So we've now gone from "it was allowed under the rules" to
"I thought it was allowed"?
Did it not occur to HRC to ask the question about her e-mail account and server before using it? Clearly she's now saying she either didn't know the rules or wasn't clear on them.
It's the same evolving explanation we got on the classified information on her server. First it was "there is no classified information", then we got "I never sent or received any classified information" to "I never received anything marked classified"
This is why people distrust her. The truth doesn't need revision. Lies need revision and usually the revision happens after the first lie is caught.
The general election is shaping up to be a battle between two pathological liars spewing bombastic bullshit.
MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...
Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...
Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"
Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"
Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!
Last edited Mon May 30, 2016, 09:58 AM - Edit history (2)
We did it here at DU for free, without a budget. The corporate media refused to do it in order to protect their jobs and salaries.
Along with the cheerleading for the Iraq War, this points out the utter corruption of both major parties and the stenographic press.
A good example of this is Dan Abrams, a high-profile legal analyst who has been on the ABC payroll and now edits LawNewz. Abrams has in recent days published a scathing critique of Hillary's account.
As recently as February, however, Abrams was still misrepresenting the law to protect HRC. What changed?
In February, Abrams was arguing that 18 USC Sec. 793 of the Espionage Act doesn't fit in a potential prosecution of Hillary because, he claimed, that statute wasn't intended to be applied to high officials. He omitted mention that other heads of agency who retained, removed or shared classified materials without authorization -- CIA Directors Petraeus (2012) and Deutch (1996) -- were found chargable under that same section of the Espionage Act, even if they pled down (Petraeus) or the AG allowed the case to expire with the result of a Presidential pardon (Deutch). See, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499
I don't think Abrams was being entirely honest, or was simply badly informed, and the Clintonites still seize on the argument he made. He's smart enough to read the statute and has a budget do some accurate historical research. Without an explanation from him, we must conclude Dan has realized the gig is up for Hillary and is now singing a different tune.
Maybe, it's simply that he's not working for ABC.
"Members of President Obama's cabinet have a wide variety of strategies, shortcuts and tricks for handling their email, and until three months ago there was no law setting out precisely what they had to do with it, and when. And while the majority of Obama administration officials use government email to conduct their business, there has never been any legal prohibition against using a personal account." (The New York Times, 3/13/15)
You may be confusing the violations of Departmental regulations detailed in the DOS IG report with the felony violations the Intelligence Community IG report, which will likely be released later this week, and the FBI report that will follow that.
Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the
Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails
Yesterday the Office ofthe Inspector General ofthe Intelligence Community (IC IG} sent a
congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG
support to the State Department IG (attached).
The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of
40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which
have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings
and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State
Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated
and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This
classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.
These werent just ordinary secrets found in Clintons private server, but some of the most classified material the U.S. government has.
After months of denials and delaying actions, Hillary Clinton has decided to turn over her private email server to the Department of Justice. As this controversy has grown since the spring, Clinton and her campaign operatives have repeatedly denied that she had placed classified information in her personal email while serving as secretary of state during President Obamas first term. (I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received, she said last month.) Her team also denied that she would ever hand over her server to investigators. Now both those assertions have been overturned.
Hillary Clinton has little choice but to hand over her server to authorities since it now appears increasingly likely that someone on her staff violated federal laws regarding the handling of classified materials. On August 11, after extensive investigation, the intelligence communitys inspector general reported to Congress that it had found several violations of security policy in Clintons personal emails.
Most seriously, the inspector general assessed that Clintons emails included information that was highly classifiedyet mislabeled as unclassified. Worse, the information in question should have been classified up to the level of TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN, according to the inspector generals report.
TOP SECRET, as the name implies, is the highest official classification level in the U.S. government, defined as information whose unauthorized release could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security or foreign relations.
The origin of the "presumed classified" determination applied to many of Hillary Clinton's emails are the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the State Department, as reported by CNN. That assessment is shared by the former Director of the Government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), as reported by Reuters.
