THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE SET OF FACTS REGARDING THE HILLARY INVESTIGATION

[FourScore]

If you really want to understand all sides of this, then I refer you to this link:

https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/

It's long. Very, very long. I suggest fixing some kind of drink, turn off the phone, and start reading.

I would love to know what you think.

(Please help keep it kicked for wider viewership. Very important reading!!)

[paulthompson]

1. Mixed bag

There's a lot of good discussion of the facts there. Unfortunately, at the end, the author has some political rambling that reveals he's a Trump supporter. That ruins it for me.

I'm currently working on a comprehensive, well-sourced timeline for the e-mail scandal. It's already grown to over 10,000 words. I should have it ready in a few days. (Some people know me here for my 2004 Harper Collin book "The Terror Timeline," so I know a thing or two about timelines.)

[Karma13612]

4. I disagree on panning the entire piece because he

Opines at the end.

The meat of the article is a full fledged analysis of the facts available to the public, well written, sourced and explored.

[paulthompson]

13. I hear you

Like I said, there's a lot of good discussion of the fact there. But still, the fact that the author is pro-Trump bothers me.

What's sad is that this scandal has been brewing for a year now and nobody else has put something like this together yet. The media should have done this, not some inexperienced college student. Investigative journalism in the mainstream media is basically dead. It's up to ordinary citizens on the Internet (like this guy) to try to make up for that.

[Karma13612]

14. Agree:

Investigative journalism in the mainstream media is basically dead. It's up to ordinary citizens on the Internet (like this guy) to try to make up for that.

[FourScore]

24. I agree.

Investigative journalism in the mainstream media is basically dead. It's up to ordinary citizens on the Internet (like this guy) to try to make up for that.

Exactly!!

[MuseRider]

6. I look forward to reading it! n/t

[FourScore]

23. paulthompson...I REALLY look forward to your emails timeline!! PLEASE let us know when it's done.

How will we be able to access it?

As for the link I provided, I was scanning the end pretty quickly, so I didn't catch the political rambling.

I am little surprised at it though since the author states that he voted democratic. The way it's worded, I can't tell if he is admitting he voted for Sanders or Clinton:

But not only did Bernie forfeit a serious challenge for the Democratic nomination by failing to capitalize on Hillary’s most glaring weakness (still got my vote), he gave up the opportunity to ask the same questions I have.

Anyway, always good to see you here on DU!

[grasswire]

27. there is a work group to help out Paul over in the Bernie forum.

And yes. Paul is a American hero.

[KoKo]

39. ...! For Paul....

I'm a DU'er of his "era" and remember him well...and appreciate both his work and his book.

It was a great time for investigation! Those Days!

[paulthompson]

80. Thanks

Maybe it's time for some more investigating. If the mainstream media won't would the powers that be feet to the fire, that we ordinary folks have to.

[paulthompson]

78. Thanks

If you're interested, please PM me.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

26. thank you Paul! nt

[Bjornsdotter]

32. Looking forward to reading it n/t

[KoKo]

41. I got turned off by his article...

He may be a fine fellow and wants to get into investigative journalism...but, given his background, I didn't get the crossover in this article as to his "fact checking" expertise. He gives a background in Debate but that means nothing, unless he has some better creds to back him up.

I just don't buy his article as something significant.

[frylock]

48. I was really hoping to hear that you were putting together a timeline.

I still have your book.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Number of folks in her email circle that did not have security clearance

[Karma13612]

5. Sid's node should be larger based on what I've read. It's not

Quantity that's important but content.

[thereismore]

9. QUESTION: How come President Obama is not one of the big ones? Didn't she communicate with him

a lot while SoS? Or was she running a solo outfit.

[FreakinDJ]

10. Very Brilliant observation - I didn't think of that

[FlatBaroque]

16. State Dept was her own faction of government. Thank God she was let go /

[2cannan]

36. Does anyone know why Hillary left the State Dept?

Did she give a reason? Just curious.

[karynnj]

97. I think it was understood long before 2012, that

She was committing for 4 years. My guess, she always planned to run in 2016.

Not to mention, she looked completely exhausted though out the entire last two years. This was a really tough job for her.

[NWCorona]

17. Per the State Dept

They withheld 18 emails between the two. That number does seem low but there's other ways they communicated.

Who knows.

[grasswire]

29. it can be presumed that she was running a rogue state department...

...out of sight of Obama. She was taking advice from Syd Blumenthal who was BANNED from an advisory capability by Obama himself.

[2cannan]

35. What's weird about that

is why didn't Obama or one of his staff notice her personal email address and tell her to quit using it!

[CoffeeCat]

56. President Obama had no idea

that Clinton had a private, unsecured email server.

