Mukasey: Hillary would have to be a low-grade moron... (updated OP)

[grasswire]

.....not to know that the content of those emails was top secret.

Those are his words right now on MSNBC.

Now Lanny Davis is attacking Mukasey.


THE POINT HERE IS THAT HILLARY IS TOO FLAWED TO REPRESENT DEMOCRATS IN THIS ELECTION. This kind of attack is going to be making headlines 24/7, and getting worse.

STEP ASIDE, HILLARY. For the good of the party.

[Renew Deal]

1. But they weren't Top Secret. So I don't get the point.

[name not needed]

7. According to Hillary, praise be unto her.

[daybranch]

32. Actually they were classified as special access, even more sensitive than top secret

and subject to more strict regulation. For special access information to be disseminated to you , you have to be determined by security officials in the special access program as to have a valid need for the information ahead of granting permission to see that information and you agree not to share that information with anyone who has not been granted that access by the special access program. In other words Clinton must be cleared to have access to the specific special access programs and if she received those clearances knew the information was special access and not to be shared with anyone not having the clearance to these programs. If Bill or Chelsea had access to her server, it is a violation of federal law whether they got the information or not if they do not have special access clearance for each and every special access program. Just as alarming is that it is highly unlikely all the people who received her emails had appropriate clearance to the special access programs discussed in her emails. The failure to protect the secrecy is the purpose of security regulations, not to determine if information was compromised.

[thereismore]

51. Well, you know, special access sounds a lot less secret than top secret.

[Matariki]

58. It's been in the news. They weren't classified when they were sent

that's where things stand now.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

59. No, it's been in the news

that they weren't marked classified. Huge difference.

[Matariki]

69. Can you explain?

I don't understand the difference.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

70. Sure

Classified documents sit on separate networks. The higher the classification, the higher the protection on those networks. These classified networks are not connected in any way with the unclassified network.

Classified documents must be marked, both by paragraph (called portion markings) and at the top and bottom of the document (overall).
Sentences or paragraphs within a classified document might have many different classifications (unclassified, secret, top secret), but the overall classification of the document must reflect the highest portion classification within the document.

Since the classified networks are not connected to the unclassified network, you can't just "send" a document marked classified to an unclassified network. Someone with access to the classified information would have to open up the classified document, then type the contents into an unclassified document or e-mail, and then send it across the unclassified network.

They wouldn't mark the documents as classified when sending on the unclassified network, so the document would not be marked "Secret" or "Top Secret". However, the information itself is "Secret" or "Top Secret".

The content is what determines the classification, not the marking. The marking is to indicate the classification, which in turn determines how it must be handled, disseminated, etc.

[Jarqui]

26. Not so fast.

State Department Transcript of State Department spokesman Kirby yesterday:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/01/251855.htm

"As to whether they were classified at the time they were sent, the State Department, in the FOIA process, is focusing on whether they need to be classified today. Questions about classification at the time they were sent are being and will be handled separately by the State Department."

So the State Department has not yet made a determination if they were classified at the time ... which is kind of problematic for the State Department because :
- they had originally said they were not classified and now are not sure
- if they don't know now, then it begs the potentially awkward question: how did they know the status when they were sent?

We have to be careful how much faith we put in Mr Kirby on that.

The Inspector Generals had a bit of a time with the state department on this. In June-July 2015, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community reported:
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/23_july_2015_cn_summary_of_ic_ig_support_to_state_department_ig.pdf
"State personnel continue to deny the classified character of the released information despite a definitive determination from the IC Interagency FOIA process"

So again, we have to be careful of how much faith we put in the State Department's determinations. They may be trying to cover their own asses as well as Hillary's.