Official: Clinton emails included classified information
Washington (CNN)The inspector general for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it was not identified that way. Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.
The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress. McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network."
The four emails in question "were classified when they were sent and are classified now," spokeswoman Andrea Williams told CNN.
McCullough said that State Department Freedom of Information Act officials told the intelligence community IG that "there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the approximately 30,000 provided by former Secretary Clinton."
Washington (CNN)Intelligence officials assigned to review emails from Hillary Clinton's server for classified information have so far recommended that 305 documents be referred to agencies for further consultation, according to a report filed with a federal judge Monday.
In court papers filed with U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, the State Department updated its progress. It said that as of last Friday, Intelligence Community reviewers had completed a preliminary screening and determined that "out of a sample of approximately 20% of the Clinton emails," the reviewers have "recommended 305 documents -- approximately 5.1% -- for referral to their agencies for consultation."
. . .
inspectors general for the State Department and for the Intelligence Community raised concerns about the content of the emails, the State Department added intelligence staff to assist in the process.
Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.
"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."
You also fail to distinguish between sender and recipient, and to recognize that dot-gov or dot-other makes NO difference -- NEITHER is considered secure for classified info.
(As for the "born classified" excuse for an attack, this has been debunked repeatedly.)
Those items are automatically classified if they meet the standards in sec 1.2.
They are classified upon creation
If you're going to claim something was "debunked recently" you have to cite a credible source.
confidential upon creation. The 7 e-mails from the POTUS, which are at least confidential in nature, the 4 e-mails the IC IG found in the original sample, which prompted his request to the FBI, that were from Secret to TS as the time of their creation.
And then there's the 22 emails that were so secret they were 100% redacted
That is baloney, as is your timeline. The RNC thanks you, but Trump is going to lose.
...but the SoS is required to recieve training on handling such material, as it's assumed the SoS would generate a significant amount of classified at creation documents. Clinton even signed a required statement that she received such instruction.
She & Bill have always played fast and loose with the rules. Before the interwebs, they could get off with plausible denials and hiding/destroying incriminating evidence. This might finally be karma settling up with a lifetime of questionable behavior and financial shenanigans.
Such a tangled, ugly web involving so many human beings that didn't deserve to suffer for their hubris and greed. I had no idea how many people had been harmed since his presidency ... add in all those during her term as SoS and it's staggering.
when someone gains financially due to illicit means, someone undeservedly suffers. When Hillary cashes in at colleges with ridiculous speaking fees, less money is available to help needy students. When Goldman Sachs believes they have White House protection, they continue to screw the "little people" with impunity. When Hillary rigs the Democratic primary system to favor the "inevitable" winner, we all face the possibility of suffering a President Trump or a Hillary impeachment.
Hillary's lies are costing all of us. It's high time they started costing her.
Like a Twilight Zone where the legal and not legal are but mere shadows for those with means and and outstanding legal team of forensic economists.
have always been. The skate up to the edge of illegal with just their toe on the ice and then turn around and say "I did not do that."
It is the worst kind of use for a law degree.
They have used their knowledge of the law and the legal system to skirt the law and enrich themselves. Hopefully Karma will reward them 10 fold for their abuses of the American legal and political system.
Eventually the slippery wears out and get caught in trying slither through that last crack
instead of a FOIA lawsuit.
I wonder if she even knows what the truth is
Will the bomb go off before convention? Bernie has not be successfully ejected yet.
Who is the backup plan if Clinton is disqualified before the GE? Biden? Will you guys smoothly pivot to support him if needed?
line while desperately clinging to the idea she was only targeted because she's a woman.
Especially, with a Trump presidency looming.
I'm not sure if that loyalty is transferable without a new set of paychecks.
His dying son begged him Not to run for president.
So, like Warren, the establishment Dems aren't at all eager to attach themselves to a failed candidacy. There is only who could pull it off. But egos being what they are...well we all know.
over Trump or Clinton. Obviously I prefer Bernie, but I would be willing to work hard to get Biden elected if Bernie was not a choice vs. Trump.