Anyone else find that bizarre and revealing?

I think she purposely walled herself off and went neocon. She requested that Sid Blumenthal be brought in as an adviser. Obama said no. Yet, she communicated extensively with Sid. Tons of communication between them on Libya. Sid had no security clearance.

When the FBI asked Hillary to hand over her server, she deleted 30,000 emails then handed it over. Some of the deleted emails were between Clinton and Sid B. Clinton asserted that the dejected emails were personal. The FBI knows that is not true.

[thereismore]

59. All of that is true. I wonder, how did she and the Prez communicate?

Was she rogue? Did he have control over the foreign policy?

[CoffeeCat]

63. There were emails between Clinton and President Obama

I know that some of them were retroactively classified. I don't know how many emails there were.

She did not have a .gov email address at all.

That brings up many questions. Did anyone notice this? Did the President notice this?

I think it's clear that she walled herself off for personal reasons--to keep her activities secret. Why else would she use a private server? There's no other explanation. If she was not using a .gov address, (and instead using clintonemail.com on a private server), I imagine that those emails wouldn't be subject to FOIA requests. How convenient.

This is interesting from HuffPo, "An obvious reason for HRC to want to control all of her email by private server became readily apparent when after her time as Secretary of State individuals and organizations put in FOIA requests regarding her emails. The State Department ultimately came back with the response to these requests that there were no documents to be found.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-pappalardo/hillary-email-probe-could_b_9579826.html

There is plenty of evidence demonstrating that Hillary and Obama were not on the same page when it came to foreign policy. She is more hawkish, he is not. This goes back to her Iraq War vote and his rallying against the war. She was for more serious intervention in Syria; Obama was not. Many articles have been written about Hillary being the cheerleader for action in Libya.

"Several reports have noted the pivotal role played by Clinton in convincing the president to support the intervention [in Libya], which was also strongly backed by then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice..."
https://newrepublic.com/article/121879/hillary-clinton-should-take-blame-disastrous-libyan-intervention

Obama had to be talked into action on Libya. Robert Gates was against it. Obama was talked into it and one of the main mouthpieces for intervention in Libya was Hillary Clinton.

Good background on Obama being cajoled into US intervention in Libya: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'm wondering if Clinton's emails (to Blumenthal and others) revealed motives for Libya intervention--that were different from the full-court press that she used to sell Obama on it (I don't know the answer. Would be interesting to know). Because that would be quite a combination: Obama finds out Hillary has a secret, unsecured server behind his back, she's communicating with Sid B on it, and that maybe Obama was bamboozled into action on Libya under false pretenses.

[2cannan]

83. What's also so sick and typical

is that Blumenthal was acting on behalf of others who wanted to do business in Libya.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-problem-with-hillarys-friends/393635/

[CoffeeCat]

84. What we know:

--President Obama knew nothing about Hillary Clinton's private, illegal, unsecured email server.
--President Obama denied Hillary's request that Blumenthal be hired as one of her advisers while she was at State.
--Hillary was corresponding with Blumenthal about Libya and other foreign-policy issues during 2010 and 2011.
--Blumenthal was being paid by the Clinton Foundation.
--Blumenthal was, as you just noted, "acting on behalf of others who wanted to do business in Libya."
--Blumenthal never had a security clearance.

I don't see how she gets away with this.

I imagine Obama may feel a bit duped. She really went to bat for action on Libya. There are dozens of articles that have been written about Libya being "Hillary's war" and that Obama was cajoled into it, by Hillary.

Screenshot of Sid Blumenthal's AOL inbox. Taken by Guccifer who hacked into SB's email. The email with the red star is one that Clinton did not hand over to the FBI. It was deleted.
?w=700

[FourScore]

103. Wow! n/t

[grasswire]

101. something else interesting

It is said that despite her hiding the server from Obama, the NSA would have known about it -- all about it. So would the NSA not inform Obama that his SoS was running a rogue foreign policy shop and sending secrets on a non-secure non-gov server?

Why would the NSA not inform Obama of that?

[CoffeeCat]

102. That's interesting.

I also stumbled upon this....


-------------------------------------
Here are the laws Hillary broke...

1 . Mishandling Classified Information

Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email.

2. Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act

Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:

“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”
-----------

Regarding #1--I wonder who issues this Executive Order 13526?
Regarding #2 This law was passed on 2009. Was this after her email server was up and running? Who sponsored this legislation?

[Bob41213]

69. How often do you look at the full domain of someone in your address book?

I have no idea if a gov email program is different, but mine just show the name rather than the name and or the email address.

[Karma13612]

3. Thoroughly excellent article.

All the details, and links, and facts are so refreshing. He didn't have to pull any punches since he wasn't paid to write it.