The tally of what I've got so far is:
1. 22 Top secret emails made up of 7 chains
2. These two emails that were a severe security concern (that are not part of the 22):
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-19/ig-some-emails-on-clintons-server-were-beyond-top-secret
3. About 1340 emails that had some classified material in them
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article53685825.html
4. 18 emails between Clinton and Obama made up of 8 chains
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/01/251855.htm

And they're still going through emails - they're not done. They've got about 5,000-7,000 pages of the original 55,000. The problem with a bunch of the ones left is getting other departments to weigh in on the material within the emails. So there could be many more to come because the State Dept can't make that call. And then, they apparently recovered about 30,000 of the emails Hillary deleted and there is a FOIA for them. They have a long way to go.

To me, whether she did something wrong is simple. Exposing the president's emails to an unsecure network and server that may lead to a data pipe from the internal header in the email to the White House being exposed to hackers is probably not going to be appreciated by those charged with maintaining security. There is no fathomable defense for doing that. To me, I read that and it's game over. We can ignore the other stuff if folks want to make it black and white as to did she compromise security.

And having all that classified material on this unsecured server - whether she knew at the time it was classified material or not - compromises the data security of the State Department - for a number of reason.

The only thing left to determine is how bad is it and have they done as much damage control as they can for the classified information that got emailed.

Is she going to jail or going to get charged? I doubt it but we don't have all the facts yet. Do they have her dead to rights? I think so. The Clintons are good at spin but exposing the emails with the president is pretty close to the blue stained dress in terms of some sort of indefensible security compromise. The only question is what else unravels from their poking around.

[grasswire]

3. Davis is now calling Mukasey unethical.

Mukasey, former AG US

[grasswire]

4. Lanny says this is just another Whitewater.

Mukasey refusing to back down.

[Zynx]

24. Are you seriously rooting for a Bush crony?

So, it's come to that, huh?

[72DejaVu]

8. Michael Mukasey

George W. Bush's attorney general.

Totally reliable on this matter, no doubt.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Did you ever think you would live to see the day...

Did you ever think you would live to see the day George W. Bush's Attorney General and an adviser to Jeb Bush would be treated fawningly on an ostensibly progressive board?

[grasswire]

14. fawningly??

Where do you see that???

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Please see Post 13

[OilemFirchen]

33. Turns out the barrel had a false bottom.

Who could've seen that coming?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. It is sad...

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a Mafia dictum...

[OilemFirchen]

38. That presumes that Mukasey is an enemy.

Occam's Razor and all that.

[oasis]

67. "Slimy" would be more accurate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Michael Mukasey was George W. Bush's A G and an adviser To Jeb Bush.

I will give his opinion the authority it is worth as I will give the opinion of anybody who cites him approvingly.

[grasswire]

6. well, THAT was fun

Smerconish cut the segment off. Lanny was out of control.

Can't wait for the video.

[MisterP]

9. the signals from San Pedro Sula were getting scrambled

[treestar]

11. Mukasey is a Republican

He was Dubya's attorney general.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. It doesn't matter to some people

[treestar]

16. I echo the sentiments

of your post #8.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I find the "Who Me" response of the seminal poster risible.

He or she must think we all fell off the turnip truck.

[grasswire]

13. Yes, so what does it mean that a Republican right now...

.....is attacking Hillary for the emails on legal grounds, using a former AG/judge to be point man?

[NanceGreggs]

18. It means that Republicans are attacking ...

... Hillary - same as they've been doing for decades.

Business as usual.

[grasswire]

31. and that's exactly what I said.

But I included the part where Mukasey implied that Clinton is a total moron and the part where Davis called the former AG unethical.

[Zynx]

20. It means Republicans hate Hillary and are trying to bring her down.

Republicans have been making legal allegations about the Clintons for years. They're not to be trusted.

[Hiraeth]

36. Some of those legal allegations have moral and ethical implications, to say the least.

[rbrnmw]

21. It means per usual Republicans are still doing what they been doing for decades lying

[rbrnmw]

22. as soon as Bernie wins a few primaries he will get the treatment

[Zynx]

23. And he is an *easy* target.

[rbrnmw]

25. yes I think some people think it won't happen

it will I have watched them for 40 years do this to every Democratic candidate. They are still trying to get us back for Watergate.