Slowly dragging my ass to the polls to half-heartedly vote for Clinton is about the best I can do if it comes down to Hillary or Trump.
side. Nothing of substance only mockery and ridicule. But I do think your "Tick Tock" is ironic under the circumstances.
Or, at least, no more evidence coming out proving HRC lied about something else related to her server set up
If Indictment Fairy comes through for us OR if the horrible candidate finally realizes she is indeed horrible and withdraws from contention!
1990s. Let's hope were not headed there.
If I don't ask, I don't know, therefore I'm not guilty
and just assumed her actions were compliant rather than claiming her set up was allowed under the rules.
She held herself out as an authority on the rules, from the start. Now she's trying to feign ignorance.
... it's reasonable to assume that it's allowed. The "prohibition" is an after the fact statement by State. Sort of if we had known we would have said "no." Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
They almost got away with it.
The use of the State Department to build personal power, enrich themselves and their friends, has met justice.
It was inevitable.
telling them NOT to do what she was doing. So how did she not know?
Also, she fired the Ambassador to Kenya for doing it. How did she not know?
Her use of her server for her email was questioned and the people asking the questions were told not to mention it again.
She was given a few warnings about it, and she ignored them.
I think there is a difference between not knowing and conscious ignoring of rules and regulations.
She refused to be interviewed by the IG, appointed by Obama, of the Dept. she used to lead. It shows contempt for the government and its procedures and checks and balances.
And now she wants to be President of that government. As a proud 'good government' type, this is really hard for me to stomach.
California and New Jersey, Save Us!
But but I didnt KNOW i was breaking the laww...
I..i..i didnt Know. ..it was....wrong..... Same old shit.
Wow, that makes it so much better.
she lied. The truth doesn't need multiple changes.
and dishonesty are NOT attractive qualities in a person, let alone in someone who wants to rule the world.
ask for forgiveness". It's how she operates. It's intentional and consistent.
be sorry after you're caught. As in "I made a mistake" or "If I had it to do over again, I'd do it differently".
I agree, at best it's implied.
I'm sure the theme of the speeches very well could of been: "Don't ask for permission, ask for forgiveness....and a bailout"
Do I need a smile thing?
and deciding that it is a good idea
to run your email communications on a private server in your home
is too fucking stupid for words.
Hillary does not have the ability to make appropriate, timely decisions to be POTUS.
But, the lying, twisting and spinning that happens AFTER.
You have to wonder how other candidates would handle this?
Bernie wouldn't have gotten into this mess, b/c he would follow the rules.
Trump would likely do the same thing as Clinton, arrogantly choose to use his own private server; however, when confronted, he would just say, "yeah, I did it, I trusted my private server more than some government one" and his voters would cheer him on.
Isn't that what rational people do? Given her experience, she didn't know that the state department was going to say they wouldn't have allowed it. They said it, so she explained. Perfectly reasonable, I'd say.
of the server was within the rules. Not she thought they confirmed it. Not she thought it was within the rules. It WAS confirmed to be within the rules.
The IG report refutes the claim that was made so she's changed her story to "I thought it was within the rules"
CLINTON: "What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that." - AP interview, September 2015
I've been studying this whole thing for a couple of days now and one thing is clear. The State Department system was incredibly messed up. I don't think Hillary is a liar, for sure. But I do think she gets caught by having to explain changing circumstances in sound bytes. In this case I expect early on someone had, indeed, told her it was "OK," since personal e-mails were definitely OK and private servers hadn't been addressed.
... and might not have been told by individuals at the time she answered the question. Easy to understand for those of us who live in a real world rather than a bubble.
It's a time honored tradition among politicians. We (the unwashed masses) can't handle the whole truth, all at once.
I took your wallet while you were sleeping. Nobody told me not to. It was allowed.
We all know how that turned out.