People should not detract the whole article just because he editorialized at the very end on the other candidates. 90% of the article was meat about the investigation.

I hope this chap pursues journalism. He could be another Woodward or berstein.

[Stallion]

7. Unless This Guy is An Experienced Litigator I Wouldn't Waste much Time on His Conclusions

I routinely see internet legal "experts" opine on the meaning of legal terms in these statute that have no idea what they are talking about and without the real world legal experience to put the evidence in perspective

[Gothmog]

21. He is not even in law school

I have been forwarding this joke to other lawyers for them to laugh at. It is that bad.

[greatauntoftriplets]

40. A credible journalist* would never pat himself on the back like this.

"This work is deep. I am proud to call this article is the most comprehensive summary and analysis of the Hillary Clinton email scandal *available on the Internet today* Read it all if you want. I’ve mostly written this for myself. The three most important issues I’ve highlighted in red in the table of contents below."

* I am now retired, but have a degree in journalism and worked in the field for 45 years.

[FourScore]

43. He's not pretending to be a journalist or a lawyer. He just compiled the facts in one place. n/t

[Karma13612]

53. Bingo! Eom

[Gothmog]

44. I had fun laughing at it also

[greatauntoftriplets]

45. He should learn to do his own proofreading!

[FourScore]

47. You know what I really admire about you, Gothmag?

I really admire your ability to kick threads over and over and over that you clearly do not like.

Thank you for that!

[Gothmog]

49. I have a sense of humor

BTW two of my lawyer friends are really enjoying laughing at this piece of dreck and are shocked that something from a trump supporter posted on a right wing nut job website is being posted on DU, The kindest comment that only an idiot would rely on this work.

Thank you for giving some laughs to my fellow lawyers.

[Cal33]

85. There are lawyers and lawyers. The lefties have very differenr political views from the right-

wingers.

[Gothmog]

108. The author of the article cited in the OP is not a lawyer but a trump supporter

It is very very sad that material from a right wing nut job website such as Malkin's site is being posted on DU.

[WhiteTara]

8. about the author

I have no background in investigative journalism or law. I have not gone to law school, journalism school, or ever worked for a newspaper, magazine or any other publication. That’s why you may see scattered typos, grammar mistakes and incorrect legal phrasing. I tried to write this as deeply and as quickly as possible before I thought this story would be told by someone else. Please send proof-reads my way if you notice any, I am still going back and correcting mistakes here and there.

I have written only two other lengthy works.

snip

I run a separate blog purely dedicated to satire called The Shallot which I started last December. From the title you can see it’s a (poor) imitation of The Onion but I think you will enjoy the satirization of current events and pop culture.


I'll wait for a credible journalist, not a student who asks others to proof read his work. Yikes, this sure sounds desperate.
BTW, this is the second time this tripe was posted, in case you care

[baldguy]

58. So, it's an elaborate piece of satire?

It is April Fool's Day, I guess.

[WhiteTara]

68. He is a fiction writer

and a self proclaimed non-journalist. Come to your own conclusions.

[Cal33]

88. This 22-year-old young man is taking a double-major in college, and still finds time to

take a stab at investigative journalism on his own. I wonder how he finds the time to
do all that. He has to be an awfully fast learner. My admiration goes out to him.

[Bill USA]

11. a real authoritative source: a 22 yr old Microbiology, Econ major. LOL!

22 year old senior at the University of Georgia, double majoring in Microbiology and Economics (an unlikely candidate to write an article like this, I know).

I have no background in investigative journalism or law. I have not gone to law school

[Gothmog]

20. This kid has no clue as to even simple legal concepts

I am forwarding this article to some lawyer friends for them to laugh at this kid's attempt to understand legal concepts. This article is so bad that it is funny.

Lawyers love to laugh at laypersons who try and fail to understand legal concepts

[Cal33]

90. Most of his post is made up of data that he has collected, and which he has backed up

with evidence. Unless you can point out his mistakes with counter-evidence, your
generalized criticism carries no weight at all.

[Bill USA]

12. the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral - Intelligence Community IG &

...State Dept IG


https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security
officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the refe rral was to notify security
officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive
that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not
make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The
IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to
the appropriate IC security officials.

[grasswire]

30. the IG position in the State Department was vacant for her term as SoS.

She did not fill the post.

[Bill USA]

121. see link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1626312

[Califonz]

15. Whoa!

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/08/whoa-hillary-e-mail-instructs-aide-to-transmit-classified-e-mail-without-markings/

Of course, this is all over the CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox nightly news reports.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Hotair, really????

Hotair, really????