[Zynx]

19. Mukasey? A right-wing hack? Wow, really?

You honestly might as well be quoting John Ashcroft.

[NurseJackie]

27. Ha! :-D

[NanceGreggs]

28. The point here ...

... is that you are embracing a Republican's opinion of a Democratic candidate.

It's becoming more and more apparent that BS won't be getting anywhere near winning the nomination, and the ONLY chance he'd have is if HRC left the race.

That really doesn't say much about Bernie's ability to win on his own merits, does it?

[grasswire]

29. WRONG

I was reporting the conversation as it occurred.

It was stunning to see.

I reported it as it happened here. Mukasey implied that Clinton is a total moron, Davis pushed back and accused the AG of being unethical.

What it MEANS, is that Hillary is too flawed to represent Democrats, because this is the kind of shit that is going to happen 24/7.

[NanceGreggs]

35. You also said ...

"STEP ASIDE, HILLARY. For the good of the party."

What it MEANS is that a Republican thinks Hillary is too flawed to represent Democrats - and you think he's right, and Hillary should "step aside".

HRC is still the front-runner, with more supporters, higher polling numbers, more endorsements and more delegates than either of her opponents. I'd say that's a very solid indication that the majority of Democrats want their Party represented by Hillary - and have no need for the opinions/advice of Republican hacks in making that decision.

[elias49]

44. Ach! I thiught you said "..high rollers..",

when in fact you said "..high POLLING numbers.."
She doesn't know any high rollers, does she?

[madokie]

30. Exactly what does Bernie Sanders have to do with this

are you inebriated or what?

come monday we'll start to get a feel as to how this will play out, until then nothing you say will matter.

You do make me laugh though

[Hiraeth]

39. nothing she has been saying amounts to a hill of beans, anyway except for the humor factor.

[NanceGreggs]

40. Are you being coy, or simply naive?

What does Bernie have to do with this? The fact that there have been endless posts here about HRC's emails, her "imminent" indictment, etc., by BS supporters who know that Bernie's only hope of getting the nomination would be Hillary leaving the race.

The cries of "HRC should drop out of the race for the good of the Party" started literally within weeks of Bernie announcing he was running.



I'm sure BSers are only concerned with the "good of the Party" - and are not hoping against hope that HRC will just go away because that is Bernie's ONLY hope of a path to the nomination.

[madokie]

46. I'm not sure its worth my time

to read much more of this kind of bull

For the most part I spend a lot of time here and I've yet to read anything like what you're implying how things are.
All I know is you are in for a big surprise. We're talking two days from now then the shit starts hitting the old proverbial fan

I suspect you have an ulterior motive in this back and forth and time will tell.

[Hiraeth]

37. the point is the Rs are having a field day and this will mean gridlock BIG TIME if she wins.

which is really what the 1% wants so they can keep doing business as usual. She is well paid for this gig.

[NanceGreggs]

43. In case you've not noticed ...

... Republicans have been "having a field day" attacking HRC for decades.

I take it you don't think that they'd have a "field day" with Bernie if he was the nominee?

[Hiraeth]

47. oh please. find some ammunition and bring it, girl.

[NanceGreggs]

48. Ammunition for what? n/t

[Hiraeth]

49. to shoot at Bernie. go for it. get him under investigation. now. do it.

[NanceGreggs]

53. An "investigation" wouldn't be the first step.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here - but if I were a repub and Bernie was the nominee, I'd start here:

He's a self-proclaimed socialist - something all Republicans abhor.

He's an opportunist running on the ticket of a party he refuses to join, and has demeaned for his entire political career.

He has promised things he knows he can't deliver, like single-payer healthcare.

His campaign illegally stole data from his opponent. He then sued the DNC for catching him in the act.

He used the logos of organizations who didn't endorse him in order to mislead.

His wife, while president of a college, submitted false information to a bank in applying for a loan for said college.

He has a "charitable trust" in the Cayman Islands, which are often used to funnel money into tax-evading accounts.

