get out and vote, and I can do a much better job persuading millennials not just why I'm a progressive, but also the only pragmatic candidate who can really get things done. Losing Michigan was my fault, I'll do better in the future, and I hope my supporters will take this as a call to action!"

I like my answer better.

Then when she was asked about her low approval ratings for honesty and trustworthiness. Again answered with, "blah, blah...painful...something." Toward the end of her answer, Clinton almost became human when she stated "I'm not a natural politician, like my husband or President Obama, so I just do the best I can."

Yes. This is better. Now ride that thought out to the finish, Secretary Clinton. You should say that your numbers would be higher, but you occasionally have to make tough calls, like voting for the immigration reform bill or voting for the bailout that helped both Wall Street and the Detroit automakers. It makes her appear less genuine than someone like Sanders who can just vote "no" all the time, but in the end, she's making compromises in order to get important policies passed and into law.

Overall, the debate was unexpectedly dull. I don't mean by Republican debating standards, since the Real Housewives of Washington DC debates can't be matched in entertainment value. I would have expected the Michigan result to light a fire under Hillary Clinton, but if it did, then she's a well-trained hot-coal-walker, since she sashayed her way through this debate as if she had nowhere else to go. As for Sanders, well, the videos don't lie. His explanations of them demonstrated little concern, as if the people watching somehow couldn't see them.

Considering what has been going on in the actual primary voting, this debate offered uninspired performances from both candidates.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/opinions/debate-coach-democratic-miami-graham /index.html





 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9620
(9645 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/10/2016 at 11:54 AM
There was actually an anti-Hillary banner ad below this page before I logged in!
 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/14/2016 at 04:18 PM



 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67481
(67998 all sites)
Registered: 10/27/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/14/2016 at 06:45 PM
quote:





Glad to see you finally grew up and are now supporting Bernie.

 

____________________
Hittin' The Web::Hugh Duty Memorial Giveaway has begun!

RIP Hugh Duty

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5032
(5027 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/14/2016 at 08:03 PM
What's wrong with socialism?
 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/14/2016 at 08:07 PM
quote:
What's wrong with socialism?

__________________________________________________________________________

It does not work.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/14/2016 at 08:08 PM



 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4387
(4398 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/14/2016 at 08:58 PM
quote:
quote:
What's wrong with socialism?

__________________________________________________________________________

It does not work.



Neither does the form of capitalism that exists today.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/14/2016 at 10:55 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
What's wrong with socialism?

__________________________________________________________________________

It does not work.



Neither does the form of capitalism that exists today.

________________________________________________________________________

Yes, Obama has screwed it up badly but that will be fixed in November when the country elects a professional president and the amateur is kicked to the curb.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4387
(4398 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/14/2016 at 11:09 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
What's wrong with socialism?

__________________________________________________________________________

It does not work.



Neither does the form of capitalism that exists today.

________________________________________________________________________

Yes, Obama has screwed it up badly but that will be fixed in November when the country elects a professional president and the amateur is kicked to the curb.



Do you really think a Republican will be elected? You are as clueless as your boy Drumpf.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/16/2016 at 08:43 AM
Hillary Clinton secures coveted endorsement for a democrat:

The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12192975/The-KKK -leader-who-says-he-backs-Hillary-Clinton.html

KKK Leader Endorses Hillary Clinton In Off Chance She's Undercover Hitler

A California Ku Klux Klan leader on Monday endorsed Hillary Clinton, saying he believes she would do the exact opposite of what she promises.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-kkk_us_56e7373ae4b0b25c 918304f2

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9620
(9645 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/16/2016 at 01:04 PM
quote:





Such a comical moment, the video is classic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWF0usVpPFM

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19640
(20106 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/16/2016 at 06:30 PM
quote:
What's wrong with socialism?


It works in France, but this isn't France, it might not work well here, but we can't keep kicking the can down the road Capitalism is not working for us.

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com