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/08/whoa-hillary-e-mail-instructs-aide-to-transmit-classified-e-mail-without-markings/

Hot Air is a conservative American political blog.[1] It is written by the pseudonymous Allahpundit, Ed Morrissey, Mary Katharine Ham, Erika Johnsen, and Jazz Shaw on the weekends.

Hot Air was founded by Michelle Malkin, a conservative author and blogger, in 2006, taking over hotair.com from a defunct personal website. Although Malkin served as the publisher and CEO of Hot Air, she exercised little editorial control over the site's various commentators. Morrissey, a Roman Catholic, is the more socially conservative (though gay-friendly) of the two current bloggers, whereas Allahpundit is more libertarian and an atheist. Hot Air also carries posts from a selection of conservative and libertarian bloggers in its "Green Room." In February 2010, Salem Communications purchased Hot Air.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Air

Was Free Republic, the Conservative Cave, Discussionist, and the site which shall not be mentioned, not available?

[Gothmog]

22. It is really sad to see right wing nut job sources being quoted on DU

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Give it time...Before this primary is over I expect to see Rush Limbaugh and Hannity cited fawningly

[noiretextatique]

52. Your pal bravenak routinely posts from rw sources

You should give her a heads up too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. You mean my pal who was compared to a simian in another thread. *

Your pal bravenak routinely posts from rw sources

Let's not pick old scabs, shall we?

You mean my pal who was compared to a simian** in another thread. Hey, tell the poster who suggested as such that we can meet at the Watts Station in South L A to discuss it further, friendly of course . We can find a Starbucks. DSB doesn't front... He will be there to discuss it. He will even post a selfie of himself to verify his claim.



* I will send you the link. If I post it here my post might be hidden.


**not a human member of the simian species.

P.S. I would walk through a gauntlet of Crips and Bloods for my friend, Bravenak, truth.

[revbones]

54. I see all the BNR, The Daily Beast and DailyNewsBin articles cited here as well.

Or is that ok because it's your side doing it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. At least those are left leaning publications that are sympathetic to Democrats , am I right?

And The Daily Beast is the left of center corollary to Tucker Carlson's The Daily Caller, am I right?

Your associate cited hotair and you are just going to have to deal with it , not me and gothmog, am I right?





P.S. This is rich. Your associate cited Michelle Malkin's hotair and you're talking about Blue Nation Review, am I right?




#lol@hotair

[revbones]

70. Not really. They are mostly propaganda sites.

Propaganda isn't ok regardless of who's side it's done on... That said, Hillary followers tend to try to discredit any source while still citing BNR, etc... which is a joke.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. I prefer left wing sources to right wing ones.

Your mileage may vary, am I right?

[revbones]

73. I enjoy facts and truth. Not spin.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. Then why are defending the citing of hotair?

[revbones]

75. Did I mention Hotair once? Nope.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. Was my condemnation of them the juncture at which you began our tête-à-tête or was it not?

[Gothmog]

94. Then why read something from HotAir and a trump supporter?

Thank you for the laugh

[Gothmog]

93. I fear that you are correct.

It appears that the Sanders supporters will cite anything including the work of a trump supporter who does not understand legal issues so long as the article validates their sad hopes that Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee. It is sad to see that some Sanders supporters have realized that Sanders will not be the nominee unless their is some miracle that stops Clinton.

[Cal33]

91. You seem to use a good deal of name-calling and sloganeering, and

avoid talking about the facts with evidence Fourscore has presented.
This is so typical of the very Right-Wingers you are criticizing.

[Gothmog]

92. This ignorant article from a trump supporter from a Right Wing nut job site was fun to laugh at

The author could not get into law school if he tried and if gave that article to a law professor the author would be counseled to look at another profession. I enjoyed laughing at the rather sad and feeble attempt are a really ignorant layperson/trump supporter to explain legal concepts. It was was so sad that this is funny.

I am also amused that anyone would post material from Mailkin's site on DU and expect people to take that material seriously. You do know who Malkin is?

[pinebox]

72. FYI careful of RW sites on here

People aren't real forgiving of that. Although you're new so you'll get the exception but be careful and welcome to DU!

[Califonz]

96. Is there a list of these right wing sites to never link to?

I have searched the Vatican Archives and Pee Wee's Playhouse, but no luck yet. Any help would be appreciated.

[pinebox]

99. Just look at their front pages

Sites like Town Hall, FOX, Hot Air, Daily Caller, Washing Times, Washington Free Beacon, Breitbart, those will cause some issues.

[Califonz]

104. Thanks!

I shall endeavor to avoid Double Secret Probation (or worse) in the future!