He has reported his net worth at between $300,000 and $800,000 - with no explanation for that wide a range in his estimate, nor an explanation as to why a well-paid senator has a lower net worth than many middle-class people who have never earned anywhere near his salary. Where did the money go?

He fled to a kibbutz in Israel to avoid military service.

He had a child out of wedlock.




Do I think "all of the above" would be fair criticisms? It doesn't matter - the GOP would turn them into major "scandals".

And that's just what we know. If you think there is nothing in BS's past that is "less than wholesome", you are being politically naive. There are skeletons in everyone's closet - and the GOP are masters at finding them.

And the idea that Bernie is a saint who has never, ever done anything untoward in his entire lifetime is as naive as it gets.

The only reason the GOP hasn't wasted their time going after Bernie is because they know he won't be the nominee they'll have to beat in the GE. But I've no doubt things have been "looked into" - and bookmarked for further scrutiny just the same.

[Hiraeth]

56. this -

Do I think "all of the above" would be fair criticisms? It doesn't matter - the GOP would turn them into major "scandals".

is what we are talking about regarding Hillary.


I am NOT naïve and I relish to see what they can make stick to Bernie.

Let the games begin.

[NanceGreggs]

57. I wouldn't count on that day ever arriving.

Bernie won't be the nominee, and the GOP won't be wasting their time on the also-ran.

[Hiraeth]

64. and where did you buy your crystal ball? I hope you can get a refund.

[NanceGreggs]

65. No crystal ball needed.

We have polls.

I realize that BSers think polls that show HRC ahead are based on "corporate math", and the only polls that are accurate are the ones that say BS would beat a hypothetical Republican in the GE.

But they are what they are - and they do not bode well for Bernie.

[840high]

52. No. Sanders is not shady like Hillary.

[NanceGreggs]

55. And you saying that ...

... is meaningless.

[840high]

60. Frankly I don't care what

you think. At one time you were worth reading.

[NanceGreggs]

61. Well, I guess we can agree on ONE thing ...

... if nothing else: Neither of us care what the other thinks.

[840high]

63. We're just names on a screen. I wish

you a good week-end.

[loyalsister]

41. It is endless

The scandals with just enough truth to raise serious questions is what fuels the real made up witchunt crap (Benghazi).

There is such a long trail of stupid, pointless lies, and scandals that people expect Clinton corruption and just think what is made up is just more of the same.

One of the greatest things about Obama is that his squeaky clean history left no avenue for serious investigations. It was impossible for republicans to create a believable false scandal because there was never a real one of serious significance. People were unconvinced by the property line thing and Jerimiah Wright.

Thus far, it appears that Bernie has a background that is open only to similar false attacks as well.

[DURHAM D]

42. I saw part of that.

Mukasey was reading from notes. I assume Karl wrote them for him.

Congrats.... this post says more about you than Hillary.

[Live and Learn]

45. Or to vote for the IWR. Which is it? Is she stupid or just dishonest? nt

[840high]

54. She's ambitious which overides

any decisions that are good for Americans.

[tammywammy]

50. STOP THE PRESSES

REPUBLICAN DOESNT LIKE HILLARY CLINTON.

I never could have seen this coming.

[NanceGreggs]

62. Yeah, I was totally shocked as well.

[oasis]

66. Lanny Davis called him out on his bias and questioned the timing of

this latest e-mail leak.

[chervilant]

68. Just FYI:

On Sat Jan 30, 2016, 05:19 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Mukasey: Hillary would have to be a low-grade moron... (updated OP)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511098572

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Why is the Bush AG being cited to attack Hillary?? Is this still Democratic Underground?!?!?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jan 30, 2016, 05:23 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The Swarm is really becoming a bore. Leave it.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The member could've made the point without citing and insult from the opposition toward one of our Dem candidates.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why this alert? This is a mere glimpse at what is to come if she becomes our nominee.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: One must read ALL about the post - sources included. It is not our responsibility to walk every reader through the "valley of the shadow of death!"

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

I was not the lone "hide" vote.