[Gothmog]

19. The article is a joke written by an idiot who does not understand the concepts

Here is some amusing facts about the author

I’m a 22 year old senior at the University of Georgia, double majoring in Microbiology and Economics (an unlikely candidate to write an article like this, I know).

I have no background in investigative journalism or law. I have not gone to law school, journalism school, or ever worked for a newspaper, magazine or any other publication. That’s why you may see scattered typos, grammar mistakes and incorrect legal phrasing. I tried to write this as deeply and as quickly as possible before I thought this story would be told by someone else. Please send proof-reads my way if you notice any, I am still going back and correcting mistakes here and there.

This kid could not get into a decent law school and if he did he would flunk out in short order. The fact that anyone thinks that this is well written is amusing. This article is sad and poorly written but I did find if fun to laugh at this author failing to understand even simple legal concepts

[BillZBubb]

28. So you commented ad nauseum.

Yet you failed to supply one "laughable" example.

In fact the most you've accomplished is painted lawyers as smug asshats who laugh at the peons.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I am not an attorney

So you commented ad nauseum.
Yet you failed to supply one "laughable" example.

In fact the most you've accomplished is painted lawyers as smug asshats who laugh at the peons.

I am not an attorney but I would no more rely on a college student majoring in microbiology for legal analysis than I would rely on a college student majoring in political science for a disquisition on pathogens.

If you or a loved one have a legal problem are you going to call a microbiologist or an attorney?

Thank you in advance.

[Gothmog]

37. Unless you are a lawyer you would not get the full humor

Lawyers love laughing at laypersons when they try and fail to understand even simple legal concepts. The fact that anyone thinks that this article is meaningful is very amusing.

It is sad that material from extreme right wing nut jobs cites like Malkin are being posted on DU.

[nazcalito]

122. I'm an attorney

I'm a criminal defense / writs and appeals attorney with some experience in federal court and I don't see anything obviously wrong about Chetan's discussion of the statutes involved. Perhaps you might like to point out some specifics?

Assuming the reports are true that there are at least 50 FBI agents working on it, that the person who set up Hillary's server has been given immunity, and that the person who hacked Blumenthal's account has been extradited from Romania, it does seem like the U.S. government is planning to prosecute SOMEONE. Whether that someone is Clinton herself or mere underlings remains to be seen.

I have worked on large federal drug trafficking conspiracy cases and 50 agents seem like a lot to assign to one case, even a paper heavy case like this one.

[Gothmog]

124. the 50 fbi agent claim is bald face lie that has been debunked

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fed-source-about-12-fbi-agents-working-clinton-email-inquiry-n548026

Sources close to the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton's email are knocking down suggestions that 147 federal agents are working on the case, a figure first reported — and now revised — by the Washington Post, citing a lawmaker.

The Post updated the figure on Tuesday, stating that while the "FBI will not provide an exact figure," there are "fewer than 50" FBI personnel involved in the case.

But a former federal law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the Clinton investigation tells MSNBC an estimate anywhere near 50 agents is also off base.

"There are currently about 12 FBI agents working full-time on the case," says the source, who would only speak anonymously about an open investigation.

A former FBI official, also speaking anonymously, says many in the law enforcement community view the large estimates of people assigned to the case as completely improbable.

"147 was such a ridiculous number," said the source, adding that 50 also sounded unrealistic for this kind of inquiry. "You need an act of terrorism to get 50 agents working on something," said the former FBI official.

There was no national act of terror and it is sad that false claims are being used on this thread

[Gothmog]

125. The silly layperson who authored this amusing article is an idiot

If you think that this analysis is accurate, then I am amused

[FourScore]

50. Thank you!! I was just noticing how he is posting the same false smears over and over. n/t

[Desert805]

51. We get it.

You're a lawyer! LOL

And you have two friends, which for a lawyer, is a lot!!!

[FourScore]

61. LOL

[JoePhilly]

33. All CAPS title demands RESPECT!!!!

[Dem2]

38. Yes indeed

Instant trash for all caps.

[leftofcool]

34. Written by a guy who couldn't pass the exam to get into law school. Priceless!

[FourScore]

42. Where does it say that?

It's citizen journalism, or do you think the MSM is doing a GREAT JOB?

[kristopher]

46. K&R

Great effort that contributes more than anyone else I've seen.

Too bad none those pretend legal minds and journalists who spend so much of their valuable time lying about politics on the internet didn't have a sliver of the initiative motivating this highly intelligent college student.

[procon]

55. Yeah, but who the hell is Chetan Hebbale?

And why is his personal scritchings worthy of my time? Right up front he tells me he doesn't have a "background in investigative journalism or law," so he starts off in the weeds as just an amatuer hobby writer, yeah? There are any number of legitimate and well credentialed news organizations that have already written reams of data with cited references and footnoted details for anyone interested. Why aren't those more credible?

[FourScore]

60. Because he's taking all of that "reams of data", which is spread all over the place and

put it together in one document with links to the original sources.

[procon]

62. He has his own agenda is only interested in propping up his own conclusions.

Thanks, but the real news media already has this topic well covered by professional journalists infinitum. I'm too damned picky to read another opinion blog from some guy that admits that his only experience in research and writing came from his High School days. Regets, but as an exercise in critical thinking skills, he's no different than the hundreds of other unknown partisan bloggers and commentators who feel compelled to share their preconceived biases and faulty deductions with total strangers.

[Rebkeh]

57. Bookmarked nt

[CoffeeCat]

64. I began wading through this document...and I was impressed

This person clearly states that he is not out to right a great article.

He is an organizer. A researcher.

He has put together so many documents, quotes from sources, facts about current law regarding classification and articles--in a cohesive narrative.

Is it perfect? I don't think it's meant to be.

This is just a guy who is organizing facts and available information that is out there.

He even has a screen shot of Blumenthal's email that he turned over to the FBI! I mean...how many people knew that Sid Blumenthal was forced to turn over his emails to the FBI--and that he and Clinton had emails going back and forth that Clinton never turned over to the FBI, when she was supposed to!

There are so many interesting facts here. And this guy has the sources to back them up.

I think this document/article/research project---whatever you want to call it--is a great springboard for discussion.

I also look forward to Paul Thompson's timeline. No doubt, a very talented researcher and author.

[IdaBriggs]

98. SHE OUTED A CIA ASSET IN LIBYA --

[Gothmog]

105. NBC News Rebuts Right-Wing Media Claim That Clinton Emails Reveal Names Of Undercover Operatives

These silly claims were debunked http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/04/nbc-news-rebuts-right-wing-media-claim-that-cli/208369

NBC News: "Contrary To" Schindler's Report, Three U.S. Officials Who Reviewed Emails Say No Email "Directly Revealed The Identity Of An Undercover Intelligence Operative." NBC News reported that "contrary to" Schindler's reporting, the emails in question do not "directly reveal" the identity of any undercover intelligence operative, but rather include "veiled references" that were later retroactively classified, according to three "U.S. officials who have reviewed them." Clinton herself reportedly "made no comment" in response to any of those emails, one of which reportedly originated with the CIA. From the February 4 article:

A handful of emails forwarded to Hillary Clinton's personal server while she was secretary of state contained references to undercover CIA officers -- including one who was killed by a suicide attack in Afghanistan, according to U.S. officials who have reviewed them.

But contrary to some published reports, three officials said there was no email on Clinton's server that directly revealed the identity of an undercover intelligence operative. Rather, they said, State Department and other officials attempted to make veiled references to intelligence officers in the emails -- references that were deemed classified when the messages were being reviewed years later for public release.

In one case, an official said, an undercover CIA officer was referred to as a State Department official with the word "State," in quotes, as if to suggest the emailer knew the officer was not actually a diplomat. In another case, an email refers to "OGA" for "other government agency," a common reference to the CIA. Yet another now-classified email chain originated with a member of the CIA director's staff, leading some officials to question how Clinton could be blamed....

The 2012 email wasn't the only one referencing a CIA officer or program, officials said. The references were indirect, and Clinton made no comment about them, the officials said.

[Gothmog]

106. This claim is false

The implication that Clinton did anything inappropriate is wrong http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/04/nbc-news-rebuts-right-wing-media-claim-that-cli/208369

Former Senior CIA Official: "Any Suggestion That This Email Contained Confirmation About The Person Or His Cover, Or Any Inappropriate Information, Is Flat Wrong." According to NBC News' sources, one of the emails in question alludes to the killing of a CIA officer, whose "association" with the agency was "widely reported in the news media" four days after his death. That email originated with the then-chief of staff to the Defense Department, was forwarded to senior State Department and Pentagon aides, and was then forwarded to Clinton. "There is no record of Clinton commenting," according to the article. According to the former DOD chief of staff, Jeremy Bash, who went on to serve as chief of staff to the director of the CIA, the "email was not classified when it was sent or forwarded, and 'did not reference the individual's name, employer, nor any identifying description or information.'" From the February 4 article:

The email message about the dead officer was created by a Defense Department official, Jeremy Bash, who at the time was chief of staff to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. It concerned Dario Lorenzetti, a Fort Worth native -- later revealed to be a CIA officer -- who died Oct. 13, 2012, when an Afghan intelligence operative detonated a suicide vest in a so-called "Green on Blue" attack. The email was sent on the day of the attack after Lorenzetti's death was confirmed.

Lorenzetti's association with the CIA was leaked by anonymous officials to reporters four days after his death and widely reported in the news media, though his CIA cover was not lifted until later. Some of his obituaries listed him as a State Department officer....

Bash, who was Panetta's chief of staff while Panetta was CIA director, sent the email to four people -- including George Little, a Pentagon spokesman who was a former CIA spokesman, and Philippe Reines, an aide to Secretary of State Clinton.

Bash ends the email by instructing Little, the former CIA spokesman, to "please lash up with (blank)" -- presumably either the spy agency or one of its employees.

Reines forwarded the email to Clinton State Dept. aides Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan, who forwarded it to Clinton. There is no record of Clinton commenting.

Bash, in an interview, said the email was not classified when it was sent or forwarded, and "did not reference the individual's name, employer, nor any identifying description or information."

Once the CIA posthumously lifted Lorenzetti's cover, Bash added, "the original unclassified email could be read to confirm the general use of cover, prompting the redactions we now see. But any suggestion that this email contained confirmation about the person or his cover, or any inappropriate information, is flat wrong."

[IdaBriggs]

109. Wrong guy - I am referencing Tyler via the Blumenthal emails.

You can see the links and references in this sub thread.

[Gothmog]

126. CIA: Trey Gowdy Altered Documents To Frame Hillary Clinton

It is so sad that this rather sad and false claim is based on documents altered by Howdy Gowdy that some were silly enough to believe. Your reliance on altered documents from Howdy Gowdy amuses me http://samuel-warde.com/2015/10/cia-trey-gowdy-altered-documents-to-frame-hillary-clinton/

In the letter, Gowdy referred extensively to Sidney Blumenthal, a long-time confidante and adviser to the Clintons, who served as assistant and senior adviser to Bill Clinton from August 1997 until January 2001.

In addition to Sidney Blumenthal’s business interests, Secretary Clinton also apparently received classified information from Blumenthal- information she should have known was classified at the time she received it. In one email, Blumenthal writes “Tyler spoke to a colleague currently at CIA, who told him the agency had been dependent for intelligence from [redacted due to sources and methods].”1 This information, the name of a human source, is some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but also human lives. Armed with that information, Secretary Clinton forwarded the email to a colleague–debunking her claim that she never sent any classified information from her private email address.1 There may be other instances as well where Secretary Clinton passed on classified information she received from Sidney Blumenthal. [emphasis added]

However, as Newsweek reported on Sunday, the CIA informed the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Saturday that Gowdy’s claims were false:

Indeed, according to committee correspondence reviewed by Newsweek, the CIA did tell the panel on Saturday that it had reviewed 127 emails between Clinton and her close friend and outside adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, and none of it was deemed classified.

“The CIA reviewed the material in question and informed State that it required no redactions,” the agency informed Susan Sachsman Grooms, staff director and general counsel for the panel’s Democrats, on October 17.

On Sunday, Cummings sent a letter to Gowdy to correct the public record in light of the fact that the CIA had debunked Chairman Gowdy’s accusations.

Cummings began, writing that: “On October 7, 2015, you sent me a 13-page letter making a grave new accusation against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Specifically, you accused her of compromising national security and endangering lives,” adding that, “The problem with your accusation—as with so many others during this investigation—is that you failed to check your facts before you made it, and the CIA has now informed the Select Committee that you were wrong. I believe your accusations were irresponsible, and I believe you owe the Secretary an immediate apology.”

[IdaBriggs]

110. Link to the source in other thread.

Apologies but in other reply I told you "in this sub thread" because I was mistaken as to which thread I was typing in - caffeine deficiency. Here is the copy paste from that thread, which links to this one -- (it's the Internet - lol) --

The direct link is https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/

So did Hillary Clinton’s missing emails with Blumenthal contain sensitive information relating to the Benghazi attacks, or any other issue?

It seems like it.

One analysis has found that at least 23 messages between Clinton and Blumenthal contain potentially classified information. Blumenthal in fact prefaced many of his intelligence memos to Clinton by saying they came from “an extremely sensitive source” and the information “should be handled with care.” Seven emails between her and Blumenthal have had select paragraphs, and even entire pages redacted, like this completely redacted June 2012 memo about Germany, and this September 2012 memo where even the subject line has been hidden.

(snip - they were violating foreign lobbying laws and he had no clearance)

However, the most incriminating message is one where Sidney Blumenthal reveals the name of a CIA intelligence operative in Libya. In a March 2011 memo, Blumenthal wrote “Tyler spoke to a colleague currently at the CIA, who told him the agency had been dependent for intelligence from [redacted due to sources and methods].” Clinton forwarded this email to one of her aides. (“Tyler” is Tyler Drumheller a former CIA operative who left and joined a private consulting firm) Link to Source embedded in story: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tyler-drumheller-man-hillary-clintons-private-libya-intel/story?id=31834468

This is indisputable proof that Hillary Clinton not only possessed classified information, even if it was not marked classified, but willfully transmitted it to others.This information falls under the purview of the 2009 Non-Disclosure Agreement Clinton signed which stipulates that “classified information is marked or unmarked classified information.” John Rizzo, a former general counsel at the CIA, said, “it’s the most sensitive kind of classified information — the identity of a human source.”

I can't believe they named his name where it could be hacked...

[JTFrog]

66. YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!!!!11!!! N/T

[HassleCat]

77. Why I think there will be no indictment.

It was careless and sloppy. Maybe even arrogant disregard of the regulations. But it's the kind of thing that goes on all over the government, particularly in the military, if my experience is any indicator. If they decide to indict Clinton, it ushers in a whole new era of enforcement, and I don't think our government wants to do that to itself. They are much more comfortable going along as they have been. I suspect the FBI will issue a report that is highly critical, but blames it on bad advice, poor oversight, past practices, etc. and avoids calling for criminal charges.

[Vinca]

81. And then you know what the talking point will be with the GOP? Cover up.

[HassleCat]

82. Of course.

And I'm sure the FBI is considering that as they go along. That's why the report will be highly critical. It probably will not recommend one way or the other when it comes to indictment, thereby passing the buck to Dept. of Justice. The FBI doesn't want to be in the middle of this, and they will find a way out.

[CoffeeCat]

87. I hear what you're saying

and I'm glad to see someone with a level head discussing the email scandal. Even if we don't agree on what the possible outcome may be (or even on Clinton's politics) it's good to see people discussing this rationally.

With that said, I think it's interesting that you characterize a cabinet-level government official having an unsecured, private email server as, "the kind of thing that goes on all over the government..."

I have never heard of anyone--high or low level in government--building a private email server in their basement and carrying out official government business without the knowledge of the President, the American people and also in ways that would avoid FOIA requests.

I've never heard of this. Do you think this has happened before or that it happens regularly? I am not a government employee, nor have I ever been in the military, so I have no clue.

In my mind (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) what she did is so egregious and rare, that I don't understand how holding her legally accountable could "usher in a whole new era of enforcement." I don't see how her behavior would set some kind of new harsh standard, when the act of setting up a server like that is so rare.

As far as Clinton being held accountable. That's a whole other story. Who knows. Comey was a deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater investigation against the Clintons. So...that's another angle which adds more questions.

Whether or not the FBI recommends indictment--is beyond my scope. I'd have to have a crystal ball.

[Renew Deal]

79. I wouldn't instantly dismiss it

The writer is in many ways no different than the average DUer. I give them credit for making an effort to assemble it.

[CoffeeCat]

89. The only people dismissing it are those

who don't want to talk about this at all.

Their swarming of this post, is duly noted.

90 percent of what is in this article/research project is public information. It's articles, laws, facts and public information that has just been organized into an article format.

There are things in this document that I've never seen before. Who know that there were screen shots of Sid Blumenthal's AOL account out there!? There is a ton of this stuff.

I haven't had time to really delve into this article, but it is worth discussing.

[panader0]

86. Comprehensive indeed. Thanks for posting.

What a can of worms.

[mcar]

95. Hot air?

Wow! At least it's not one of those terrible pro-Hillary Democratic sites or some here might complain.

[pantsonfire]

100. I know, this link is utter hogwash...

....no one should even bother reading it.

[Gothmog]

107. It is very very sad that this type of RWNJ sources is being used on DU

[Cal33]

111. Young man, many thanks for this post. With your intelligence and capacity for hard work, I

believe a great future lies ahead of you.

[Darb]

114. A great future where?

I got an idea.

[Cal33]

116. In the field he will be choosing. He is a college senior now.

[ChiciB1]

112. Just Kicking, Need To Read Later... So Much Info About Her! OMG! n/t

[Darb]

115. Positively ridiculous

comment. Go back and read what you wrote. And try not to laugh at yourself. Very telling.

[Darb]

113. I can sum it up in 5 words..............

It's a crock of shit.

There you go.

[Logical]

118. LOL, didn't read it I assume. As usual. nt

[jcgoldie]

117. Haha

This thread was an April Fool's Day joke I take it... lol made me click

[Cal33]

119. Yeah! What a long, long, long joke!

Last edited Wed Apr 6, 2016, 09:48 AM - Edit history (1)

[Cal33]

120. K&R

[Demsrule86]

123. It was first out in March

Rightwing nonsense.